the last is by the constant confidentiality. it seems to me we want to invest in ourselves, we better hope others have data and their participation online. don't assume we want to know have confidence about how people like us did with a plan of prevention. we've not reached the right balance on these things and believe we need to have a vibrant discussion about the advantage of research participation and data sharing and the obligations of those who collect the data. cross industry digitization and other types of mathematical outcomes in everyday life or making a profound difference but government agencies like mine quite simply need to assemble the resources to put in place those policies adaptively

align our digital health efforts to support a health and regulatory innovation in the world as changingrapidly . we have good reason to hope we will fulfill the potential of health technologies and seek innovations but we better ... we will leave this year to keep our commitment to live gal to gavel coverage. more on president clinton's executive nominees and in 15 minutes there will confirmation vote on education nomination nominee for us live to the floor of the u.s. senate on c-span2. >>

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no, we're not. mr. carper: good. i appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor. this is like what they call in delaware, a three-for.

three for one. i appreciate the cooperation of the floor staff and you to enable me to do this. one of the things i always look for when i'm thinking about hiring somebody is i ask for a recommendation or reference from people they've worked for in the past. as it turns out, in the nomination of dr. colleen show began to be the archivist of the united states, one of the people she used to work for was senator joe lieberman, a good friend to all of us, democrats and republicans. he was good enough to reach out to me several weeks ago. we had just had a hearing on dr. show began -- dr. show began before us in the homeland security committee. i was really impressed. he called me and said she used to work for me. no kidding. i wouldn't disqualify her for that. just kidding. he went on to tell me what a remarkable human being, even at

a younger age in her life. but as the chief administrator of the national archives and record administration -- records administration, the are a vis of the united states plays a vital role in a couple of different ways. one especially with the preservation of the history of this country that we're all sworn to protect. this person who has been nominated, nominee, would serve as our nation's recordkeeper for executive agencies and for presidential records while also being responsible for the management of the national archives and records administration. this role has been critical in leading the federal government's ongoing transition for paper to electric records for a long time. dr. show began is extremely well -- shogan is well qualified. it's a great responsibility and an important one, too. as the senior vice president and director of the david m. reuben seen center for white house history at the white house

historical association, dr. shogan has already demonstrated her extensive skillset as an archivist. she's dedicated public servant pulling a decades worth and developing a career in academy ya and nonprofit management. one of those folks that she worked with, worked for was our former colleague senator joe lieberman. at our hearing to consider her nomination on the hearing before the homeland security and governmental affairs committee earlier this year, dr. shogan reaffirmed her commitment to nonpartisanship, very important for this role. she also highlighted her service as the vice chair of the women's suffrage centennial commission. dr. shogan also shared how she worked to address the backlog of veterans record requests at the national archives and record administration. the last vietnam veteran serving here in the united states

senate, that means a lot to me. she also vowed to make sure, oftentimes long and arduous process that can prevent our veterans from receiving the critical services and benefits that they are entitled to, that they are addressed. i strongly urge my colleagues to confirm dr. shogan as the archivist of the united states. i know she will serve our country well. and my talking points, now i'm going to yield the floor but i'm not because i've been asked by the folks who help us manage the floor if i'd like to go ahead and speak on two cra's, congressional review act resolutions. i would like to do that if i may. i appreciate the tolerance and consideration of the chairman of our committee. the first one, this is an unlikely one. let me just say, delaware has a

very strong ag industry. if you look at the key industries in delaware, number one, people think it's banking, chemicals and stuff like that number one is agriculture. it's been agriculture for as long as i've lived in the state. we raise chickens and a lot of other things as well. one of the creatures that helps us best in managing the battle against pests in our state, and turns out in over 35 states, is an unlikely creature called the long-eared bat. what i want to do today is talk about the resolution that's being offered by our friends on the other side to reverse a critical habitat designation under the endangered species act with respect to this listing of the northern long-eared bat as an endangered specie. madam president, last week i came to the floor, you may recall, of this chamber to defend science-based protections for the lesser prairie-chicken.

as i said then, that species has long been considered an important indicator of the health of american grasslands and prairpries. today i -- prairies. today i rise in opposition to two new congressional record act resolutions which would revoke science-based rules under the endangered species act. simply put, the endangered species act is our best tool to address biodiversity laws in the united states and we know that biodiversity is worth preserving for many reasons, whether it be to protect human health, cause a moral emper tif, or to be good stewards for our one and only planet. the first resolution would reinstate a rule from the trump administration which limited the ability of the national marine fisheries services and the u.s. fish and wildlife service to designate critical habitat based on best available science. what's a critical habitat?

they are federal agencies identified as keys to the recovery of threatened and endangered species. the agencies subsequently propose these areas for protection and habitat becomes a focus of conservation areas. the trump era rule, however, ruled that the cra resolution would reinstate was especially damaging for species that are in peril due to climate change. the rule prevented the relevant federal agencies from designating critical habitat in areas that are not currently suitable habitat but could be in the future. for example, when a species habitat -- as a result of climate change, our federal wildlife protection agencies may need to account for this shift when they decide what potential habitat we should protect to support the long-term recovery. the number of in peril species is growing, not today mannishing and more and more she shes are

-- more species are harmed by climate change and getting more serious as the days go by. that's why federal agencies need more flexibility to protect habitat. that's the first resolution, h.j. res. 23. the second resolution we're considering today would overturn another science-based rule classified -- reclassifying the northern long-eared bat from threatened to evening shaingerred -- endangered species status. most have never heard of the northern long-eared bat. they don't think they exist. well, they do in 37 states. they are really good at one thing, eating pests, eating insects. and the -- not just by -- there's actually a dollar value that's been put on what they do, the contribution they make to agriculture in my state and 37 some other states and the amount of money is over three, maybe $4 billion a year, over $4 billion a year. these bats are found in 37

states from far east as maine down the eastern seaboard including delaware all the way down to louisiana. unfortunately a disease called white nose syndrome -- some people may have not heard of the bat but heard the syndrome. it's spread across near lir 80% of the bats' habitat in recent years. date take -- data shows they kill a hundred% of northern long-eared bat in infected colonies. that in addition to other factors like habitat loss and climate change has contributed to this important species decline. bats again, including the northern long-eared bat, contribute to an estimated three to $4 billion annually. i've actually heard it's as high as tens of billions of dollars to our nation's agriculture economy. it's a lot and it's all over the country. it's a value that impacts farmers all over the country. these bats basically provide the

service primarily through pest control and through pollination. the biden rule not only helps northern long-eared bats but also supports other bat species in decline due to white nose syndrome. by protecting the species we're protecting our farmers and agriculture communities and the revenues that they depend on. to that end, cra resolutions that undermine the endangered species and more generally science are in my view a dangerous diversion from the real work of protecting our environment and for that matter our economy. as a recovering governor, from a state that has been -- a little state but a big agriculture economy and as the current chairman of the environment and public works committee, i believe we can protect our environment including the species with which we share our planet while supporting economic development and job creation. it's my hope we can work together in ways to support these goals in a truly bipartisan fashion. with that in mind, i oppose the two resolutions i've talked

about, s.j. res. 23 and 24. i invite all of my colleagues, democrat and rein, to -- and republican, to join me in opposing them. i yield whatever time i have left to our colleague from michigan. mr. peters: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: i ask consent that i may complete my remarks prior to the scheduled vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: thank you, madam president. i rise in support of colleen shogan's nomination to be archivist of the united states. the archivist of the united states leads the national archives and records administration, an important role that is responsible for maintaining and for preserving presidential and federal records. in addition to preserving documents that tell the story of our nation's history, the national archives also provides access to critical records for the public to use, including providing veterans and servicemembers for military

personal records needed to access the benefits that they have earned through their service. as an accomplished political scientist who has held nonpartisan leadership roles throughout her career, dr. shogan is well qualified to lead the national archives. she would also be the first woman to hold this job. she is currently the senior vice president and director of the david m. reubenstein center for the white house history and white house historical association and previously served as deputy director of the congressional research service at the library of congress and vice chair of the women's suffrage centennial commission. throughout multiple congresses and presidential administrations in both parties, dr. shogan has demonstrated a strong commitment to serving the american people with nonpartisan integrity. during the nomination process, dr. shogan showed a deep understanding of the archives

critical role and that she is prepared to lead the agency as it tackles challenges such as the veterans records backlog and the digitization of records all across the federal government. her nomination is supported by numerous individuals and groups represented the national archives stakeholders, including the american political science association, the council of state archivists, the american historical association, and other national nonpartisan and nonpolitical organizations who have enthusiastically endorsed dr. shogan's nomination. madam president, i urge my colleagues to join me in confirming dr. shogan to this important role today. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination of

wright-gallo. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 44, and the nomination

is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, national archives and records administration, colleen joy shogan, of pennsylvania, to be archivist of the united states. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 52. the nays are 45. and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made amed laid upon the table and -- and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, geeta rao gupta of virginia to be ambassador at large for the global women's issues.

eastern time title 42 public health order will terminate. we will process people at our southern border using immigration enforcement authorities under title eight of

the united states code. overall approach to build a place for people to come to the u.s. and impose consequences from those choose not to use those pathways. we are taking this approach within the constraints of a broken immigration system for more than two decades and without the resources we need, personnel, facilities, transportation and others we requested of congress we not given. we've seen the effectiveness of our approach 100,000 people from cuba, haiti, nicaragua and venezuela have arrived lawfully to the pathway is made available to them. encounters from these groups 90% between december of last year and march of this year, our president has of the largest expansion of lawful pathways

ever. at the same time, we are clear eyed about the challenges we are likely to face in the days and weeks ahead which have the potential to be different very difficult. even after nearly two years of preparation, we expect to see large numbers of encounters at our southern border in the days and weeks after may 11. we are seeing high levels of encounters in certain sectors. in places incredible strength on our personnel, facilities and communities. our plan will deliver results and take time for the result and it is essential we take this into account. i cannot overemphasize current situation is the outcome of the

outdated immigration system in place over two decades despite unanimous agreement we desperately need legislation. it's also the result of congress decision not to provide resources we need to request. our efforts are focused on ensuring the process is safe and remain while protecting dedicated workforce and our communities. let me be clear, the lifting of title 42 public health order does not been a border is open. it is the contrary. our use of immigration enforcement authorities under title eight of the united states means consequences coming across the border illegally. unlike under title 42 and individual removed under title eight is subject to at least a

five year bar and reentry into the united states and can face criminal prosecution if they attempt to cross again. smugglers have been hard at work spreading false information at the border that it will be open after may 11. it will not be. they are lying. two people thing of making the journey to our southern border, know this, the smugglers care only about profit, not people. they do not care about you or your well-being. do not believe their lies. do not risk your life and life savings only to be removed from the united states if and when you arrive here. today we are beginning new digital advertising campaign central and south america to counter the rise of smugglers with accurate information about u.s. immigration laws.

this campaign adds to extensive ongoing medication efforts in the region. as you can see by the images before us, removal flights and encounters with border patrol agents, we are making it clear that our border is not open, crossing your legs early is against the law and those not eligible will be quickly returned. do not listen to the lies of the smugglers. this is what will happen to you. you will be returned. today alongside department of justice we are finalizing a new rule to encourage individuals to use available lawful, safe and orderly pathways to enter the united states. the rule resumes those who do not use lawful pathways to enter the united states are ineligible

for asylum. it allows united states, it allows us to remove individuals who do not establish a reasonable fear of persecution in the country of removal. noncitizens were but this only in limited circumstances. if the views lawful pathways or sought asylum or protection in another country through which they traveled and worked got denied. this goes into effect once title 42 public health order tomorrow on thursday 11:59 p.m. eastern time. what i have described are only a few elements of extensive effort that began in 2021 to prepare for this transition from the title 42 public health authority to tougher immigration enforcement authority.

in addition to border patrol agent hiring in over a decade, the first in over a decade we are in the process of searching personnel to the border including more than 1400 personal. 1000 processing coordinators and an additional 1500 department of defense personal. all of these individuals will allow law enforcement officers to stay in the field and focus on the critical mission. we are delivering on tougher consequences for unlawful entry including the return, removal and expulsion of more than 665,000 people during the first half of this fiscal year. we are conducting dozens of removal flights a week and continue to increase removal flight capabilities. we are increasing efficiency reducing processing times at the

border. we launched cbp one at which, in its first four months old 83000 individuals schedule an appointment at an entry in taking steps to expand available appointments. we bolster capacity of local capacities and ngos. the announced distribution an additional $332 million to support communities along the southern border and the interior of our country. we are leading an unprecedented law enforcement disruption camping is led to the arrest of nearly 10000 smugglers who profit. knowing this is a regional challenge that requires a regional solution we continue to work with countries throughout the americas to deter irregular migration. this includes coordinated campaign to prevent individuals

from falling ruthless smugglers into the dangerous and working with partners in mexico regularly on a range of issues. we are a nation of immigrants. we are also a nation of laws. immigration laws today are outdated. the solution we are incrementing our the best available within current legal authority but there are short-term solutions to a decades old problem. the kind of migration continues for more resources, resources we've requested and have not received. clear authority and modernized processes that only congress can deliver. we urge you to do so.

we would take some questions now. >> when you just some images showing national guard and eps physically blocking migrants from going up the river banks accessing u.s. oil. does the department believe legal enforcement posture by the state of texas? >> number two leave it to the department of justice to speak for the awfulness or lack thereof of those actions. our border patrol and they were close with the department of public safety in texas on the ground when it is coordinated collaborative effort. it's essential that law enforcement work as one team to address the challenge of the southern border.

>> thank you, mr. secretary. how many interviews do you expect on a daily basis and are you confident they will keep up with the number of apprehensions? >> we are with one of our agencies and immigration services is searching asylum officers to border patrol facilities as well as immigrations and detention facilities and conduct unprecedented number of credible screenings under the asylum rule is going to be implemented beginning upon the end of title 42. we are searching approximately 1000 or more asylum officers for that purpose. it's very important to note the asylum rule will take effect individuals do not access there

lawful pathways about the pathways we made available to them, they will a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility for asylum. they will have to meet a higher bar. this president, our president has led the expansion of lawful pathways more than anyone else in our history. >> have read releasing migrants -- [inaudible] i wonder how this process is being done all of will be

returned from those who do not qualify from border patrol stations or immigration and customs enforcement detention facility. we often have had a every administration and those individuals do not qualify for relief will be removed. we screened individuals who encounter. >> follow-up, can you give an idea what migrants will be receiving those? can you also speak to the agreement with mexico? i know you have said to take back patients but is there a

possibility they would have other nationalities as well? >> let me break it down a little bit. we are giving the option, individuals in our custody the option of voluntarily returning to the country from which they came because of the consequence of a removal. people have to understand under title eight of the united states code when one is removed, one faces at least five year bar so we will give people opportunity to avoid tougher consequence i voluntarily returning. if they do not take that option and do not claim fear, they will

be removed immediately. if they do claim fear, they will encounter a higher threshold under asylum whole unless they have access lawful pathways or sought relief in another country and denied. we are searching asylum officers to ensure the screening process, it's done family with access to counsel expeditiously. >> what do americans gain? nobody asks, do americans bring in? >> we are the nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. individuals who qualify for relief under our laws have a basis to remain in the united states. the contribution of immigrants to this country is quite clear.

>> request supplemental funding for congress -- what criteria would trigger that? >> in december this past year saw more than $4 billion in funding to address our resource needs because we are operating within an entirely broken immigration system and there's something about that that's intermittency. we did not receive the funding we requested. we received approximately half of what we requested which is why we are encountering some of the challenges. we sought a reprogramming communicated to congress the reprogramming is a fraction of what we ultimately need.

>> you mentioned are you prepared to start releasing migrants into the u.s. without court dates and trap them to reduce overcrowding? >> when we release individuals, we release them on conditions and their compliance with those conditions is necessary and if they fail, we will seek to apprehend them and remove them. they are ultimately immigration enforcement proceedings but what we are speaking of, what you are requiring of his a fraction of the people we encounter. the vast majority will be addressed in border patrol facilities and ice detention facilities. >> the border is open?

>> absolutely not. 1.4 million people expelled, or removed from the united states and expects earlier was our president led the expansion of lawful pathways more than anyone receiving him. externa example of that example. these are places we feel humanitarian to meet people where they are and cut the smugglers out and provide a safe

and orderly way to arrive in the united states if they qualify for relief. we are searching personnel in close partnership with the department of state in close partnership with countries in the region. we require regional response to what is a regional challenge, we will screen individuals to determine whether they are eligible for refugee status in the united states. whether they qualified for what we are expanding and family reunification programs or individualized basis, on a case-by-case basis as the law requires whether they are eligible for other humanitarian relief. that's what we are doing. the phenomena of migration is different than it was ten, 12 years ago. we are seeing unprecedented

level of migration throughout the hemisphere. i believe there are approximately 20 million displaced people in our hemisphere. in addition, smugglers control the migratory path. we will cut the smugglers out, we will teach qualifying individuals where they are and provide them with safe and orderly pathway. if they arrive at our southern border they will be consequences we urge migrants not to believe smugglers lying to them slowly to make a profit. we are building lawful pathways for you to come to the united states. do not place your life and life savings in the hands of those organizations.

mr. hagerty: mr. chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: mr. chairman, title 42 will terminate tomorrow with the expiration of the covid public emergency. it is one of the last tools available to the border patrol agents and the president is ending it. it is unconscionable for congress to stand aside and do

nothing about this critical authority. it was initially based on the pandemic and while i agree that the pandemic is over, the border crisis is worse than ever. whether to keep effective border security policies in place should not depend on the pandemic. there's a new pandemic that's plaguing our nation. deadly fentanyl, produced with the help of the chinese communist party has flooded into our communities. more than 100,000 americans died of drug overdoseds in the last 12 months, most from synthetic opioid epidemics like fentanyl. it is the number one cause of death for americans between the ages of 18 and 45. the rise in fentanyl overdose deaths affects every day in every congressional district. it kills the young and the old, the rich, the poor and affects

cities and small towns alike many it's not a partisan issue and finding a solution shouldn't be partisan either. with the end of title 42, even the biden administration is openly preparing for an already record-breaking crisis to get worse by sending 5,000 active duty troops to the southern border. to allow title 42 to end without creating a new permanent authority to replace it, only empowers drug cartels. it enables them to send migrants across the border, bogging down border patrol agents with paperwork. this dramatic increase in processing times will decrease scarce sources able to patrol the border. cartels will use the longer enforcement gaps to move fentanyl across our border.

we cannot allow this to happen. title 42 is an effective and important tool for controlling the flow of illegal migration across the beernd it is an effective tool to dissuade migrants from making trip to the border. but the current administration has no interest in dissuading migrants. instead, through biden's border policies, they entice thousands more migrants to illegally cross into the united states, risking their lives as they magnify the humanitarian crisis at our border. that's why i've introduced legislation to add drug smuggle as an -- smuggling for invoking title 42 authority. it's called the stop fentanyl border crossing act. my legislation would allow the secretary of health and human services to use title 42 to

combat substantial dangerous drug trafficking across our southern border. this bill would give border patrol a necessary tool to focus on stopping drug traffickers. it seems like an obvious step to take. everyone greece that fentanyl is -- agrees that fentanyl is a dire problem. democrats blocked this three time. now that title 242 is coming to an end, it is time to get past the political posturing and i hope my colleagues will join me. we cannot sit idly by. without this authority, the border crisis appeared deadly drug overdose crisis will be worse. mr. chair, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor and pensions be discharged from further consideration of s. 1192, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 6 6. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sanders: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: senator targ's bill -- hagerty restricts the entry of people and goods from where substantial drug smuggling exists. i'm concerned about the increased use of fentanyl in this country. everybody is. as you have mentioned, we have seen over 100,000 americans die from drug overdoses in the last year alone. unfortunately this isn't the way to address this problem. title 42 is a public health authority and the use of it should be dictated by public health experts. instead of proposing real solutions to address drug trafficking based on what will keep people safe, some of my

republican colleagues want to use title 42 as a political stunt to keep out people seeking asylum. i welcome the opportunity to work with my republican colleagues on serious solutions to address drug trafficking, unfortunately, this is not one of them. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hagerty: mr. president. the presiding officer. the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: mr. president, my democratic colleague is objecting to allowing health and had human services to -- combat drug smuggling. it only applies where substantial drug smuggling is endangering public health. many are dying from drug overdoses. this legislation isn't a mandate, it's that tool to help save american lives whenever that's possible. everyone acknowledges that an

already recordbreaking crisis will get worse without title 42. american lives and american communities hang in the balance. yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are categorically opposed to any sort of commonsense policy that will help us address this problem. i yield the floor.

mr. moran: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thanks for recognizing me. i'm pleased to have the

opportunity to give some thoughts today on what is going on in the united states and around the globe. and here in these early months of this new congress, there clearly is broad bipartisan agreement on the importance of the indo-pacific region for our country's future. for strengthening our military posture in that region and in the last congress we passed legislation to strengthen our strategic industries. what is being ignored, however, is a third component essential to our success in the region, expanding trade. at a state and foreign ons hearing in march, i noted the importance of our economic real estates around the world and asked secretary of state blinken about our approach to trade agreements, particularly america's absence from the aggressive trans-pacific partnership, the tppcp. he told me the original pact had

real benefits, economically and strategically, since then the world has moved on. i agree our allies and partners moved on. they moved on without us. a year ago president biden made his first trip to asia and unveiled the indough pacific framework and to reengage the region on standards involving digital trade, supply chains, climate change and corruption. this is a small start but it falls far short of what is needed today to advance american prosperity and security. also, the well-being of our asian partners. in particular, the president's proposal fails to include greater u.s. market access. the united states is belatedly offering a tepid leadership to a region that remains committed to open trade. we can and must correct this or fall further behind in the most

economically dynamic region of the world. i call on president biden to enter into and to congress to ratify the cptpp. it would be difficult to overstate how important the indo-pacific is to american prosperity. the region comprises 40% of the global economic output and that is expected to grow by 50% by the end of the decade. the largest economy in the region belongs to china which is the largest trading partner for the region's countries. this provides beijing with leverage to bully our allies and partners into making concessions in exchange for access to the chinese market. it will allows beijing, not the united states, the same opportunity to have that relationship so necessary. china, for example, used coercion to retall yit -- retaliate against us a tral yay after allies called into an

investigation into the origins of covid-19. beijing regularly forces american firsts to refrain from criticism of china or conform to communist policy. china's leaders can coerce and intimidate because they have economic strength. it is clear china will exert that tremendous leverage over other nations to achieve its global ambitions. its attempts to bully countries into spears of influence are on full disply through the belt and road initiative which has left trails of death traps and human rights abuses. unfortunately, the united states is ceding our economic leadership that we established and maintained for the last 80 years. having quit the trans-pacific partnership under partisan republican and democrat criticism for that departure, the countries we work with, treaty allies and partners moved ahead. they moved ahead without us and in 2018 brought into force a successor agreement, the cptpp.

these countries represent more than 13% of global gdp and in the last few weeks, great britain has gained membership. so important is the cptpp to the pacific economies that china has applied for membership. they did so last september. it would be a grave mistake for us to assume that in america's absence china would be denied membership indefinitely. china wants in despite already having the largest member of the regional comprehensive economic agreement which also includes our treaty allies, japan and south korea, australia and new zealand. this trade block accounts for nearly one-third of global gdp. these two agreements comprised of nations with diverse ideologies underscore the importance of the economics of the indo-pacific region. in asia especially, economics and security are one in the same. and for washington to ignore, that is a miscalculation.

our allies and partners in this region are noticing, they notice our absence. australia's foreign minister said at the end of last year, and i quote, america's decision not to proceed with the cptpp is still being felt in the region. we've reached a stage in the evolution of our alliances where they will increasingly require a fully developed economic dimension as well. in other words, we can't have the same relationship with countries that we don't deal with in trade and economic relationships. at the end of 2022, singapore's defense minister had this to say. quote, the u.s. increasingly -- excuse me, the u.s. increasing their military presence in asia as a stabling -- stabilizing force is virtuous. it is good and we'll support that. but then he made this key point. we think that the u.s. should do more to engage as it did previously to build an economic framework which as a tide can lift all boats.

despite our own national security strategy which declares, quote, we need to win the competition for the 21st century, and that we will, quote, shape the rules of the road for trade and economics, the document makes clear president biden believes -- and again i quote -- we have to move beyond traditional trade agreements. but given the words of our pacific friends, it's equally clear they, they have not moved beyond such agreements. in fact they are doubling down on them without us. the president and his administration are either oblivious to this fact or indifferent. given the stakes, whichever one it is, it's a serious mistake. dating back to the 1890's -- excuse me for saying that -- date willing back to 1980's, the national security strategy is a congressionally mandated report issued by the president to convey the administration's national security goals and how to achieve them. in recent decades, one document

is published each presidential term rather than yearly. the 2022 document president biden stresses, quote, rules-based international order, but then refuses to engage in shaping one of the significant pillars of that order, trade. the national security strategy invokes four principles. two which are openness and inclusiveness and one scholar observed the president's approach to trade is neither open nor inclusive. this hurts our goals in the region and it hurts americans at home, our very national security. our engagement really is about our own well-being, our own well-being is often dependent upon the well-being of our friends and allies or those we want to be our friends or allies. economic partnerships can promote u.s. national security interests by protecting critical access to technologies, minerals, and food supplies. we know what happens when we're so dependent upon one particular country for meeting our country's needs in strategic

items. it's a mistake for us to have all eggs in a basket. robust trade agreements safeguard the intellectual property and manufacturing capabilities that underpins our american military dominance. southeast asia presents a situation which our agriculture producers can score significant market access wins while u.s. soft power can bolster our influence with these critical partners. with these countries that are or can be our friends. america's economy is the foundation of our power. without the creation of wealth, we cannot afford to sustain the world's greatest military which in turn defends the peace that enables the flow of goods. as a column in "the wall street journal" just within the last week argued, and i quote, the u.s. must embrace the politics of growth. our world must be and must be seen to be the surest, fastest path to raising living standards

all over the world. that's what we did after world war ii and we must find a way to do it again today. what that's saying is we can't allow china to be seen as the path to economic well-being for people and nations around the world and specifically in the south pacific. southeast asia presents a situation which our agriculture producers can score significant market access wins while we're making a difference in our own capabilities to influence the world. america's economy is the foundation of our power and we must utilize it. in competing with china in coming decadeses it's essential the united states provide a positive vision for the region that attracts countries to what america offers beyond security support. leadership is more than making clear that what we're against. we must offer a compelling case of what we are for and how it

will benefit those we wish to lead, those we wish to be partners with. joe -- trade is a rare area that advances our interest and those of our partners. according to the chicago counsel of global affairs, the american people understand this. three in four americans think trade is good for the u.s. economy. but congress and the president are making a mistake ignoring the old idea of open trade. to best compete with china and asia and to help americans at home, joining the ctppp and providing greater market access is an obvious place to begin. jobs, economic opportunity for us, and most important lir the well-being of our nation, our national security depend upon trade and that relationship it creates. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that my additional remarks appear in a different place within the journal. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. moran: madam president, i rise today to honor the life and mourn the loss, the passing of a kansan who i was privileged to know well, gary done. he touched the lives of all who new him and left our world and state a better place. i know i speak for many, many others when i say we will all miss his wisdom and his kindness. in kansas we know the value of community and we rely upon our neighbors in times of need. and gary took these traits to heart and his friends and neighbors always knew he would be there to lend a helping hand. he was raised on a farm not far from my hometown, northwest of downs. gary knew the valley of faith, hard work and service and he practiced every day what he believed. he and his wife, glen nice, enjoyed 45 years of marriage and raised their three children on

the farm just miles from his own childhood home. gary, an active member in his community and dedicated advocate for causes he believed in, he served at county and state levels, the kansas farm bureau including eight years on the state board of directors and served as the chair of board of directors of the agriculture and world leadership program. gary instilled a passion for service to his life in every circumstance. in 2001 we had the pleasure of having his daughter amy work on our staff. when i was a congressman representing the big first in the house of representatives. doory, what we all hoped to do he did. he lived a life with purpose and he loved to invest in the next generation of kansans. he often spoke of how he wanted to help raise new leaders to preserve the same opportunities he enjoyed living and raising his family in north central kansas. we all looked for examples in

gary's life as an example of the difference one person can make. and i know his legacy will live on in the community and in the state he loved. our prayers are with his wife and three children amy, vick, and edie and the entire downs community. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, a few months ago i spoke from this floor about mark swidan, who has been unjusticely imprisoned by the chinese communist partyu for over a decade. mark is from a small city in my home state of texas. his mother, his katherine swidan, still lives there. for the last 11 years, mark has endured a living hell trapped in a chinese president of the united states on. he's exposed to extreme heat and extreme cold. he's deprived of sleep. he's subjected to physical abuse.

mark has also been denied access to his family and to american diplomats. and in 2019, a chinese court sentenced mark to death. mark is being unjusticely held by the chinese communist party as a hostage. the ccp tells us that china is is a great power, but this is how third world thugs and dictators act. i called for mark's immediate release and called on the biden administration to use any and every available means to secure mark's freedom. madam president, i'm deeply distressed that since my speech on the floor a few months ago, mark's plight has deepened. recently a chinese court reaffirmed the death sentence imposed on him with a suspension for two years. that is wrong, and it's

outrageous. we need mark to come home. it's worth revealing how breathtakingly infuriatingly unjustice all of this is. how did it happen? on the one hand november 13, 2012, mark was abducted by china's public security bureau while he was in china on a business trip. a witness to the abduction has said mark was detained because chinese officials wanted to view the contents of his cell phone. the chinese officials accused mark of being part of a criminal conspiracy to manufacture and traffic drugs with 11 other individuals, charges that mark has denied and which have been debunked over and over again. chinese officials tried to coerce mark into confessing. mark refused, and he pleaded not guilty in a trial in november of 2013. during the trial, the prosecution didn't produce any

forensic evidence to back up their allegations and no drugs, zero, will ever found on mark or in his hotel room. mark's passport and other records show that he wasn't even in china at the time of the alleged offenses. and the 11 other individuals indicted in relation to this alleged drug conspiracy, none of them could identify mark. the charges against mark were completely bogus and false. meanwhile, mom's mark, katherine, is aching to see her son again. her heart is breaking. this is a mom who wants to hold and hug and care for the son she loves. i've been working with the biden administration, and i've been pushing chinese officials at a senior level to release mark, but more needs to be done. and it needs to be done much more quickly. now, secretary of state blinken was planning to travel to china

in february, and we had been pressing the state department to make mark's case a major priority for the biden administration on the trip. then what happened? a chinese spy balloon came over the united states and secretary blinken canceled his trip. it's time to apply more pressure on the chinese communist party to let mark go and let him come home to texas. madam president, the chinese communist government is a tyrannical government. they don't like it when you turn up the heat. they don't like it when you shine a light on their atrocities. there is power in shining a light, and there is power in unity. we need to bring mark home. in a moment, i'm going to propound a live u.c. request on a legislation that if i've introduced with my colleague from texas, senator john cornyn. when it passes, the senate will with one unanimous bipartisan voice reiterate these

declarations. the resolution calls on the ccp to immediately release mark. it condemns china for withholding from mark access to his family, to diplomats, and to proper and independent medical care. and it calls on the biden administration to prioritize efforts to secure mark's release, both in their conversations with chinese diplomats and in international forums. no opportunity should be lost in urging chinese officials at every level of engagement to release mark. the biden administration must use the voice and the vote of american diplomats to highlight his case. this resolution has already passed the house. it will now pass the senate. the united states congress is, with a united and unanimous voice, condemning and calling to end the unjust imprisonment of mark swidan by the chinese communist party. enough is enough.

madam president, as if legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 53, s. res. 23. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 53, senate resolution 23, demanding that the government of the people people's republic of china and the communist party of china immediately release mark swidan. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. cruz: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cruz: madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote occur immediately. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the confirmation. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

-- will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 51, the nays are 47, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. van hollen mr. president. the presiding officer: the ?earpt from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. i think everybody in this body now knows that president biden convened a meeting at the white house to discuss how the united

states would avoid a default, a default on the country, a default on our debt, a default which would be something that's never happened before in the history of the country. the 14th amendment, section 4 says, and i'm quoting, the validity of the public debt of the united states, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services, shall not be questioned. shall not be questioned. throughout our history, in good times and bad times, we have always met our obligations as a country. and that's why president biden wanted to bring together the congressional leaders to discuss making sure that we don't do that for the first time. he was joined, of course, by speaker mccarthy. he was joined by the minority

leader from the house, congressman jeffries. from the senate he was joined by majority leader schumer and republican leader mcconnell. i was asked earlier today whether i felt better in the aftermath of this meeting, having taken place. and i said i'm glad that the leaders plan to meet again, on friday, but no, i don't feel more comfortable or confident today than i did before the meeting. and the reason is this -- because speaker mccarthy continues to threaten to default on america's debts unless he and the maga republicans in the house can impose big parts of their agenda on the country. impose their agenda on the

american people. i just want to unpack for a moment what exactly that means. what exactly is speaker mccarthy saying to the country? and he's saying this -- that if the senate doesn't go along with the very extreme proposals passed by the house rcialtion and if the president doesn't -- by the house republicans, and if the president doesn't agree to sign on to those extreme proposals, he will allow the united states for the first time in our history to default on our obligations. what does that mean? it means he is threatening economic catastrophe. because there's no dispute among republicans -- i don't care if you're a democratic republican -- excuse me, a democratic economist or republican economist can economists across the board will tell you that a default would be catastrophic for our economy.

massive job losses. we saw an estimate the other day of eight million jobs lost in the country. retirement nest eggs that people have been working a lifetime to build up imploding. interest rates rising. the credibility of america around the world shattered. the dollar as the world's reserve currency being called into question. i can tell how will be celebrating if this happens, and that's the folks in beijing, the prc. they'll be very happy if the united states undermines its credibility on the world stage, and they'll be very happy if we lose our position of having the dollar being the world's reserve currency. so, what was president biden's response? so, what the sprz saying, and i

want to be -- what the president is saying, i want to be clear what he's saying, he's saying hold on speaker mccarthy. you know, paying our bills on time is not just a democratic obligation, it's not a republican obligation, it's not an independents obligation. it's an obligation of uncle sam. these are obligations the united states has built up during democratic presidencies and republican presidencies. in fact, if you look at the record during the four years of the trump administration, we accumulated one-quarter of the total debt owed by the united states today. yet during those four years, the house and senate, without drama, said yes, the united states is committed to paying its debts and will do so and will address the debt ceiling in that manner. just to emphasize again, these

are obligations the united states already incurred, that we already said we do this, we will pay your social security, pay your medicare, pay our veterans, we will pay our obligations as a country, including those who have purchased u.s. treasury bonds. -- bonds about. that's what we said when we passed those things. and it is important that we keep our word. so what president bush says is, look -- so what president biden says is being look, these are uncle sam's obligations. mr. speaker, you don't get to come in here and threaten the health of the american economy. if you and house republicans don't get to enact your policies, don't get to enact your agenda. so take your finger, mr. speaker, off the default detonator, and then we should talk about issues of common

concern. we can talk about the budget. we can talk about the deficit and debt. we can talk about spending. we can talk about revenue. and, in fact, president biden has submitted to the house and senate his budget proposal. i serve on the senate budget committee. we as a senate have received that. president biden has proposed a budget that achieves $3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years. the proposal passed by speaker mccarthy and republicans in the house achieves about $4.5 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. so what the president is saying to speaker mccarthy and house republicans is, we're happy to sit down as part of the normal budget process, happy to talk as

part of the normal appropriations process about how we can address the deficit and the debt. i put forward my proposal. you put forward a proposal. let's sit down. but president biden is not saying, you know, speaker mccarthy, if you -- he isn't saying this to speaker mccarthy. he isn't saying that you've got to reduce the deficit by $3 by the way i, president biden have done it. and if you don't agree to my proposal for reducing the deficit by $3 trillion, then i'm not going to sign a bill to raise the debt ceiling. and if president biden said that, people would say, he's crazy. and it would be very irrational. but that's exactly what speaker mccarthy and house republicans are doing. they're saying, mr. president, if you don't reduce the deficit our way, we're going to blow up the american economy.

so, let's step back from the brink here. speaker mccarthy, take your finger off the default detonator. and let's have a discussion about how to reduce the deficits and debt. when you do that, you understand that many of many of our republican colleagues really don't care that much about the deficit and debt. why do i say that? because if you say, let's reduce the deficit and debt by increasing revenue, by asking some of the wealthiest people in the country -- billionaires, people who make hundreds of millions of dollars every year -- if you say, let's reduce the deficit by asking them to pay more in terms of taxes, you won't get any support from our

republican colleagues, the same folks who say it is absolutely urgent that we reduce our deficit and debt. but we know there are two sides of an equation. there's spending, and there's revenue. and in fact if you go back to the last time that the united states balanced our budget, which is around the year 2000, you will find that revenues as a share of our gdp, revenues as a share of our economy were about 20%. today if you look forward the next couple years, the projections are total revenues will be about 18% of our commitment of -- of our economy. now, the difference between 18% revenues as a share of our economy and 20% may not sound shrike a big number, but -- may not sound like a big number, but 2% of a very big american economy is a lot of revenue. so what president biden is saying is, you know, the last

time we actually balanced our budget, revenue as a share of gdp was 20%. so at least let's look at that as a contribution. let's look at raising the top rate on corporations to a level that would still be lower than it was just ten years ago but higher than it is today. and all this talk about the irs agents -- you know, republicans say, let's get rid of the additional funds to support irs agents. these are irs agents that are going to go after very rich tax deadbeats. and in fact the congressional budget office projects that if you invest in that effort to go after very rich tax deadbeats, you actually raise revenue. so the action that the house took in this regard actually

increased the deficit and is just protecting folks who make a boatload of money from paying the taxes that are already due and owing. so what president biden has said is, okay ... sit back, let's talk through the normal budget appropriations process. but don't threaten to blow up the american economy. and president biden's budget also has cuts in it. in fact, what the president has proposed is that the medicare program pay big pharma, pay the pharmaceutical industry, a little less for the drugs that the medicare program purchases. after all, all of us in this room and every american citizen contribute billions and billions of dollars every year to really important work done at the national institutes of health, which is headquartered in my state of maryland.

it is an american treasure. it is an amazing place, and it's a great engine of invention. we spend billions and billions of dollars in taxes every year for them to do research that has uncovered really important cures, really important treatments. and it has helped the pharmaceutical industry develop a lot of the drugs. and yet big pharma uses the research developed with taxpayer dollars and then often turns around and sells those drugs at prices that american taxpayers can't afford. and so what president biden has proposed is that they take a little less, we give them even more -- we gave the medicare program even more negotiating authority so that we can reduce those costs to medicare and to the taxpayer. so he's proposed those kind of

cuts. i know a lot of our republican colleagues don't like those ideas. but that's why you do many to the table. that's why speaker mccarthy should accept president biden's invitation to come to the table to discuss in the normal course, in the budget and the appropriations process, how we can address issues of the deficit. what are our priorities? what should we do on the revenue side? what should we do on the spending side? but -- but don't, mr. speaker, continue to threaten to blow up the american economy, if you don't get your way. i'm just going to end, mr. president, with a story from 2011 because that's the last time we really faced this kind of crisis. and i am especially worried this time. it was very bad in 2011. we came very close to going over

the waterfall. the markets got very jittery. interest rates did begin to creep up. it cost the u.s. government more to meet our obligations. and i'm more worried this time because we apparently have a lot more folks in the house of representatives who don't seem to fully appreciate and understand the disastrous consequences of default. -- for american families, for our economy. so i remember back in 2011, it was right after the 2010 elections, republicans had won a big majority in the house of representatives, president obama was in the white house, and they were threatening early on to hold the issue of default and threatened to use it for budget purposes.

andesites true, we've heard it -- and it's true, we have heard it said that president biden at the time came down to the hill and they formed what's called the biden group. and they met in an office right around the core epidemic corner here on this -- right around the corner here on this floor. there were about ten from the house, senate, republicans and democrats. we had at least ten meetings. and president biden -- vice president biden would begin each meeting this way. he would say is i know today we're going to talk about the cuts that are being proposed by house republicans. and we'll do that. but i want you to know two things. one is, nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. and after we go through these proposes cuts, we're going to go through proposed revenue increases. we're going to close tax

loopholes for very wealthy people. and so we're going to attack the deficit from both sides of the equation. we'll do some cuts, but you've also got to be proposed to talk about revenue. and everybody at the table nodded their heads, senate republicans, house republicans, democrats. well, after ten meetings of discussing cuts, a lot of us were getting concerned that we hadn't really begun to dig into revenues. and vice president biden said, you know, i've said at the beginning of every meet, we've got to get to revenues. we're going to do that. and at that time moment the talks broke down. eric cantor, who was the majority leader in the house at the time, speaker boehner was speaker, kevin mccarthy walked out of the talks largely because he was afraid he was going to be fingered by his house republican

colleagues for having agreed to talk about revenues. imagine that. you care about the deficit, but you won't talk about any ways to raise even a penny of revenue from very wealthy people. and so that sort of exposed the whole charade at the time. and so now -- now joe biden is president of the united states. i'm sure he's thinking about those days when he served as the head of that budget group. and i'm sure so he's thinking back to the fact -- and i'm sure he's thinking back to the fact that when our republican colleagues came to the table and said they cared about deficit reduction and all nodded their headed and yeah after we talk about cuts, we're going to talk about revenues, and then walked out of of the room when that moment tame, that that just shows that what we're dealing with is not a commitment to deal with the deficit and debt. what we're talking about is a

power play to threaten the health of the american economy in order to impose the maga house agenda. and president biden is absolutely right to say, i'm more than willing to talk about the the budget and deficits and fiscal policy. but first, mr. speaker, take your finger off the default detonator. that's what mr. mccarthy needs to do. and then we can deal with this in a way that the country deserves. i following the use or yielding back of time my time. -- i yield my time. mr. president, i have ten requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted.

mr. van hollen: i yield my time.

mr. bennet: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. i'd ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. bennet: thank you. thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc. calendar numbers 46 through 52, number 82 through number 107. 110 through 113.

number 130 through 139. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: thank you, madam president. i want to thank my friends from the house for their support today, but the question today is what kind of nation do we want to be. this debate speaks to the moral fabric of our society. we boast the most powerful military in the history of the world. the purpose of that military is the, for the strongest among us to protect the weak. in america, those with the broadest shoulders guard those with the narrowest, yet the

biden administration wants to mobilize our military against the weakest and the most defenseless, the unborn. i believe that is wrong, it is immoral. my colleague has described an abortion as just another medical procedure. he mentioned lay sicks -- lasics. he also talked about bunions. the children of our nation are not just another routine medical procedure. that is why i'm standing here to object. for 40 years we've had bipartisan agreement. 40 years. americans may have different views about abortion, but the majority of this country believes that taxpayers should not have to fund abortions. secretary austin blew up 40 years of tradition and agreement by just one memo. one memo.

there was no debate in the senate, there was no vote in the house, and here's why -- they didn't have the votes. this administration couldn't change abortion laws here in the senate or the house, so they wrote a memo. our cabinet secretaries aren't supposed to be politicians. they are there to uphold and enforce the laws made in this building. yet secretary austin is the most political secretary of defense we have ever seen. i'm glad to hear senator warren got her prompt reply from secretary austin this week, as i recall, she made her request on april 6. she got a response a month later. that's certainly not the kind of treatment i have received from the pentagon. maybe it's got something to do with my political party.

nearly a year ago, i joined 12 other republicans in a letter to secretary austin, this past july we asked the secretary to substantiate the commence e made about abortions being necessary for military readiness. we're still waiting for a reply. in november, we sent the department another letter. this time it was just asking for a short and small briefing, just a briefing, all we're asking for. we heard they were going to move forward with an abortion policy that was illegal. secretary austin did not reply. in december, i informed secretary austin in writing that i would hold his highest nominees if he went forward with this unlawful abortion policy. well, in february, secretary austin implemented that policy. so i've kept my word.

the very next day, we put a hold on his nominees. you know i didn't get a phone call from secretary austin until one month after i put the holds into effect. one month. during the call, he offered me absolutely no compromise. he didn't offer to meet or discuss. unlike senator warren, since then i have heard nothing from secretary austin, except that he's said about me the things that are pretty negative in armed services committee hearings. ten months into this dispute, the pentagon and i are still waiting for one single fact to support this argument. one single fact. i read secretary austin's letter to senator warren. it's long on opinions, short on facts. i also read the boilerplate letter signed by the former

secretaries of defense that were put out this week. it reads like a democrat press release. the letter simply repeats the same unsubstantiated claims made by senator warren, senator bennet and senator schumer. frankly, i think these letters vindicate my opinion. these letters are part of a coordinated effort by the democrat to use the authority and the prestige of the secretary of defense to distract from the facts. frankly, i don't think that will work either. the biden administration has done everything possible to turn our military into just one more institution for left-wing social engineering. for all of history secretary austin will be the defense secretary who oversaw america's worst military defeat since

vietnam. the senator from colorado has twice now accused me of mischaracterizing what he did just a few months ago. my hold is to end an illegal abuse of taxpayer funds. that's what we're trying to do here today. senator bennet's hold was so he could get a meeting with secretary austin. how did senator bennet's threatened hold end? senator bennet got what he wanted. senator bennet got his meeting with the secretary of defense. again, this is more than i received. so let's remember what i'm asking for. i'm asking for the pentagon to drop a policy that is illegal. i'm asking secretary austin to do his job and follow the law. i understand that secretary bennet is a strong supporter of abortion. that's all understood. but if he wants this abortion policy, then let's pass a bill.

but it hasn't been done that way. democrats know that they can't get that done. they know they don't have the votes. the burden is not on me to pass legislation to stop this illegal policy. that's not my job. the burden is on the administration to stop breaking the law. i'm glad that senator warren is concerned about our military readiness. maybe she'll actually vote for this year's defense bill. she hasn't voted for it since 2017. senator warren has a long history of holding military leadership nominations, a long history. in fact, she held the nomination of one of our witnesses at the most recent armed services committee hearing, air force secretary frank kendall. this was the same witness she asked about my hold. was it a big problem? senator warren has held his

nomination several times. and guess what -- she got what she wanted from the pentagon. just like senator bennet with his hold on military nominations. so i'm glad senator warren is concerned about military readiness. it excites me that she's excited about the military. maybe now senator warren and senator schumer will support funding our military ats a leveo actually win a war. that's something else that we've resisted doing throughout their long careers in washington. if democrats were actually concerned about readiness, then we'd be voting. the united states senate has had more than 30 days off already this year. if we want to pass this, let's vote. but we've had 30 days off. that's not including weekends. the rhetoric just doesn't match the reality of how this is being handled. this is more than enough time

for us to have confirmed literally all the nominations we've been talking about. we could have already done this, taking them one at a time. this could have been done. yet that's not what we're doing. this week we're having another three-day workweek. we're getting ready to go on recess eight days from now. if my democratic colleagues actually were concerned, we would be voting on these nominations. if secretary austin is so worried he can't live without these nominees, he can suspend his memo. that's all he has to do. drop your memo and these nominees will proceed by unanimous consent. i'm a man of my word. i'll stand down. until then, i'm standing up for the constitution and the unborn. and that's why i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. marshall: madam president.

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: madam president, i'm proud to stand with my friend, the senior senator from the great state of alabama. as he continues to fight against the department of defense's attempt to circumvent congress and ignore existing federal law, which prevents the department of defense facilities from being used to provide or facilitate abortions for servicemembers. the policy is immoral, taking department of defense abortions from less than 20 per year to over 4,000 abortions annually. it's beyond me why the white house wants to pick this fight. the policy is illegal. it forces taxpayers to subsidize abortion in violation of federal law. the policy is outside the department of defense's mission to uphold and fight for life, not destroy it. the biden administration and senate democrats claim this is harming our military readiness.

with policies like this, they continue to destroy recruiting. if readiness was truly a concern of theirs they wouldn't have discharged 8,000 troops for choosing not to take the covid vaccine, a vaccine with minimal benefits to an otherwise healthy young population. this policy is wrong. until the military gets back to providing for our common defense and out of the business of abortions, i will proudly stand with senator tuberville. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. bennet: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. i want to say thank you to my colleagues from alabama and kansas for being out here on the floor today. i regret that we're here with this conflict and this confrontation, but i think that it reflects the deep divisions that exist in this country when it comes to abortion. that's something that i have

always said that i understand deeply, that i respect people's different points of view when it comes to abortion in the united states. i do. it has led me to conclude, and i know that not everybody agrees with this, although the majority of americans certainly agree with this, the majority of coloradans agree with this, led me to conclude that this is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor, that that's who should make the decision, that it shouldn't be made by the government. at the same time, i realize there are differences of opinion. i hope that people on the other side realize that there are differences of opinion here too. but unlike the position that my colleague from alabama espouses on the senate floor, he's not with the majority of americans on this issue.

and that might be a point of pride for him. but i want to first call attention to the reason we're here tonight, which is that i just asked for a unanimous consent to move forward the promotions of the flag officers for the department of defense. this is the fourth time that i've been on this floor asking us to do what senates have done for 230 years. never in the history of the united states of america, literally never in the history of the united states of america, has there been a senator who put a blanket hold on every single flag officer at the department of defense. talk about playing politics! and by the way, i'll correct the record -- ford a third time, not the fourth time. my hold had nothing to do with flag officers. mine had to do with a political appointee, and you can look it

up. i'll find that article and i'll put it in the record again. in contrast to my hold, what the senator from alabama is doing, and now the senator from kansas and the rest of the people that are supporting this, including members of the house of representatives who were here tonight, is a blanket hold on 200 military flag officers. a blanket hold on 200 military flag officers. that has never happened in the history of the united states. these are really important command positions. they're really important. i'm not going to go through all of them. although, madam president, i'd ask that the list of all of these positions be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. the leader of the fifth fleet in

bahrain is on this list. the leader of the seventh fleet in the pacific is on this list. these are positions that are critical to checking iran and to checking china as well. i was just in bahrain. we visited with people with the fifth fleet, including people from colorado that are stationed there. we know how important the mission is. i assume they know how important the mission is. i've heard them say out here, senator from louisiana, before that it's not generals that are important, it's the enlisted people that are important. both are important. both are important. you can't tell me that it's a good idea to have the fifth fleet not have the commander that they're supposed to have. not to mention the fact that people that have spent their entire lives, their entire lives

learning what's needed to get promoted into a position of that kind of trust and that kind of duty and patriotic responsibility, that when it comes time for them to fulfill their mission that some politician on the floor of the senate says no, i'm putting a blanket hold on you and 200 other people, because of my politics. i'll come back to that in a second. our military representative to nato is on this list. the future director of intelligence at u.s. cyber command is on this list. so, it's not surprising that while the senator from alabama may have his own particular view about military readiness, that other observers of what's going on here, including veterans of

the dod are saying it's the senator from alabama that's affecting our readiness. go just -- just last week, seven chiefs, from democratic and republican administrations, both, both republican and democrat, they sent a letter saying that the senator from louisiana's block is, quote, harming military readiness and risks damaging u.s. national security. that's not me. that's them. by the way, madam president, i'd like to ask that -- ask to have that letter included in the record as well. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: leaving these positions unfilled sends the wrong message to our adversaries and could weaken our deterrence. today -- today the secretary of defense, secretary austin, wrote that the longer this hold

persists, the greater the risk the u.s. military runs in every theater, in every domain, in every service. he said this uncertainty, quote, diminishes our global standing as the strongest military in the world. i don't think its surprising that he would say that or political that he would say that. it's stating the obvious, when you can't do something that we've done for 230 years because of politics that's infected the floor of the senate. madam president, i'd like to enter secretary austin's letter into the record as well. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. so that any american who wants to read this stuff can actually read all of it and see all of it. the senator from alabama, he said it again tonight, has said that he'll continue to hold these promotions for, quote, as

long as it takes. as long as it takes. to which i think the obvious question is, as long as it takes to what? what is the political principle that he is on the floor using the unprecedented tactic of holding up every single flag promotion in the dod and our u.s. military? what is it that he's trying to do? what principle is he trying to enshrine? the rule that if he's objecting to, the rule that my colleague from kansas is also objecting to, is a rule, madam president, that does three things. woning it does is say -- one

thing it does is say that if you are in need of reproductive health care and you are a he a woman -- and you're a woman who's in our military, that you can take paid leave to be able to do that. you don't have to take unpaid leave to travel to a place, if you are stationed in, for example, a place like alabama where abortion is illegal. i think only with the exception for the life of the mother, no exception for rape or incest. if if you're serving in a state like alabama where a doctor could go to prison for 99 years for performing an abortion, where they're having debates down there about whether or not they can use laws that are written for fentanyl to apply to the use of chemicals during an abortion. but a state where, by the way, a

majority of alabamians say there should be some access to abortion. but if you are somebody who is stationed there had through no fault of your own, you don't get to decide where you're going to be. if you sign up and you get sent to, for example, alabama, what the secretary of defense said was, okay, we're going to pass a rule that says that if you have to take leave, you can take paid leave. we're going to say that if you need to take a minute to think about whether you want to talk to your superior officer about the condition that you're in and the procedure that you have to take, then what we're saying is, you can take a little bit longer to do that. to tell your commanding officer.

and we're saying also that we can pay for your travel just like we do for other care, to leave your duty station and go someplace else. those are the three things. so when he says, as long as it takes, i gather what he means -- when he says withdraw the memo, as long as it takes to make sure that a woman cannot travel from their duty station to someplace else and have that paid for like other procedures. that a woman has to have -- take unpaid leave. they can't get paid leave, even though they can for other procedures. and that a woman has to tell her commanding officer the minute that she learns of this. those are the three things.

those are the three things. that's why he's objecting to every single flag officer promotion. i don't know what to do about that. because i'll bet you, i can't prove it, but standing here tonight, i bet you that 80% of the american people would -- no matter what their position was on the underlying issue here -- would agree with those three policies. and by the way i didn't compare abortion to bunions or abortion to lasik. what i said was those other procedures are things that the same rules apply. those what i said. and the reason that's important to this debate and the discussion that we're having

right now is that my colleague from alabama is saying that, if it doesn't say reproductive services or reproductive health care or abortion in the statute books, that means that there's no ability for the secretary of defense to write rules to protect the rights of our enlisted -- in this case, enlisted -- women. that's what when he's saying. and what i've pointed out is that there is no place in statute that says that you can go get your footwork done or lasik surgery. that's not in the statute. because this body and the house of representatives confers judgment for this on the leaders of the secretary -- the leaders of the defense department.

and unlike the senator from alabama, i actually have a lot of sympathy for the minefield that they're having to navigate. by the way, one other thing that -- so that it's absolutely clear, nothing in this rule says that the u.s. government is paying for an abortion. there's nothing in this. there's nothing in these three things h so anybody on that side that says that's what this is about, that's a debate for another day. that's not the debate for this. but why don't i say i have -- but why do i say i have sympathy? because something has happened in america that i could never have imagined 30 years ago. i don't remember right know what it was 30 years ago, 1997? i hope the pages can do the

math. 1993. i don't even have the debate right. when i was in law school, something would happen that i never never imagined would happen. that is, the supreme court of the united states for the first time in our history, for the first time since reconstruction, has ripped away from the american people a fundamental right, a fundamental freedom. when i was the pages' age here, i never would have imagined that would have happened. when i was in law school, i never imagined that that would have happened. and that's because from our founding until today, in general, this country's history has always been about expanding

freedoms and expanding rights and making our country more democratic, more fair, and more free. but after a 50-year campaign, none of this was accidental. after a 50-year campaign, led by people, some people on the other side of the aisle here, they finally got what they wanted, which is roe v. wade being overturned. and then when it happened, you heard people shall did and we're going -- and we're having too-to-deal with the consequences of that as a society, as a country. the secretary of defense is having to deal with that. when they say there's been a 40-year concensus, that consensus was ripped violently from the american people by the supreme court, that stripped us of a 50-year consensus when it

came to a woman's right to choose. when it came to that fundamental freedom. and then there are some people on other side is the aisle that said, don't be so hysterical. this is just returning it to the states. you don't need to worry about t i don't think that was ever a genuine thing to say, but, madam president, i mean, just let's look at the facts here. 18 states have banned abortion since this happened. nine of those states have no exceptions for rape or incest. in texas, they are paying $10,000 bounties if your friend or your neighbor or the person down the street reports on you and reports that you are going

to pursue something that has been a fundamental right in the united states of america for 50 years. it is a fundamental right in the state of colorado, a state that i represent. my colleague says that i'm pro-abortion. that's not why i'm out here. that's not why i'm out here. i'm sure he didn't mean to say that. i'm out here because i believe that what i can't -- when i can't -- my judgment isn't better than the judgment of a woman and her doctor. and the government shouldn't be making the decision. and i'm proud -- i am proud to live in a state that was one of the first states, probably i think the first state in america, to enact a woman's right to choose, even before roe v. wade was passed, and it was the first state to codify roe v.

wade after -- after -- the supreme court overturned that precedent. think about what's happened in florida, madam president. that's one of the biggest states in america, one of the largest states. i can't remember if it's the third-largest state or the fourth-largest state. it is huge. it is huge. they've just abandon -- they've just banned abortion in florida at six weeks. banned at six weeks. when i was the age of these pages, when i was in law school, that would have been unimaginable. there might be a reason why the governor down there signed that law at 11:00 at night. there might be a reason -- because 65% of floridians think it's a terrible idea. they think that this should be a

decision that's made between a woman and their doctor. they don't need their governor telling them. they don't need a senator telling them. they don't need the federal government telling them or weighing in on this incredibly difficult decision. and we're here tonight because, as a result of that, i would say balancing act, commonsense approach that the secretary of defense had tried to take here when it comes to people that are serving in our military, that we now face real harm to our national security. part of the challenge is the recruitment challenge that my colleagues talked about on the republican side. and i could tell you the studies

that have been done that have asked the question about what the reversal of dobbs is is going to mean for recruitment in the department of defense, the presiding officer won't be -- be surprised to know it's not good. it's not going to make matters better if you think that you can be assigned to a state where they've outlawed abortion or they're saying that doctors can get a 99-year prison sentence, or there are no exceptions for rape or incest or the life of the mother, or you're in florida and now you have a six-week ban, that that may affect the recruiting that goes on in the united states military not to mention the 700,000 civilians that serve in the department of defense. servicemembers don't decide where they're going to serve. dod decides. and before dobbs, our troops at

least had some assurance, and today they don't have any assurance. that's why we're here. so any talk of this 40-year consensus ignores completely what has happened. and what has happened is the supreme court overturning roe against wade. and i just want to say for my colleagues tonight that i think it's important for the american people to understand. it's important for the next generation of americans to understanding that this did not happen by accident. for 50 years there's been a campaign in america to strip us of this fundamental right, to strip us of this fundamental freedom. when i was in law school in the

early 1990's, it was just after this new legal doctrine had been invented in america called originalism. i've said here on the floor that i think whoever came up with that name should get the pulitzer prize for political names. it's genius. it's genius, because the idea is that somehow by, by putting on your originalist view of the world, you're going to be able to define what the founding fathers were writing when they wrote the constitution. that if you are a judge, you are restricted to what they refer to as the plain meeting of the constitution. and that if you can't get to the plain meeting, that you should

be able to divine their intention as close to the text as possible, as if it is possible to drive the original intent of the founders. and because if you are somebody who believes that you can do that, you are channeling george washington or thomas jefferson or ben franklin or john adams. that you have a leg up on anybody else who's trying to interpret what the constitution says. because if you have, if you've got the -- if you know what they were originally saying, if you have that secret dechord -- decoder ring to tell you what they were originally saying, that gives you an elevated position over anybody else who

might disagree with you. in fact, there isn't really room for disagreement since you divine what the founders believed. i have no idea where the pages are in their history lessons on the american constitution. i hope they do. i'm sure they do. but anybody who has read anything about the constitution of the united states knows that almost every word is a product of compromise. almost every word is a product of compromise. there are some things in there where you can't, it's not confusing about what they said, and i owe my friend angus king on this. i'd like to put an article into the record that he wrote, my colleague from maine. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: there are, there

are supposed to be -- not supposed to be. there are, there are two senators from every state. that's in the constitution. i don't think we're going to disagree about what that means. i know the people on the floor staff tonight are thinking i wish there was one senator from colorado who will stop talking, and i will stop talking. but that's what it says. and i can read the plain meaning of that. two senators. but it becomes less clear when the words are things like -- and again, credit to angus kingn the words don't even show up in the constitution of the united states. air force, because they didn't have a single plane when they wrote the constitution of the united states. now i think that thomas

jefferson's view of this was certainly closer to mine than some others, which was that they expected the government to evolve. they expected the interpretation of these documents over time to evolve. and that's a good reminder, by the way, of the disagreements that the founders had originally. thierlg -- their original intent. some of them were slaveholders in the case of thomas jefferson, in the case of george washington, in the case of madison. smm some of them were abolitionists in the case of john adams. that was a fundamental thing that ended up being wrestled to a horrendous compromise. it allowed slavery to continue in the united states of america. and the result of that horrible

compromise are going to be with us for the rest of our days. but if you had told me when i was in law school that a majority of the supreme court of the united states would subscribe to originalism, i wouldn't have believed it. i would not have believed it. maybe one justice. there had never been a justice on the court who ever signed up to that thing call originalism, because it hadn't been invented yet. you know, it had just been invented. but i read justice alito's majority opinion for the supreme court in the dobbs case, and man, he believes it because the fundamental conviction is if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it's not a freedom today.

it's not a right today. that's what the originalist view would be. the dissent points out that the men -- the men, the men, the men who ratified the 14th amendment in 1868, quote, did not perceive women as equals and did not recognize women's rights. when the majority says we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification, it consigns women to second-class citizenship, by definition. how can that not be true? women were second-class citizens when the constitution was written. they were second-class citizens when the 14th amendment was passed in 1868. it took women in this country another 50 years almost,

almost, after 100 years of fighting for it, to get the right to vote in america. the self-evident right to vote. and because the supreme court majority didn't have to wrestle with the realties of this freedom, the realities of this right, because for them the only pertinent question was was it around in 1868, that's not completely fair to them. they were asking questions like was it around 300 years ago, 400 years ago, but ignoring the 50 years it had been a right, it had been a freedom in the united states of america. they didn't have to contend nor

did they want to contend with the effects their decision was going to have on everyday people in the united states of america, including people that serve in our military. one of the very first calls i got after dobbs was decided was from a woman that i know who is an officer in the air force, who called me and said, michael, let me tell you a story about my life, decisions i had to make. and now, and now what are people going to do? and we talked about the privacy issues that were at stake. those aren't even touched on here. if i were in charge, i'd hope that we'd have something in there about privacy. we don't have anything. there's not even anything about privacy. everybody in the unit is going to know everything that there is to know. she wanted to know about that. but what she really wanted to talk about was readiness.

this is going to affect our readiness. and in response to that concern, the pentagon drew up these three policies -- travel allowances for servicemembers, as i mentioned. being able to, being able to take your absence without unpaid leave. and more time for servicemembers to be able to tell their command officers -- commanding officers. that's all it is. and now the senator from alabama is out here saying it's making the dod into an abortion factory, or not even saying it tonight, but he said it before, into an abortion travel agency. and that's why he's holding up these 200 flag officers. and i'm really worried, madam president. i'm really worried about what the implications of this are because i don't know what is going to make him stop.

and i don't know what damage is going to be done to our national defense in the meantime. and i'll say i am -- you know, i believe very strongly that this country should codify a woman's right to choose at the national level. i believe that. i believe that. most americans agree with that position. most americans disagree with the supreme court. most americans disagree with the 50-year campaign that's reversed roe v. wade. and we have to adjust to this new reality. it's not about evading laws or evading statutes.

it's about supporting the men and women in our military, in our armed services. that's what this is about. that's what this is about. and to hold hostage the promotions of flag officers at dod because of your particular view of a woman's right to choose or whether dobbs was rightly decided by the originalist majority that now sits on the supreme court, that's pretty tough, man. that's pretty tough. it's tough enough that this right has been stripped and this freedom has been stripped. i think there are people who thought it wasn't really going to happen in america.

i thought -- i said i thought it wasn't going to happen. i didn't. i didn't. when i was the age of the pages here, when i was in law school in college, it was the last thing in my mind that this would happen. i think it's surprising to the american people. and i think it would be very surprising to the american people if they knew that there were a member of the united states senate using a procedure that has never been used in the history of our country to try to impose their view of social policy. and i don't think the american people should accept this. and i don't think -- i'll tell you, i know that colorado doesn't accept this. in colorado, as i said earlier, we protect reproductive care for servicemembers. we do.

we protect it for everybody in my state. and we do everything we can to protect our readiness as well. we're home in colorado to the u.s. air force academy, to fort carson, to sleever, to peterson, to buckley, and to space command. and in the case of space command we have a live example, madam president, of how the supreme court's decision could hurt our national security. this is one of the saddest stories that i know. i'm sorry to be here tonight telling this story. because i think that decisions about where to locate our military installations should be made in the national security interests of the united states of america. that's what i believe.

and it would be -- it's devastating to think that we could have had a situation where elected leaders, politicians, a president could play politics instead of making a decision in our national security. but in the case of space command that's exactly what happened. every top general in the air force that was asked recommended peterson, in colorado springs, as the home for space command. and there were three reasons. one was it could get stood up faster than if it were moved anywhere else. it was going to be cheaper to repurpose buildings that were there. and because they were also concerned that if they moved it from colorado, there would be massive attrition, both in the dod workforce and the civilian workforce. that was their conclusion.

that was their conclusion -- put it -- leave it in colorado. and president trump overruled them. every general said leave it in colorado. they went into the white house. the president made a different decision, said move it to alabama. let's send space command to alabama. how do i know he made the decision on politics, not on national security? how do we know that? well, he went first on a radio program, this is president trump, went on a radio program called the rick and bubba show. they asked him and he said, i

single-handedly moved it to alabama. they wanted it to be somewhere else, but i single-handedly moved it to alabama. the gao and dod's own inspector general confirmed these facts. confirmed these facts. about the generals saying it should be in colorado and president trump saying, i single-handedly made the decision. mayor john southers, the mayor of colorado springs, he confirmed these facts. in fact, in a letter to air force secretary frank kendall, here's what mayor southers wrote, madam president -- in the spring of 2019, president trump told him that, quote, despite any process, the air force was pursuing, he, president trump, would make the decision personally, and the only question is whether it would be

before or after the 2020 election. in february, 2020, when mayor southers -- you know, not that it matters, but just for the record, mayor southers is a republican mayor. this is not a democratic mayor that's recalling these statements by president trump. it is a republican mayor. in february 2020, when mayor southers again made his case to president trump, to keep space command in colorado, trump asked him if he was a republican. he's a republican. i don't know why that mattered, but he's a republican. when mayor southers replied that he was, president trump asked what president trump's chances were of carrying colorado in the 2020 election. after mayor southers responded that his chances were uncertain, quote, uncertain, he noticed

that made the president seem, quote, perturbed. president trump said again, he would make the decision after the 2020 election, and he wanted, quote, to see how it turned out. to see how the election turned out. generals all recommended colorado. they went into the white house. donald trump, president trump, overturned what they said, and in his own language we know the reason why. i'd like to enter this letter into the record, madam president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: instead of removing this stain of politics from this decision, dod, i'm sad to say, has proceeded as if nothing were wrong, and if there were just a garden variety bureaucratic process that they're going through. an inevitable outcome that

preserves that political judgment, which would be a horrendous precedent for our country. horrendous. it would ratify a political decision that should have been a decision made in the interests of our national security. it would be a green light for future presidents to do the kind of thing. there are estimates that the attrition could be as much as 80% if you move this from colorado to alabama. and the reason this comes up in the context of this debate is that in colorado we have preserved a woman's right to choose. in alabama, they have banned it. no exceptions for rape or incest. and now the representatives, the senators from alabama, don't want anybody to be able to pursue their interests and their

judgments about their own health care. president trump's decision would be a self-inflicted wound as we face a major land war in ukraine, and the saber rattling that we are hearing in the pacific. er day -- every day that goes by, there's another article about how critically important our space assets are in this fight for freedom all around the world. i'm really, really pleased that president biden is coming to colorado springs next month to speak to the graduating class of the air force academy. i hope that's going to give us the opportunity to learn about

this decision and how harmful it was, and give us the chance to restore integrity to the process, ensure that national security, not politics, drives our basing decision. at the same time, give us the chance once again to stand on the side of expanding rights, expanding opportunity in america, not restricting it. the supreme court had no interest, had no interest in grappling with the consequences of their ruling on our country, on our society, on the men and women in uniform, on our national security. they didn't have to, because if it wasn't a right in 1868, it's not a right today. if it wasn't a freedom in 1868,

it's not a freedom today. the men and women in our 21st century department of defense deserve better than that. the men and women who have signed up to serve this country selflessly deserve better than that. i heard my colleague from across the aisle say that this was a country about the stronger defending the weaker. i don't think that's what this is about. this is about the responsibility each one of us has, each one of us has, whether we're born strong, weak, rich or poor, in colorado or in alabama.

to uphold our national security, to uphold our democracy. to make sure that we land on the side of our highest ideals. i think most people feel like there's been too much politics in america lately. i think people would see that they have fundamental disagreements with each other about a woman's right to choose or an endless number of things. but i also think people could ununderstand what would happen if, instead of continuing to debate, continuing to have a

conversation, that our attitude was i'm just taking my ball and goes home, or in the case of the senator from alabama i'm going to hold up 200 flag officers who have been duly promoted in our department of defense. so, i don't know how this is going to end, madam president. this is not a great day in the history of the united states senate. there's a reason why all of our colleagues, going back the 230 years, haven't put the kind of hold that we've seen put on today. it's staggering to me that, at a moment when the majority of americans are saying they think that the decision in dobbs was wrongly decided, that they think that this decision should be made between a woman and her doctor, that we'd be out here on

the floor of the senate using tactics nobody ever used before to impose one's personal view on the rest of the country. i would ask that the senator from alabama consider -- reconsider the position that he's taken. and i would ask the biden administration to undo the terrible political decision that president trump himself said he was making single-handedly over the objection of the generals in the air force, and now in the wake of the decision in dobbs, and seeing what the intention is among some folks on the other side of the aisle.

there's no excuse to picking up this military installation, moving it all the way across the country, the united states of america, just to ensure that women don't have free exercise of their freedom, and to ensure it be delayed as a result, and that we will be less safe of it's going there. i know the temptation is strong to not overturn the previous decision because people, i think, are worried about looking political. it would be political to keep this political decision in plac place. they need to listen to the words of the republican mayor, john souther. listen to donald trump's own words. listen to what the generals said. but this is the fourth time i've been out here, madam president, on this issue, and i'm going to

keep coming back as long as it takes. thank you, madam president. i appreciate your patience and your indulgence this evening, and i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:jenniferósb-20icap@0 quorum call:

mr. bennet: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you it madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session, be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president -- or, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 56, senate resolution 115. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 56, senate resolution 115, supporting the goals and ideals of countering international parental child abduction month, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. bennet: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, madam

president. i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, may 11. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of calendar 61, s.j. res. 23, calendar number 62 , that notwithstanding rule text the joint resolution be considered read a third time en bloc, and the senate vote on passage of the joint resolutions in the order listed. furthers upon disposition of the joint resolutions, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the garcia nomination and then immediately recess subject to the call of the chair. that when the senate reconvenes, there will be two minutes for

debate equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. bennet: for the information of the senate, there will be two roll call votes at 11:00 a.m. and one vote at approximately 1:45 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until the senate voted on a handful of president biden's nominees today. lawmakers confirm shogun to the archivist of the united states. making her the first woman to hold the position. senators also confirm president biden's pick to be assistant education secretary for special education and rehabilitative services. as always live coverage of the senate here on cspan2.

he spent as your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community centric? no it's way more than that. comcast is part of 1000 community centers two. wi-fi enabled so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers for giving a pharmacy to democracy. a car c-span's washington journal every day we are taking your calls live on the air on the news today and we will discuss policy accused that impact you break coming up thursday morning we will discuss the end of title 42. the biden administration immigration policies and house republicans border security

package several members of congress preclude california democratic congressman. alabama republican congressman barrymore. wisconsin republican congressman tom emmer tiffany. illinois democratic congresswoman ramirez. arizona republican congressman andy big street texas democratic congressman gonzalez. watch "washington journal" live at seven eastern thursday morning on c-span, or on c-span now our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, essages and tweets. order your copy of the one her 18th congressional directory now available at cspanshop.org. it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. congressional committees for the president's cabinet, federal agencies, s