noon today, 2 pm for legislative business and then 3 pm for their legislative business as well. in about five or 10 minutes we will get an update on the order joined by lauren of the el paso times for a the latest on the border in the wake of title 42 coming to an end but until then you are pulling for him in policy and political issues want to talk about phone lines are here democrats 202 48 republicans 202-748-8000 one an independent student you come for a 8002. this is california, independent, good pemorning. >> good morning. first i have a couple of questions and because i have no way of looking this up.

marjorie taylor agreed when she first got into office e here at the white house, but she was married or divorced and she remarried. >> were going to leave washington journal that you can watch the rest of this segment on c-span.org as we take you live in the senate. today lawmakers working on a judicial nomination to be held at 3:3 easter or brad garcia to serve as judge on the seat circuit court of appeals confirmed he will be the first luck. on nations second highest court. watching live coverage here on c-span2. >>. >>

maryland to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: this week thousands of law enforcement officers have gathered in washington to honor their fallen

brothers and sisters in blue. every year since 1962, peace officers memorial day is called our nation to pay special tribute to heroic men and women in our communities who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe. throughout police week, peace officers and families from around the country mourn loved ones and find shared strength. today we remind the families and comrades of these fallen heroes that a grateful nation has their backs. as always, i'm honored to welcome the kentuckians who traveled to washington for this

week's events. my staff continue to work closely with kentucky law enforcement and to listen to their concerns. like many in my home state, i'm thinking especially of the kentuckians we lost in the line of duty this past year. officer logan medlock of the london police department who was fatally struck by a drunk driver while patrolling on duty. sheriff chief deputy joseph cash of callaway county sheriff's department who was shot and killed while interviewing a suspect. captain ralph fraser and officer jacob chafe finishes -- chafins and deputy william petri of the

floyd county sheriff's department who was shot and killed in an ambush while attempting to serve a warrant. and the seven other kentuckians whose names are being enshrined today on the national law enforcement memorial. james quidlow, travis hurley, oliver little, gregory meeds, mark pike, david ragey, and dickson allen sasser. i also want to pay special tribute to officer nicholas wilt who was shot in the head while responding to last month's bank shooting in downtown louisville. officer wrilt was just -- officer wilt was just 11 days out of the academy but he never shied away from his duty, even

in the face of imminent danger. today officer wilt is continuing to show signs of improvement and the city of louisville stands behind him on his road to recovery. as we honor officers in kentucky and across the country would have been injured or killed in the line of duty, i know my colleagues join me in thanking the peace officers who continue to run toward danger to keep us safe. now, mr. president, police week is an important and solemn occasion every year. america's peace officers deserve our respect and recognition every single day. but in recent years peace officers memorial day has taken on an especially urgent

significance. in 2021 president biden's first year in office, the number of law enforcement officials fellowously killed in -- knell loneiously killed in the line of duty reached its highest level in 20 years. just last year 331 officers were shot on the job. 62 of them were killed. that's a 32% increase from just two years earlier. brave men and women in blue swear to uphold law and order to run toward danger, even to give their lives to protect their communities, but as a radical, soft-on-crime movement has take be hold of elected democrats at every level of government, peace officers have been forced to bear an even heavier burden.

brave police officers have faced down an historic wave of violent crime from the front lines, even as defund the police radicalism forced them to do it with fewer resources and thinner ranks. they've continued to risk their lives to enforce our laws, even as soft-on-crime liberal prosecutors do everything they can to avoid holding criminals accountable. so this week, this week we honor men and women whose tough job is only getting tougher on washington democrats' watch, but thanks to the leadership of senator cornyn and senator cassidy, senate republicans are ready to take action too protect law enforcement officers in the line of duty. our colleagues from texas and

louisiana have introduced legislation to raise the stakes for criminals who resort to violence against police. their bill would deliver new federal mandatory sentencing for killing a police officer, higher consequences for assault, and new, separate penalties for fleeing such crimes across state lines. so, as our nation observes police week, i'm proud to cosponsor our colleagues' work and to continue to back the blue. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

members on both sides of the aisle. what are you telling them right now on whether we will reach the debt limit? >> the time is short, i think everyone is surprised by the deadline. we should have been working on this, that's in the past now so we have a few days to reach a bipartisan agreement. it's got to be a deal mark republicans in the house and senate and the signature president biden.

the one part we are passionate on her mother's calculation, the run-up to the deadline, posen and get over the line and that's the miscalculation when you think it will take a period of time to round up the votes in the house and the senate to get it done we like to see them turn in their homework a little earlier. >> you see the countdowns on capitol hill, how concerned are you about this compared to previous months? >> i am more than in 2011, it's not well known about that, despite the policy disagreement between president obama and republicans on capitol hill, we have a good understanding of working relationship of what it took to get a debt limit deal done in time to avoid a default

they were committed to making sure we didn't cross that line. this time a little more concerned there may not be enough understanding what it will take to get the deal passed through congress into the signature and time so i'm a little more worried. >> when you say you are in the room at that time for house majority leader and we were negotiating the 2011 deal. vice president biden, we spent together, three days a week, leaders in the house and senate and vice president trying to find areas of common agreement. talking about the same things they are talking about today. >> kevin mccarthy part about leadership team, which are how handling these discussions right now? sitting down at the president last week. >> all the things he needs to do so versus unified republicans to

come up with a position, there's less skepticism in this that house republicans could come together and pass the bill. they come together and pass the bill. they understand it will require negotiations asking for weeks to get back into the room with the president thankfully that happened. i think he's in a good job narrowing the scope of issues to those that can refine bipartisanship. >> what are the building blocks? >> i think there are three views on covid money, $60 billion congress and the administration put out into the system during the covid pandemic. it turns out they didn't, it's the right thing to do to reclaim that money. the second is coming up with these levels of discretionary spending so currently right now we don't have it.

year to year to decide how much they want to spend for the annual appropriations process, we went back in history and one things that usually happens when you don't have caps, you agree on new spending caps so there's a recipe there for the administration and republicans and democrats to come together. the third is a policy issue and it's more about permitting and broad agreement on the left and right that takes too long to get permits to build things in this country anymore. it could take paperwork to the time it takes to build a bridge so short in the process and permitting that both sides will agree on. >> the most important thing is the u.s. chamber of commerce, how often have you talked about

that issue? >> we talked about this issue for years. right now on average it takes about 7.4 years to get a permit to build a bridge or road in the u.s. the federal permitting process when you think about that, means a long time before we could actually build the things we need but also every project cost more. if we could take this bridge that we are building today, for every $1 million the cost to build the bridge if we could start the project five years earlier is because of the permitting process, we would save about $170,000 for every 1 million. that's real money, the time value of money in savings and it's the right thing to do for our great country. >> u.s. chamber of commerce, probably our 10:00 a.m. eastern, if you want to join the conversation, you can on democrats 202-48-8000. republican 2048 thousand one.

independent 248002. u.s. chamber.com. the country's largest business organization on the actual business to represent? >> hundreds of thousands. america's biggest country, the ones on the dow jones or s&p 500 to tens of thousands, the largest employers often in our towns and counties to america's small business. we have a lot of members just a family business, maybe the kids and grandkids building a store on main street so we are proud to represent everyone, small businesses in america. >> the liberty campaign push on the issue of immigration. >> we are quite frustrated unto us. the chaos we saw the border and

how long gain control of the border and make sure people aren't coming into the country illegally. second, a immigration system so if you look at one example how both of these systems are broken, crossing the border illegally today and getting five, 57, maybe ten years from now and have their claims for the same time we have people illegally coming into the country will have an advanced science degree and they want to come and build businesses here in the united states. sometimes they wait 12, 14, ten years before they can come into the country legally. we think it's an indication also we call on congress to do something this year to secure the southern border and reform are broken illegal immigration. it should be harder to come into the country illegally and easier to come into the country

legally. >> decades of failure on immigration and white efforts fizzled congress longer. in 2006 and seven, 2010 and 2013, 2018, why is it such an issue? what did you see on capitol hill during those meetings? >> in part the problem has become so big when you try to solve it with a comprehensive solution, it tends to collapse under its own weight and that's something we are much more encouraged by taking a more pragmatic bite sized approach to the problem so combined something to increase border security with a piece to reform system. let's show republicans and democrats and the american people that we can make progress on the issue reasonable

responsible fashion and then come back to the next problem. instead they say no, we want to the whole thing in one big bill in the new york times talked about, a lot of effort that produces no results and that we can't afford to allow to happen. >> retracing two decades of failure on immigration your times is where you can find it. call and talk to feel sadly, some lines are open to do so in miami, florida. independent first, good morning. >> i want to know what you think about returning and proxy rights student loans because every other type of loan as the right of bankruptcy.

why is congress so defenseless? >> this was part of the compromise worked out decades ago process will have the government step in and provide a vital bridge job people to get a college degree because we know it produces more earnings opportunities particularly with the frontline that achieved the agree. something is not going to be allowed to be discharged in bankruptcy government is stepping in. i think it's a possible policy congress could look at, certainly better than getting it across the board for people who don't need it but the reason it exists is economize for many years. >> debt forgiveness is not something the chamber can support? >> our biggest concern in this time of relation is a

broad-based didn't debt forgiveness particularly when it's not adjusted to individual student needs will be inflationary talking about billions essentially the most transfer. >> wasn't so shy today and getting more and more expensive? >> the broken economic problem in many ways so if you think about most things you and i purchased, we are the consumer and also the they are and someone is selling that. we are stickler for getting good value, we don't want to overpay things we are spending money on so we demand transparency and real value and sometimes when prices down. if you think about higher education, higher education universities provide service. i'm consuming the service often

committee also paying and that third-party payer transaction doesn't really work well because university is not willing to keep prices down. the consumer is not driving the value down and third-party payers walking prices go up so we have to think about reintroducing fundamental market forces in higher education. >> portland, oregon, democrat. >> good morning the first thing on student loans, there a lot of students who can't afford to pay their loans and i do really good for them and it's unlike our government, we have politicians who say it's time to pay our bills, we aren't going to pay them. i wonder how that would work with your student loan barring

you call them and say don't want to pay our bills until we figure out our budget next year. substance totally ridiculous. also another thing is countries, when people come to our border, countries and south america where there is war, they are bringing their children, they are getting raped and killed along the way. then when they get to our border, what do you want to do with them? from around? i think i remember not too long ago when the war broke out in ukraine, every country surrounding ukraine the democratic country open their borders with open arms, people came out to the street and that the did with it should because they cared about the people and

were fleeing war. >> one of the things we are going to have to do to help curtail illegal immigration is to make it easier for people to come into the country legally. there is not a way for someone to have the opportunity to come to the united states, we often resort to illegal means so that's why combining concentration on stopping illegal immigration with increasing the opportunity and illegal immigration, we think it is the right solution to address the border but also help america grow. we need more folks coming into the united states and open more businesses on main street and help the nearly 10 million open jobs we have so it is a way to solve all those problems how

many people come in legally each year end where with the chamber like to see that number? >> we haven't found a total number but if you look at people coming in illegally each year end many cases on the employment -based side, these levels were set 1990. i don't know about you but i'm not driving the car i had in 1990, i'm not using the same personal computer i had in 1990, we are a much bigger country and a different country than we were 33 years ago but we have the same immigration rules written back then and it doesn't make a lot of sense so that is an area where there was a story over the weekend tens of thousands of people who earned a nursing degree would love to come to the united states and be nurses here in the united states and we cut off that program because we don't have enough for people to

come in to that person individuals trying to do the right thing to come here and our health care system. >> when people say there's 10 million jobs, are you looking to fill all of them? >> no and by the way we have a lot of americans. although we have more open jobs and people in the united states looking for work today. that is unusual if you look back over history, normally we have more people looking for work and we have open jobs so higher unemployment rate. today have generational low unemployment because for every 100 jobs open someone is saying i want to hire, help wanted sign on the window, we only have about 66 people not looking for work. >> this is judy, independent. good morning.

>> good morning, how are you? my comment is this, influx of illegal immigrants, we have 85000 children unaccounted for so we do have laws about children labor laws and working in places where they shouldn't be and we have sex trafficking and human trafficking and drug trafficking so how does this benefit is in any way, shape or form? running the border and also i don't see how it's good for anybody on either side. >> is not good for anyone, it's a "humanitarian crisis" to at the end of the day these are people and these are children's.

none of us look at what's going on in the extended consequences of what happened and should feel anything other than anger but this is happening today. the problem we have to update our policies so the u.s. chamber, we are leading a business coalition over 430 different groups from all 50 states saying it's time for policy makers, republicans and democrats, but in just over here at the u.s. capitol to figure out what can do to reform the immigration system and secure the border. there's lots of good ideas other the of the will and elected officials to start progress. >> on what age children should be working, this story from cbs news last week caught my eye, on the chamber's thoughts. lawmakers in iowa passed a bill that among other things what

about children to work an additional two hours on school days and grant teenagers to serve alcohol and restaurants. 542 awaits approval and signature and training other states on labor protection and looking to do so. arkansas past and asked in march that will allow requirements for children under 16 to obtain a certificate before being hired, lawmakers across eight states build progress we can labor laws. >> i think this is something we have to takes a hard look at. obviously don't want children working or teens working in dangerous situations. at the same time when i was growing up, there were a lot of opportunities to be a paperboy, work in the family business and having some work even at the age of 13 or 14, that a teenager can

do, we don't want to prohibit that and we also don't have so back that we are not protecting teams. >> it is something for the state? >> rhode island line for democrat, for 20. >> i was listening about the immigration and people judge to jungles -- it's not because i watch the news but my husband is from another country and i know what's going on 80 but i don't hear anybody talking about it. i visited the country, 45 minutes from florida, why can't

they stay in the country? i know we don't want to send the military and all that but the has to be some kind of trade or something to make money and you're sending people back. the resources cash i am so upset. >> at the first to bring this up about immigration, helping these of the countries stay in these countries. >> that has to be as part of the solution it can take several forms and helping ensure drug cartel are running these countries the united states has a long history of helping others like the cartel.

successfully in columbia if you think 20 years ago the united states started that effort with that country. it also has to be an important part, folks in these countries need economic opportunity. part of that economic opportunity to be able to sell -- make an all things into the united states and we ought to take these trade barriers which would allow more job opportunities for people. >> richard in pittsburgh pennsylvania. independent. good morning. >> my comment is about our congress. 535 total in the house. what is with these people that they wrote by party?

i think when we elect them, we elect them to represent the people of the country. it doesn't seemed like to do much in favor of this. it's like our president, we are proposing a bill about the ceilings, the veto is something our president supposedly our president, is going to veto regardless and this is kind of like what you go through as taxpayers and citizens in the military and these things, it kind of makes me mad.

>> unfortunately politics is more polarized today. republicans and democrats on capitol hill ten are often the not to vote party lines. fewer and fewer are across the island figuring out bipartisan solutions. the problem is if we get anything done, you have to run bipartisan. one thing we face back to, where is the risk and reward? too many elected officials today, there's too much risk working with the other side of the aisle they can have enough reward. one of the things americans at this level of polarization is making sure we encourage elected officials find areas that have an agreement across the aisle

started an award for members of congress and work across the aisle because we want to have the behavior we want to see from our elected officials. on the republican side, a republican from nebraska, he's willing to take hard questions but also looking for solutions abigail sandberg, a democrat who gets frustrated her own party but known for working across the aisle trying to find durable bipartisan solution. similar folks, kyrsten sinema for example talk young, important leaders who when things happen, these folks get together and sliced bipartisan support. >> about 15 minutes left on the u.s. chamber of commerce. the chamber of course business organization, i want to pass his

office off you, it is the writer, mark mullen chief executive a uk based and he talks about going four day work week and he says november of 2021, a four day work week to our staff cutting three and a half hours in a workweek unchanged and we think about 9% of the cost for each staff member, employees very much and there's no measurable productivity so what does it tell us? i believe it's about every company, i believe staff members are lazy but your hours in a workweek encouraging to work more efficient and cumbersome, what you think? >> america's freedom, the one a business and see opportunity to

reward your employees hurting your efficiency or productivity and make that decision and it doesn't work for another company they are not forced to abide by those same rules that don't work for them so we are very encouraging all kinds, how many of us thought we would work so much in different sectors before companies figured out is to work the u.s. chamber we are most about is making sure businesses have freedom and the government to make those decisions and figure out for them and their employees. >> not likely to see a four day work week anytime soon? >> independent, good morning. we were on with neil. >> the 20 first a huge answer to

multiple promises is to restart the core. >> why would you want to restart it? >> we could engage a lot of students, they have student debt to work off debt, it is a win-win situation. additionally, you could get immigrants and we have hybrid policies with the government so we were in network or regular private insurance company medicare has policies so it's hybridized -- mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i note when i left

the chair and you were in the chair on thursday. and i hope you weren't here all weekend. the presiding officer: i was. mr. schumer: you're a dedicated man. mr. president, as democrats continue upholding our responsibility to preserve the full faith and credit of the united states, the position of the president, of leader jeffries, and myself has not changed. default must be taken off the table. never in the history of our country have we failed to pay our bills on time. to default now would mean crossing a terrible point of no return. where the biggest losers will be america's seniors, america's small businesses, america's working and middle-class families and everyone, everyone who relies on social security, medicare, and pension payments, 401(k)s. last friday i wrote a dear

colleague to my senate colleagues explaining just how destructive a first-ever default would be. i warned, as many economists have warned, that a first-ever default would crash the economy, increase costs, and kill jobs. crash the economy, increase costs, kill jobs. who would want that? but that's what awaits american families on the other side if no action is taken. according to experts, a default would almost certainly plunge the united states into another recession, shrinking gdp growth by an alarming 6%. a first-ever default would make life's most important expenses far more costly. mortgages, car payments, student loans, small business loans, all would skyrocket.

they wouldn't just go up half a point. they'd go up a lot. but the value of retirement accounts, which americans spend their whole lives, every two weeks, every month, every six months putting that money in so they'd have a decent retirement, would nosedive. nosedive. and of course if the united states defaults in a few weeks for the first time ever, experts warn as many as 8.3 million jobs would be lost. it would be a catastrophe. no one should play with it. no one should flirt with it. no one should hold it hostage and say unless you do this, we're going to default, because the consequences of default are just awful. americans have been to hell and back over the past couple of years, as we have tried to recover from record employment we saw during covid. americans are coming back. i spoke at a whole bunch of college graduations this weekend, and the students had been through covid, had missed sometimes a year of school, a year and a half of school, six

months of school, but they were bouncing back, raring to go, gave me some faith in the future of the country. but if default were to hit them and the rest of the country, wow, that would be awful. so for all of these reasons and many more, i insisted last week, along with president biden, along with leader jeffries, that default be off the table. speaker mccarthy must commit to the same. not saying unless you do this or do that, we will default. the consequences of default are too terrible, and defaulting would mean that we would force americans, as we recuperate from the pain of covid to go through what might even be a greater pain in a few short years after covid had reached its zenith. that alone should push leaders on both sides to agree default is not an option under any

scenario. for decades democrats, republicans have worked out our differences about spending and revenues through the annual budget process. that process began earlier this year when the president released his budget proposal. this week both sides are continuing to hold parallel discussions about the budget, what we should do with revenues, what we should do with spending, as congress does every year. these conversations are going on right now among the four leaders and the president's representatives, as i speak. and i'm glad these conversations are continuing in a very, very serious way. the president, leader jeffries, myself, we welcome a bipartisan debate about our nation's fiscal future, but we've made it plain to our republican colleagues that default is not an option. its consequences are too damaging, too severe. it must, must be taken off the table. now on military holds,

mr. president, on another topic i cannot believe i must address yet again here on the senate floor is that of military holds. over the past few months the senior senator from alabama has single-handedly, single-handedly hindered our national security by blocking hundreds of critical military appointments. those holds are hamstringing our military, according to former secretaries of defense who served presidents of both parties. this blanket hold is harming military readiness and risks damaging united states national security. but last week, the senator's conduct, as bad as it's been by holding up these generals and officers whose lives are in limbo, he's holding them up. but the senator went even beyond that. in an interview over the radio, senator tuberville was asked, if

white supremacists should be allowed in the military. to which he, a member of the armed services committee responded by saying, quote, well, they call them that, i call them americans. it's hard to believe he really said it. i checked the record. he did. revolting. revolting down to the last word. the senator from alabama's words were revolting to so many across this country. a few days later, when asked to clarify his views on the matter, when he was given a chance to make up for this awful mistake that will be a blot on his record forever, senator tuberville then responded with, quote, what is a white nationalist? as if it is a great mystery. what is a white nationalist? are you kidding me? are you kidding me, senator? let me give my colleague a hint on how to define a white

nationalist. a be man who just over ten months ago seeking to murder black people. the invuksists -- insurrectionists, many in the halls of the capitol, many were white nationalists. how about the parade that carriedor muchs through the streets -- carried torches through the streets of charlottesville. senator tuberville, those were white nationalists. then he followed up by saying, i couldn't believe he said this, i look at a white nationalist as a trump republican. really? what the heck is happening in america? leader mcconnell cannot allow a member of his conference to make a mockery of our military

and of the senate the way that senator tuberville has done. if any of my republican colleagues care whatsoever about the well-being of our military, they'll denounce the senator's words and urge him to drop his holds. now on judges. last week was a very productive week in the senate for judicial nominees. the judiciary committee reported out six more nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench. we're continuing the work of confirming more outstand judges this week, starting today. this afternoon we'll vote to confirm bradley garcia as a circuit court judge for the highly important d.c. circuit. after the supreme court, as everyone knows, the d.c. circuit court of appeals, is the most important federal court in the country, particularly when it comes to government actions, and it takes up cases, of course, that the supreme court is unable to consider. the supreme court only takes up about 75 cases a year son the

d.c. circuit court has many vital and important cases. the d.c. circuit is often the finalled word -- final word on consequential cases, including those of congress and the executive branch. i'm proud to say, once confirmed, bradley garcia, will make history as the first latino to serve on the d.c. circuit since it was established. latinos are historically underrepresented across the federal bench. confirming the first-ever la teerno to this important -- latino for this important court is -- when it comes to confirming people to the federal bench, especially to the highly important vital d.c. circuit, it is imperative to get it right and president biden got it right with the historic nomination of bradley garcia, a graduate of john's hop tins, he -- hopkins, he clerked for alaina kagan and

rose to be a partner at a law firm before leaving to serve in the justice department's office of legal counsel. mr. garcia boasts an impressive pro bono record, defending those for free and fair elections. i'm confident that bradley garcia will make an outstanding addition to the d.c. circuit, joining the proud company of so many biden appointments who are little by little making our courts a better reflection of the population of the united states of america. mr. garcia received a bipartisan vote out of the judiciary committee. i'm proud to say that. i thank my republican colleagues who voted for him and i expect that bipartisan support to carry on to the floor this afternoon. i thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working with us. and senate democrats, mr. president, will continue making judicial confirmations one of our top priorities moving

forward. we've made remarkable progress in our work to confirm good mainstream and diverse judges under president biden and we will continue to work toward that goal this week and beyond. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

>> also send us a text at 202 748 8003. include your name and where you are from. we will start with rudy in southern california. what's on your mind this morning? >> caller: what's on my mind this morning is the social security crisis that they say

we are having. you always want to raise the age limit for working and the only people i see doing that our people sitting in front of computers were wearing suits. they don't know anything about busting your back on the outside which 70 to 75 percent of people who work do medium to hard labor kind of jobs so they would have to get off this stuff of reason age limit up to 70 years old. >> host: where did you work? >> caller: i am retired now but i was basically in construction and i would carry on until i was 62 years old 50 pound bags of cement on my shoulders. >> host: were you able to retire at 62, rudy ? >> caller: i retired at 65.

>> host: how are you doingnow ? >> caller: like everybody else it's the struggle. and have particularly no savings. so i rely on social security. i'm just kind of looking at it as they got to look at the balancing act and keep your fingers out of the cookie jar of social security. >> host: rudy, thanks for the call from carolina. good morning. >> caller: this is far from high rock california. native background. i've got an answer for the democratic party. anybody that's running for the house, senate, presidency or throwing their hats in the asring to be a supreme court judge should have to wednesday as soon as the second they get elected to

freeze their assets and don't add anything to it or take anything away from it if they don't already get a salary from it from the governor. they do that as long as they are in office

an immediately toward the danger.ely toward he didn't hesitate to put his own life on the line in order to stop the shooter and save countless lives. the shooter killed eight innocent people and wounded seven more. had this brave officer not been on the scene, it's difficult to imagine how many more casualties would have been incurred, how many more lives would have been lost. the shooter was carrying multiple weapons and had five additional guns in his car. if not for the quick action of that allen police officer, more families would be making funeral

arrangements today. stories like this underscore the dangers our officers take in their daily lives, a routine call for a traffic stop can turn deadly without warning, and these men and women still put on their boots and put on a uniform each morning. each year we honor the law enforcement community naturalland remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. one of the most striking reminders of that sacrifice is the national law enforcement officers memorial which sits along the national mall here in washington, d.c. it's a powerful tribute to the state, federal, and local law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty and features marble walls filled with more than 23,000 names. each of those names represents

an american hero and, sadly, the names of 67 texans will be added this year. these officers gave their lives in service to their communities and our country, and while there is nothing we can do to console the families of those heroes, we can do more to support their brothers and sisters still in blue. over the last couple of years, members of our law enforcement community have faced an onslaught of new challenges from the pandemic to dangerous defund the police rhetoric to baseless attacks. the men and women in blue who keep us safe are subject to tremendous risks and strain. they've watched as progressive politicians have made calls to defund the police and attempted ed to villainize the very heroes who keep us safe. i'm proud to say i've never been

ashamed to support the men and women of our law enforcement community. i will always proudly stand with them. in the face of increasing crime rates and growing concerns about public safety, congress must do more to support and empower our men and women in blue. last year we made some progress. the justice and mental health collaboration program was reauthorized through a bipartisan bill i introduced with senator klobuchar, the senator from minnesota. we've already seen some real-world impact these grants have made in communities across texas, and this will promote even greater collaboration between law enforcement and the mental health providers that they serve alongside. we also took a big step toward improving training for officers by passing the law enforcement

de-escalation training act, which was signed into law by president biden last december. this new law will ensure that officers have the skills they need to navigate and defuse situations particularly those involving a mental health crisis. i'm he -- i'm proud of the bipartisan progress we've made and i hope we can build on it this year. i back introduced -- i introduced the back the blue act to strengthen laws that protect our officers. this legislation sends a strong and powerful message to the more than 800,000 officers serving our country. a message that they are supported and that violence against them will never be tolerated. the back the blue act aweds stiff mandatory penalties and makes it a federal crime to kill or attempt to kill a law

enforcement officer, a federal judge, or a federally funded public safety officer. it also makes it a federal crime to assault a law enforcement officer. as i've said, these men and women put themselves in harm's way every day to keep our communities safe, and we must make it absolutely clear that violence against them will not be tolerateed. this legislation was endorsed by leading law enforcement officers like the national association of police organizations and the fraternal order of police. and it is cosponsored by 39 senators, so far. i hope other colleagues will support this bill and show law enforcement across the country that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them. there's another piece of legislation that i hope will pass soon called the project safe neighborhoods program.

this is a reauthorization of an existing national -- nationwide partnership between federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and prosecutors that aim to reduce violent crime, particularly gun crime. it achieves that goal through data-driven, evidence-based, and trauma-informed practices that have proven to reduce crime rates. since it was first launched two decades ago, project safe neighborhoods has helped reduce violent crime in large cities and small towns all across this country. a study in 12013 found that the -- a study in 2013 found that the program was associated with more than a 13% decrease of crime in cities and a high rate of program participation. given the growing concerns and already serious concerns about crime in our country, there

could not be a more important time to make this program better, stronger, and more effective. so, mr. president, these are a range of bills the senate should -- this is among the range of bills the senate should consider to pass and support law enforcement, including the federal law enforcement service weapon purchase act that would allow retired officers to purchase their service weapons that would otherwise be destroyed. this bipartisan legislation would prevent waste by allowing agencies to recover the value of these weapons. this bill has been endorsed by multiple organizations that help law enforcement officers and i hope we can advance it this year. i'm also a proud cosponsor of other bipartisan bills that were introduced by senate colleagues. senator peters from michigan and i introduced the strong communities act with a goal of

improving trust between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve. i'm also a cosponsor of the recruit and retain act, led bid senator fischer of nebraska, senator coons of delaware. it aims to alleviate the personnel shortages that are being felt in police departments across the nation and ensures that america's police forces are well-staffed. i hope the senate judiciary committee on which i serve will advance some of these bills later this week and send a strong message that the united states senate supports america's police officers. every day i'm grateful for the service and sacrifice of our law enforcement officers in texas and across the country, and that includes the capitol police that keeps this building and capitol hill safe, protecting not only people who work here but also people who visit here. in honor of national police week, we honor the brave men and

women who protect us. we pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and we commit to doing everything in our power to ensure that they have all the resources they need to keep our people safe. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. for those aswell but we will

start with rudy in sun city california, line for democrats, what's on your mind ? >> what's on my mind this morning is the social security crisis debt that they say we're having. they always want to raise the age limit for working and the only people i see doing that our people sitting in front

of the computers or wearing suits. they don't know anything about busting your back on the outside with 70 to 75 percent of people who work do medium to hard labor type of jobs. so they're going to have to get off this stuff of raising the age limit up to 70 years old. i was in, i'm retired now but i was in basically construction. and i would carry on until i was 62 years old 50 pound bags of cement on myshoulders . so you know. >> host: were you able to retire at 62 ? >> caller: i retired at 65 >> host: and how are you doing in retirement ? >> caller: like everybody else it's a struggle. didn't have particularly no savings so i rely on the

social security. i'm just kind of looking at it as they've got to look at the balancing act and keep their fingers out of the cookie jar of social security . that should help out quite a bit. >> thanks for the callfrom california . dwyer in high rockcalifornia, good morning . >> this is flyer from high rock california, to give you background i've got an answer for the democratic party. i think anybody that's running for the house, the senate, the presidency were just throwing their hat in the ring to be a supreme court judge should have to when they soon as the second they get elected to freeze their assets and don't add anything to it ortake anything away from it . if they don't already get a salary from it from the government and they do that as long as they are in office and as soon as they get out

they can steal all the money they want to as long as they're in those positions, i'm tired of them taking money. >> i wonder your thoughts on the democratic governor of north carolina that the toes ceremony be held in front of the crowd over the weekend coverage, what do you think about it?>> i think it's one of thebest governors we've had in the state in a while . you opened the subject, i'll bring it up. i don't think anybody that's planning to be a legislator that is not a female should be making any choicesfor any woman anywhere . they are not qualified. >> host: governor rory cooper vetoed legislation saturday that would have been nearly all abortions in carolina after 12 weeks passed by a

republican control state legislature and now it's back to the legislature to see if they can overridehis veto . >> this is dave in san antonio, good morning. dave, are you with us? then manny in california, independent, good morning. >> caller: how are you doing? i am just back from cuba. you and i have had an ongoing discussion about my 70th birthday party at the country club so i just wanted to report back that my month in cuba what it was like and wanted to make reference to the huffington post article called manny to her, if your audience can take a look at that about the tour that i give people when they come to visit me in cuba.

>> host: what's life likein cuba from your perspective right now ? >> caller: my perspective is i'm a socialist. i grew up in cuba as a rich kid and i show people all the mansions in cuba and they are just shocked. they're amazed there are so many mentions in cuba and havana where i was born. we i went to the country club . i thought the whole world was like where i grew up everybody had a mansion and it was a real shock to me when i found out it wasn't that way. but i love cuba. i'm one of the 50,000 cuban americans repatriated and i'm able to buy houses in cuba. i bought a house right on the water across the street from the us embassy or $3000.

can you imagine what the house three bedroom house, i completely gutted it and i'm going to air b&b it and my son is going to be there and a couple of weeks,he's a lawyer like i was . and. >> can you fly direct to cuba from the united states right now? >> i fly from san diego, american airlines nonstop. every day there's flights on american airlines and southwest from florida and i encourage your audience to go see cuba. don't believe all the bad news stories in the new york times about you but for the biden administration, go see it for yourselves. take a look at my article in the huffington post. and cuba is 10 times bigger than hawaii, i've been to hawaii and it's 10 times better. it's unbelievably beautiful place. >> that's manny of california in cuba, this is tina in

pennsylvania, an independent. >> caller: good morning. i was going to say something but i just got to ricochet right back to mister manning because i graduated high school in miami in the 1980s. and the people that were coming over on the wraps, they definitely had no money so for him to publicly say he's a socialist, you can buy this that and the other in cuba, a lot of the people in cuba are suffering because of people like him. we don't want that in the united states, this is not a socialist country was builton the constitution . that's just, i'm sorry. that's just blew my mind what he just said because i watched the suffering of the rubber rafts. senior day there was a raft right up on the beach and these people were hungry, they were dehydrated.

they were skin and bones and for him to say that we grow up a rich kid in cuba and everybody had a mansion, perhaps it's his family had a shift to share that money with the country, we wouldn't have had the influx we had an 80s. i very sorry, that is not what i want totalk about but that's just my opinion . >> you want to briefly touch on your other topics? >> my other topic is i'm sick of seeing the arts and the bees. instead of doing all the talking we need some action. our country is dying. it is dying right in frontof our eyes . we got on the terrorist list for goodness sake. we've got to come together as oneamerica . it shouldn't be a i'm a democrat, i'm going to vote one way. vote with your heart, vote with your mind and if you need to pray on it.

don't go for a personality, book policy. we've got to do something or were going to lose our country and i want to say god bless you, unless c-span and hope you have ablessed week . >> on the issue of voting an op-ed in today's three journal. ramaswamy, the candidate for resident. he's making the case for an older voting age in this country. here's what he writes today i urge congress to propose a constitutional amendment that would require young americans to earn the right to vote filling out a civic duty requirement and an amendment that would raise the voting age to 25 except for young adults who filled the service requirement six months in the military first responder roles or pass a civics test administered to naturalized immigrants. we tied civic duty to the privileges of citizenship in many ways. jury duty is compulsory and every is and is required to

register with selective service. the main justification for the amendment which lower the aged 18 was the military draft . that civic duty is a real problem, some democrats versus the voting age to be lowered to 16 noting we already are allowed teenagers to drive vehicles so voting is more than a physical act. it is the expression of a duty we bear as citizens. serving your nation, knowing something about your nation or at least living in your nation for a short time as an adult isn't too much to ask. civic pride won't reappear automatically and reviving it will require boldness. this is diane, good morning. >> caller: how are you. i'm calling about the janet yellen also in the federal reserve and of course

chairman powell. she is absolutely correct. it's going to be devastation, it's going to be a recession. we don't need any other adversarial country. what i want to comment is kevin mccarthy made all this on a news channel and it was just a click from a newspaper saying that he said the president wasn't doing his job. that is so juvenile. if you want to communicate with the president speak with him when you meet with him or in another location, not bad mouthing him from israel when he was there with kevin mccarthy a couple weeks ago in israel and palestine. the other thing is kevin mccarthy had with mitch mcconnell the senior leader,

the major leader of the senate, mcconnell has done a lot. he held up the election for merrick garland for the court and that is why all things are being backed up in the courts so he's got someone on his arm holding him up. mccarthy can do a lot better if he wants california to live in and do represent the needs to stand up for all the taxpayers in the nation. >> that's diane in california. it's just a: 45 on east coast . the house is coming in at noon today for morning our 2 pm for legislative business and then 3 pm for their legislative business as well. in about five or 10 minutes this morning we will get an

update on the border joined by lauren grahn of the el paso times for a look at the latest on the border in the wake of title 42 coming to an end but until then it's our open forum and any political issue you want to talk about the phone line here to do so. democrats 202-748-8000, republicans 202 748 8001. this is ludwig in california, independent, good morning. >> good morning. first i have a couple of questions because i have no way of looking this up. marjorie taylor green when she first got into office here in the white house, not even the white house but she was married or divorced and she remarried and then she became a citizen and now it

would be like maybe six years ago? where did she come from? >> host: fact checking on the fly on live tv is hard to do and i'm not sure about her past. we can look it up but what's on your mind, what public policy issue is in your mind ? >> caller: let's see. public issue. oh gosh. now i don't even know what to ask. i'll have to wait for another time but thank you anyway. >> host: this is frank in delaware, good morning . >> i'm calling in reference tothe negotiations going on with the budget and various things . and you know these democrats, all they want to do is spend money.

they want to spend your money . and the bottom line is republicans are trying to save us here on a people, you've got to understand these democrats they can't run nothing. look at all the cities everything they run is no good. that's all i have to say. >> this is healthy in nebraska, democrats . >> good morning. i'd like to say that you do both parties. for coming on to this program and for you also carry this program in an open forum to express views from both sides the first thing i like to say is i made a quick comment. that is what was on prior to the i would say to you that in the beginning in the 80s the republican party started to do these huge tax breaks.

our deficit was about below $2 trillion. and in each and every republican since then there has been these huge credit card users if you would of cash withdrawal to yield to the super wealthy and tax breaks. i get it the rich man helped build. i would reach out to every person that is muchmuch more wealthier i , please let some jobs but my question is or my statement i should say is this: we have bipartisan money that needs to be used. for the house to try to have just a bill come out that they would not negotiate to

have a bipartisan bill to go before the president, to go to the senate and then on for our bills. so i would say let's have a bipartisan bill first go back to the house, then presented and i'm sure both parties in the senate and in the house would be to come together with the president to come together with something that we don't default. >> that's healthy in nebraska . this is the headline from today's washington post. homeland security secretary alejandro mayor chris defending president by and say border crossings are tapering. the secretary edc this week yesterday to talk about the experience of border control in the wake of title 14 and

last week. this is some of what hehad to say . >> the past two days of border patrol has seen approximately 50 percent drop in the number of people and counter our southern border as compared to the numbers earlier this week before title 40 2k2 and on thursday john, we've been preparing for this transition or months and months. and we've been executing on our plan accordingly. and our plan is very straightforward. there is a safe, lawful and worldly way to reach the united states. seek matter in relief. that is through the lawful pathways have expanded under president biden's leadership. then there is a dangerous way to arrive at our southern border in the hands of ruthless smugglers. we have to incentivize the

use of the lawful pathways and distant advice placing people's lives in the hands of smugglers and we are doing that. >> so you said you're going to impose fees on those who cross the border illegally. how are you doing ithappening yet ? >> it certainly is as a matter of fact we remove thousands of people who have arrived at our southern border. we are enforcing our traditional immigration enforcement authorities under title eight of the united states code also issued pool that provides that if one arrives the southern border without either accessing the lawful pathways we made available to them or seeking relief in one of the countries through which they have traveled and they will have higher threshold to the to make a successful asylum. >> when you said you're going to be penalized, a five-year

band from any apply for asylum again. they could face criminal prosecution. are we seeing that yet? have you imposed any of these your hands yet? you started any criminal prosecution? >> the sequence is as follows we've already knew thousands of them. if they try again, then they are met with the five-year and potential rental prosecution. >> for more on the border of post title 42 world were joined by laura of the el paso times teaching were there here this morning to you. >> the morning. >> what does title 42 el paso look like they are easy line in crossings in your area mark.

>> caller: what secretary mayorkas is saying is what we are seeing in el paso. we saw 42 percent increase before title 4200 and things have been quiet in el paso, around 1000 apprehensions per day. that's the number that the border security and ngo apparatus here can assemble anytime there's a major shift in border policy you see migrants take their time to react. what they knew about title 42 : was that there was going to be a quick expulsion at the very worst. now with title eight and we also heard secretary mayorkas mention grange of consequences were crossing

step two is to strike at heart of the cartels $13 billion criminal enterprise. since president biden took office, human trafficking has become even more pervasive at the southern border. the state department estimates that the cartels move as many as 17,500 people across the border every year. one in three is a child. we also know that the cartels overwhelming target young girls

and sell them into sex slavery, and with the end of title 42, these criminal abusers will feel particularly emboldened to expand their business. i want you to think about those numbers. human trafficking has become a $13 billion business. go back to 2019, it was a $500 million a year business. ask yourself, what has changed in that time? it is an administration with very lax or no border policy. their policy is, open it up, so that we, the taxpayers, finish the cartels' job, and it is a humanitarian crisis because women and girls, 90% of which make this journey, are being sexually assaulted. so i would ask my colleagues,

are you okay with that? are you okay with the cartels making this money? are you okay with them moving these individuals and selling these women and girls into sex slavery? now, the save girls act, which i introduced this year, senator klobuchar has joined me on this. it establishes a $50 million grant program to put critical resources into the hands of state and local officials and nonprofits so they can fight the smuggling and trafficking of girls across the border and into the communities. this persistent abuse of young women will only worsen with title 42 gone. there's no reason why this body should not immediately pass this bill. and help to protect these women

and children that are making this journey. as we speak, cartels are -- are exploiting congress's action. the president, he's asleep at the wheel, his borders are missing in action and they are evading requests about information about what precisely they have been doing with taxpayer time and money for the last few years. we won't be able to fix this overnight, but we have to start somewhere. we need to make remain in mexico the law of the land and pass the save girls act and give law enforcement the tools they need to secure the border before we lose complete and total control of it. madam president, i ask that the remainder of my remarks be placed separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. over the past few weeks, i've had many conversations with

tennessee business owners about their concerns with the pillar two tax regime. these proposed rules started to take shape under the trump administration and were intended to streamline the international tax system. well, that has all run-off the rails after the biden administration started to get involved in these negotiations. and the progress that had been made suffered the same fate as many policies that have helped america rebound from the recession that took place in 2009. once again the biden administration has rubber stamped a deal that will paint a target on the backs of american companies and allow others to subsidize their own economies with american tax dollars.

indeed, when you look at this, pillar two will force multinational companies making more than $800 million in revenue to pay at least a 15% effective tax rate on income earned in every country where they operate including their home base. if a company isn't paying at least 15% at home, other countries would be allowed to impose an additional tax on their domestic income using the undertaxed profits rule or its referred to as ul -- utpr. i want you to think about this. what the biden administration has signed up for is going to be other countries that say oh, you're not paying enough tax,

american business. so you're going to have to pay tax over here and over here and over here. it becomes a money grab on u.s. businesses. now, this undertaxed profits rule, doesn't that just sound odd? your profits are undertaxed. undertaxed. this was designed so they can enforce what is called the global minimum tax, and i'm sure that in the coming month, we'll hear more about this scheme and what it's actually going to do but tennesseans living and working in the real world have highlighted with me a couple of different problems that they say first. this plan undermines multiple congressionally-approved bipartisan tax treaties that

were negotiated to help american companies be more competitive. if we allow this deal to go forward, we will hurt businesses and severely limit our own ability to respond to a recession or bolster our supply chains. so what they are doing, what the biden administration is doing is saying all right, all of you companies and all these other countries out here, come on. this is your chance to tell u.s. companies how you think they ought to run their business. and they're going to have to pay you. does that sound like something that is a pro-america economics policy? of course not. why would anybody at the department of commerce or anyone

in this administration want to make life harder and more unfair for u.s. companies that are fighting supply-chain issues, that are struggling every day to keep people employed and to raise their wages? you know, it's kind of like betting against yourself. but oh no, they do it. that's their plan. second problem is even more egregious. by design these new rules will force the u.s. into a one-size-fits-all tax regime we have repeatedly rejected, and it will make american companies the primary target of yet another punishing mandate. this country leads the world in

job creation and growth, specifically because we embrace tax incentives and other pro-business policies. but pillar two will -- by taking advantage of pro-growth incentives and no one will fair worse than the united states. here is the chart. to make it easy for everyone to understand. madam president, i invite my colleagues to take a good look at this. this is what the global minimum tax scheme will do to u.s. companies. this is what pillar two and the undertaxed profits rule will do to employers in your state, in everyone's state. this is what is going to happen. take a look at this. global minimum tax.

39.6% of that is coming from companies that are here. they're in every one of our states, every single one. 39.6% of this is coming from u.s. companies. is that fair? is that equal? well, let's look at the numbers from the imf. let's look at what they're saying about that. now, when you look at global gdp, the u.s. portion of that is 24% which means that this rule would impose a massively disproportionate tax burden on american companies. remember we're at 39.6% for american companies. well, the china slice, it's this little gray slice down here, it

contributed 17.9% of the gdp but they're only going to account for 7.6% of the income targeted by the utpr. france, germany, other major countries would also account for much less compared to their share of the gdp. this rule punishes growth and success which is bad for investment. it is bad for people that depend on these countries. it is companies. it is bad for our citizens and their paycheck. and it is a way to redistribute the wealth of the united states to other countries by constructing this. i think this is -- this is a really bad deal. now, it also benefits our adversaries. the chinese communist party, they are jumping for joy over

these things because beijing added some language to pillar two that exempts state-owned companies. the oecd guidelines define this in the simplest terms, as an enterprise under some manner of state control. under some manner of state control that offers goods or services for profit in the same manner a private operator would. well, madam president, under this definition, what enterprise in china isn't state owned? if this seems like a win for communism, it's because it is. under the proposed rule, the ccp, which has a stake in all these companies in china -- that's how you do business -- they would be able to subsidize their own economy with foreign tax dollars while avoiding the additional tax burden.

and, of course, we know what the ccp is doing with their profits that they're making. they're building up their military. they're bullying taiwan, philippines, the island nations, putting 7% of their gdp in building up their military because they want to dominate us. well, business owners in tennessee have been keeping an eye on these rules, and i haven't found anybody that thinks this thing is a good idea. red tape alone will dissuade businesses from investing here because the cost of compliance will not be worth the potential profit. this, of course, presents a problem because right now tennessee is benefiting tremendously from direct foreign investment. you have -- here's a great example. s.k. inch know visions partnership with ford motor company at the blue oval city

plant in heywood county, it's bringing thousands of jobs, millions of dollars of investment to west tennessee. and blue oval is already mired in red tape and supply chain issues courtesy of this administration. if you allow pillar two to take hold and penalize these investments, ford and s.k. innovation and tennessee workers will suffer. so will the hundreds of suppliers, the small businesses, the skilled workers who are depending on these jobs to help a lot of these small businesses grow. we'll see the cracks spread to the municipalities that are tackling the issues of expanding utilities, roads, and infrastructure, local housing developers will take a hit. many of these small businesses and businesses that were really planning to flourish will fail.

i find it disturbing that this administration will waste time spreading false claims about their legendary job creation skills while they write rules that are undermining the ability to do business. i know that my colleagues on each side of the aisle are flabbergasted by this because we all said as much during last week's finance committee hearing. this country is on the verge of another economic disaster because this administration refuses to stand up for american companies. homegrown companies. many of them started small and they have grown. instead of fighting for counties like heywood county, tennessee, the white house is serving up heywood county's taxpayers on a silver platter.

why? redistribute the wealth. look at who's going to pay instead of fostering a competitive playing field, they are punishing businesses because they are successful. redistribute the wealth. look at this patch art. take it in. all this has done is show the american people that they are not the biden administration's priorities. it is clear. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to eight minutes prior to the roll call votes.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. young: corporal marian wayne saucerman, there he is. he graduated from dugger high school in indiana in 1943. two days later, he joined the united states marine corps. now, this is a decision he made after he listened to reports of the attack on pearl harbor over the family radio in 1941. corporal saucerman was ready to fight and fight he did with great valor. in a year he went from rural western indiana to the volcanic beaches of here jeem pa -- ear jeem pa.

he was part of a platoon, fourth marine division. as he and other marines approached the shore, the battle was so fierce, the marines could barely make out the smoke shrouded island. days after landing corporal saucerman and his 30-man platoon reached the front lines. only ten returned. while corporal saucerman did not raise the stars and stripes on mt. say sarabacci, he could sees waving high from his position on the shoreline. that american flag wouldn't have flown over the island had corporal saucerman and brother marines had not been fighting there for it. weeks later he led an operation to flush out japanese riflemen that were hidden deep in caves. wayne saucerman was hit three times by enemy fire, a bullet to

the right hand and two more in the left leg, one of which he carried the rest of his life. the purple heart was corporal saucerman's award for his bravery. the bullet in his leg was a lifelong reminder of his service to his country. those sacrifices of those marines and sailors, men like wayne saucerman saved the lives of 24,000 american air crewmen from a perilous fate in the waters of the pacific and they changed the tide of world war ii. and then they came home. they raised families. they built communities. they continued to make history. in fact, for 35 years, corporal

saucerman worked at orisman transmission in indianapolis, helping to build machines that took americans across highways, into the air, and to the moon. madam president, corporal saucerman passed away on may 2. he was age 97. and i rise today to give tribute to a life well lived in both horrific service to his -- in both heroic service to his country and dedicated service back home. a man who had great love for his family and friends and a who is aer who was greatly loved. -- and a hoosier who was greatly loved t the ranges of our world war veterans grow thinner every day. they have saved is civilization by simply doing their duty. and in what time we have with what power each of us has, let us never forget or cease to

thank these heroic veterans for doing their part. semper fidelis. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 40, 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.

mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. each year, during police week, we honor the law enforcement officials who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their communities and to our state and to our country. this year, we'll add the names of five ohioans to the national law enforcement memorial, all who laid their lives down last year. deputy sheriff daniel kin. deputy sheriff matthew euene yates. police officer dominick francis. agent johndale staylook, deputy sheriff tarrant bateman -- terrence bateman. we know of one more name to be added next year, officer timothy james unwin iii of the springfield township police department. each is a tragedy for the family, for a community, for their fellow officers.

these ohioans' lives are a reminder of the ideals we should strive for. we need officers who are true if public servants in the best sense of the words, people who give themselves to their communities. these ohioans gave so much. in their memory, i want to reminisce for a moment about each of them and tell my colleagues why this is so important and who these public servants were. deputy sheriff daniel j. kin was a devoted husband and father to two young children. he was known for his easygoing permit, and being a colleague and friend everyone could count on. he was a san dunky native and -- san dusky native. he gave his life last december while serving as deputy sheriff at the wyandotte county sheriff's office. matthew euene yatesed 15 years as a member of the special

operations team. he mentored younger deputies and children in their communities. our thoughts are with his wife, daughter, stepsons and father who also served in the clark county sheriff's office, a long history of public service in that family. police officer dominick francis grew up in northwest ohio, returned home to join the bluffton police department after playing football at the university of finley and served at the finley police department in the hancock county sheriff's office. officer francis received the officer of the year award twice, multiple letters of commendation, the chief's leadership award and bluffton police department lifesaving award. he was honored as top cop and earned the ohio ems star of life multiple times. he loves spending time with his wife and two children in indian lake and served in law enforcement 19 years.

in honor of his memory, abrendad the officer dominic memorial highway. agent john dale stay is -- stayrook worked with medina county drug task force and the medway drug enforcement aifnlg. he enjoyed woodworking and spending time with nature with family and friends. in february of 2022 he passed away after contracting covid-19 in the line of duty. deputy sheriff terrence nicholas baitman was a cleveland native and often a cleveland sports fan who served for 25 years. deputy sheriff baitman was respected and adored in his community. he loved cooking for family and friends. had i wife, his -- his wife,

five daughters, sons and two brothers. we can't begin to repay the debt we owe these officers and their families. we can work to protect more officers in the communities that they swear an oath to serve. that's why i'm working with colleagues on both parties with legislation to support officers as they do their jobs. i'm joined by senator cotton to reintroduce our protecting first responders from secondary exposure act to protect first responders when they encounter dangerous substances like fentanyl on the job and introduce the providing officers with electronic resources act to help state and local law enforcement organizations secure high-tech portable screening devices to detect fentanyl, similar equipment and detection devices that our men and women serving us at the border have. our law enforcement officers are on the frontlines dealing with the addiction crisis. it's why i've worked with

members of both parties on a plan to target the illicit fentanyl supply chain from the chemical suppliers in china to the cartelses at that transport the drugs in mexico. i'm pleased the presiding officer today is someone who has great expertise with that, representing a state, new mexico, in that part of the world. i'll keep fighting to make sure police officers can retire with dignity. my bipartisan social security fairness act will ensure social security benefits will be there when officers retire from a life of dedicated service, officers that pay into the state retirement system but also pay into social security. i'll work to ensure that first responders have the support they need to cope with the stresses of respond to go crisis situations. this police week lets offer law enforcement officials and public servants more than empty words. let's honor the memory of these men and women who laid down their lives in services of our

communities by getting fellow officers the tools and training they need to do their job and to build trust with the communities they're sworn to protect. i yield the floor.

crash the economy, increased costs, kill jobs. who would want that? that is what awaits american families on the other side if no action is taken. according to experts, a default would almost certainly plunge the united states into another recession. shrinking gdp growth by an alarming 6% two. the first ever default would make life's most important expenses far more costly. mortgages, car payments, student loans, small business loans all would skyrocket.

not just up half a point they would go up a lot. the value of retirement accounts, which americans spend their whole lives every two weeks every month, every six months putting that money into they would have a decent retirement with nosedive, nosedive. and of course if the united states default in a few weeks for the first time ever, experts warn as many as 8.3 million jobs it would be a catastrophe no one should play with that no one should hold it hostage. saying unless you do this we will default. the consequences of default are just awful. americans have been over the last couple of years of trying to recover from record employment we saw during covid. americans are coming back. i spoke to a whole of college graduations this weekend. and the students had been through covid, had missed some

times a year of school a year end a half or six months. they were bouncing back raring to go. giving faith in the future of the country. but if default were to hit them, the rest of the country, while. that would be awful. so, for all of these reasons and many more i insisted last week along with president biden along with leader jeffries default be off the table. speaker mccarthy must commit. not saying unless you do this or that, we will default for the consequences of default are too terrible. and defaulting would mean we would force americans as we recuperate from the pain of coverage to go through what might be in greater opinion in a few short years after covid. that alone should push leaders on both sides to agree, default is not an option under any

scenario. for decades democrats, republicans have worked at our differences about spending and revenue to the annual budget process. that process began earlier this year in the present release his budget proposal. this week of both sides are continuing to hold parallel discussions about the budget. but we should do with revenues. what we should do spending. as congress does every year. these conversations are going on right now among the four leaders of the president's representatives, as i speak. i'm glad these conversations are continuing in a very, very serious way. the president, leader jeffries, myself, we welcome a bipartisan debate about our nation's fiscal future. we have made a claim for our republican colleagues that default is not an option. the classes are damaging the beer must, must be taken off the table. now on military hold,

mr. president on another topic i cannot believe i must address yet again here on the senate floor is that of military holds. over the past through months single-handedly hindered our national security by blocking hundreds of critical military appointments. those holds are hamstringing our military coding to former secretary of defense of both parties. this blanket hold is harming military readiness and risk damaging united states national security. but last week the sender's conduct, as bad as it has been by holding up these hundreds of general offices whose lives are in limbo even though they've given decades of service to our country. but we depend on for a national defense, he is holding them up. but the senator went even beyond that. in an interview over the rater,

senator it was asked if white supremacist should be allowed in the military to which he, a member of the armed services committee responded by saying quote well, they called him that, i called them americans. it's hard to believe he really said it but check the record he did. revolting, revolting down to the last word. the senator from alabama's words were revolting to so many across this country. a few days later when asked to qualify his views on the matter was given a chance to make up for this awful mistake that will be able to lock on his record forever, senator then responded with a quote what is a white nationalist? as if it is some great mystery. what is a white nationalist? are you kidding me? are you kidding me senator let me get my colleague a hint on

how to define a white nationalist. a man who over a year ago murdered 10 people at a supermarket in buffalo seeking to murder black people is a white nationalist with the insurrection wave confederate flags halls of the capitol on january 6, many of them were quite nationalist and sadly some of those insurrectionist had military background. again, what is a white nationalist? about the parade of belligerents that carried torts to the screeches of charlottesville screaming jews will not replace us. those were white nationalist. and then he followed up by saying, i could not believe he said this. i look at a white nationalist as a trumpet republican, really? is happening in america? leader, could not allow a member of his conference make a mockery

of the military and the senate the way senator turberville has done. if any of my republican colleagues care whatsoever about the well-being of our military, they will finance the senator's words urge him to drop his holds. now. committee, i'm pleased to be joining my colleagues on the senate floor today to discuss the importance of medicaid to american families. right now republicans in the house of representatives are pushing a scheme that threatens medicaid coverage for over 20 million americans. over the course of the evening, my colleagues on the senate finance committee and i will show why this is a bad deal. democrats in the senate won't stand for it and i will send it over to senator casey for his remarks and then we will have others coming from the finance committee and then i'll rap wrap it up. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania.

mr. casey: i thank senator wyden for defending medicaid. over and over again, chairman wyden has led us to ensure that we don't provide the kind of cuts that have been proposed in this debate about the next steps on ensuring that america doesn't default. and there's no question that, not just people on both sides of the aisle, but the american people want us to ensure that we do not default. the consequences of default, i won't itemize them, i think americans are familiar of them, but the consequences of default, in a word, would be catastrophic for every family, for every community in the country and the consequences are it too numerous to cite for tonight's purposes. but here's the problem. even as most americans want to

take default off the table, most members of congress do, there's still some members of the house, house republicans, that want to keep default on the table or in order to -- in order to agree with the consensus, their pathway to avoiding default is to cut and cut and cut and decimate programs that are important to vulnerable americans. they would cut tens of billions, for example, from the supplemental nutrition assistance program and the tanif program and the children's health insurance program. tens of billions just in those programs alone, and then as chairman wyden made reference to, medicaid. the proposed cuts by house republicans would devastate so many americans who rely upon medicaid. children, seniors, people with

disabilities. it would also at the same time, not just be cuts of millions or tens of millions, it would be a $100 billion cut to medicaid over ten years. that's the proposal. that's what we're supposed to accept as the only pathway -- the only pathway to avoiding default. everyone knows that's a lie. everyone knows that that is throwing sands in the eyes of the people so they can't see the truth right in front of them. we must reject any bill that will increase poverty and take away health care from americans. what is medicaid? i think we found out a lot more about what that program means to so many americans over the last ten years when there are proposals over and over again to cut it by $10 billion a year or

$20 billion a year or $50 billion a year by house republicans over and over again. medicaid tells us who we are as a people, as a country. it also tells us whom -- whom we value. we value our children, whether they live in rural areas or small towns or in cities or suburban communities. we value those children, and that's what medicaid is all about, making sure those children have health care. we value people with disabilities. we say to ourselves, a as a people, we -- as a people, we have to help folks with disabilitieses so they can have a good life. medicaid helps children with disabilities. we found that out in -- in a very real way when we were debating the proposal, right here on the senate floor, in the summer of 2017, when some said

that we should give rid of the patient protection and affordable care act, a consequence of that, of course, was to devastate children on medicaid who have disabilities. thirdly, of course, medicaid tells us who we are because it protects seniors. it provides health care for seniors. it allows seniors to have long-term care. now, the same crowd, members of congress, who are proposing cutting medicaid by $100 billion over the ten years, that's the same crowd that -- that voted on a tax bill in 2017, right around christmas time in december of 2017. they voted and passed a tax bill that gave away to wealthy americans and big corporations. now, they didn't have any con pungs then about revenue. they said, we've got plenty of revenue, so we will cut taxes for wealthy people and big

corporations. now they come to us and say, we need to make cuts and the cuts that go to the moss vulnerable many here's what -- most vulnerable. medicaid makes it possible for one-third of all women in the united states of america to receive consistent, comprehensive prenatal care to increase the likelihood of having a healthy baby at full term. the republican house bill puts pregnant women at risk of losing prenatal care. here's what it means for pennsylvania families, women and their children, about 43,700 births in the state of pennsylvania each year are paid for by medicaid covered by the medicaid program. so that's -- that's one-third of -- of pennsylvania's or americans who happen to be women who are -- who are pregnant.

second, medicaid provides health care and services for about half, about 45%, of all the adults in the country with disabilities. that's ten million people in in america that are benefited by the medicaid program. the house republican bill would expand the waiting list for seniors and people with disabilities. that's what they would do. make that wit waiting list -- make that waiting list, which is too long, make it longer. third, medicaid pays for two-thirds of long-term care for older adults who need nursing homes or home care services. the republican house bill would cut two-thirds of the money for those who need support. in pennsylvania, it means 63% of nursing home residents use medicaid as their primary payer.

they couldn't get into a nursing home absent the medicaid program, but house republicans want to cut that program. in our state nearly 3.7 million people rely on either the medicaid program or the children's health insurance programming -- 3.7 million pennsylvanians. and, yet, some -- even some members of the pennsylvania delegation in the house want to cut the medicaid program. the republican bill passed by the house would put a million pennsylvanians at risk of losing medicaid immediately -- one million pennsylvanians. so let's take default 0 off the table. yes -- default off the table. yes, take it off the table and take off the table cuts to medicaid, cuts to the snap program, the cuts to assistance to need iy -- to needy families

programs. these programs, and especially for purposes of tonight's focus on medicaid, tells us who we are as a country and whom we value. i think we can do better than what's been proposed on the house side. we can avoid default and make sure we are meeting our obligations, not just to the nation, but meeting our obligations to our families, the most vulnerable families in our commonwealth and in our country. thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor. wyden wind mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: next we recognize our distinguished colleague from massachusetts. i just want to say senator casey has made, as is usually the case, an eloquent argument that preventing default and standing up for the most vulnerable people, those two are not mutually exclusive. you can do both and senator casey's arguments, as is usually

the case, in our senate finance committee, really strikes home for this senator. i thank him for day in and day out talking common sense and making it clear that default is unacceptable and harming so many vulnerable americans in pennsylvania, oregon, massachusetts, and elsewhere is also unacceptable and i thank my friend. we have another passionate advocate for people who are vulnerable from the senate finance committee, our friend from massachusetts, senator warren. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. i want to say a very special thank you to chairman wyden for bringing us here tonight to talk about the consequences of default. our whole nation needs to tune in and pay attention to this. because this is literally about the future of our country. kevin mccarthy and house republicans are holding america's economy hostage. even worse, republicans are putting america's good name around the world and america's

promise that we pay our debts hostage. instead of passing an increase in the debt ceiling, republicans have put forward a set of incredibly damaging proposals that would hurt families around the country. proposals that are so unpopular that the only way that republicans could possibly pass these proposals is to threaten to derail the entire economy if they don't get their way. now, let's be clear. kevin mccarthy is the only one who will not take default off the table. joe biden has said no default. chuck schumer has said no default. representative jefferies said no default, even mitch mcconnell has said no default. but kevin mccarthy is still driving this nation toward default. now, every aspect of the house

republican proposal is deeply harmful, but i'm here today to talk about three of the most wrongheaded provisions in their plan. the threat to take away health coverage for more than 21 million americans, the threat to take away food assistance from one million people struggling with hunger, and the threat to take away income assistance for our poorest families. republicans' assault and medicaid, snap and tanf is no surprise. for years, republicans have worked to undermine these programs which protect the most vulnerable americans. people enrolled in these programs are already walking a tightrope to make ebdz meet -- ends meet, and now republicans want to use an old trick to make it even harder by trapping applicants in a maze of

burdensome and uns in paperwork. -- unnecessary paperwork. republicans call these work requirements. i call them unworkable requirements. we need to call out these proposals for w roposals for w d to survive. the unspoken republican mantra is let them get sick, let them starve, and let them live on the streets with no hope. let's be clear -- the republican demands are pure politics, not a serious solution to a serious problem. currently, over 90% of people on medicaid are either employed, in school, living with a disability, or debilitating illness, or caring for a baby or a disabled loved one. about three in four people receiving food assistance and 60% to 80% of parents receiving

income assistance were employed within a year of being in the program. in fact, states that have expanded their medicaid programs report not only better health outcomes and financial stability for people enrolled in the program, but also higher employment numbers. that's higher, not lower, rates of employment. when people can just get a little help. in fact, when the congressional budget office studied the republican medicaid proposal, they found it would have, and i quote, no change in employment or hours worked by medicaid recipients. so let's not kid ourselves -- this republican plan is not about work. it is about weaponizing red tape to strip health care and other critical assistance from tens of millions of americans.

but you don't have to take my word for it. in arkansas, the only state that has implemented medicaid work requirements, one in four adults who were subject to these rules lost their health coverage, despite the fact that 95% of all enrollees were already working or qualified for an exemption. why? how could this happen? it happened because the reporting requirements were so burdensome, so difficult to navigate, that people, particularly people with disabilities and people with chronic illnesses couldn't run through the maze. that meant that more people in arkansas were forced to ration medication, more had to delay medical care, and more had to take on medical debt. for the cherry on the top?

there is no evidence, none, that the arkansas policy increased the rate of employment. which makes sense. if you're not healthy, how are you supposed to work? now, republicans have been down this road with snap and with tanf as well. indeed, this is where they perfected the red-tape scam. now the republicans are demanding expansions to existing work requirements in snap, requirements that we already know kick people out of the program without having any impact on employment. after republicans implemented strict work requirements on tanf families, program participation dropped by nearly 20% in just three years. studies show that this red tape increased barriers to employment and led to poorer health

outcomes, especially for black and brown families. this latest republican proposal makes the maze of work requirements even more complex. but you know, there is one group that profits from making the eligibility maze more complex -- private contractors. private contractors that make their profits by kicking recipients out of the programs or otherwise trapping them in a cycle of poverty. maximus, for example, has earned $1.7 billion in the last decade administering red tape for more than half the states, but it has been caught shoving poor americans into unsustainable, poverty-level jobs, or even totally unpaid work, and then maximus gets paid when these

workers cycle repeatedly, on and off, on and off welfare. by kicking millions of americans off medicaid, snap, and tanf, the republican red-tape scam claims to save $120 billion. but keep in mind, the states will be the ones that will be forced to administer all of the red tape, and pay the cost for that. congressional republicans are ready to drive our economy off a cliff. and why? to fulfill their dream of erasing america's safety net. kevin mccarthy is the only one who won't take default off the table. democrats, including president biden, have been clear -- these dangerous proposals are not going anywhere. we will not create a red-tape

maze that has been a complete failure every single time it has been tried. it is long past time for republicans to stop playing games and to raise the debt ceiling. mr. president, i yield back. mr. wyden: before she leaves, i want to thank my colleague for an eloquent statement that really lays this case out. i'm going to try to pick up now on where you have left it. i thank you for it. these compelling arguments from the senators from pennsylvania and massachusetts show the importance, mr. president, of medicaid to all of us on our side. i'm just going to wrap up by laying out three key flaws in the house republican proposal to cut medicaid. first, most americans with health coverage through medicaid

are already working, if they are able. mr. president, second, the house republican plan to cut medicaid is going to put millions of americans at risk, including seniors in nursing homes, and i'm going to describe a little bit later how that happens. and third, the track record laid out by senator warren shows working requirements have been a bureaucratic nightmare for americans. it is hard, senator warren, to figure out how the so-called small-government republicans have become so fond of bureaucracy and red tape. here's why, mr. president, house republicans want to slash medicaid by billions -- they say it's about work. it's really about securing an ideological trophy on the evidence-free proposition that

americans near the poverty line are actively choosing to stay there, instead of working. so what has this work-reporting requirement really been about? it's been about ripping away health coverage from americans who republicans have judged to be unworthy. don't take it from me. an analysis from the kiser family foundation paints a clear picture of who is going to be at risk of losing coverage. as of 2021, there are 25 million adults age 19 to 64 who are enrolled in medicaid, 43% are working full time, 18% are working part time. i'll stop right there and note that is equal, mr. president, to the national labor force participation rate of 61%. now, who are the remainder with medicaid coverage, who aren't actively working? 13% are caregiving for a child

or relative. 11% are unable to work due to illness or disability. 6% are attending school. the remaining 9%, about two million americans, aren't working because they're retired or unable to work. here's the catch -- under the house republican scheme, the majority of these americans would be forced to report to the states whether they're working and how much each and every month, under the threat of losing their health insurance. my republican colleagues are fond of sharing their small-government bona fides, but to me that sounds like a lot of bureaucratic red tape. what's worse, the congressional budget office found an analysis just last year that these work requirements we're talking about do not increase employment. mr. president, now i'm going to explain how this ill-conceived proposal is going to hurt more americans than those subject to work requirements. the house republican bill cuts

medicaid by over $100 billion. that comes from one source -- americans getting kicked off medicaid. the only way for americans to retain medicaid coverage would be for states to pick up the whole bill. that means you're just shifting the federal share of medicaid on to states that don't want to saddle their health programs with more bureaucracy, and bureaucracy that's never been shown to increase employment. shifting medicaid costs to states has real consequences. this is not some kind of abstract theory. when the federal government reduces how much it contributes to a state's medicaid program, the state has to make up the difference. that means states face tough choices about which americans will have health coverage and whether hospitals and nursing homes are going to face funding cuts to threaten their ability to stay open.

doctors could see their pay cut. state options like a full year of postpartum care, which congress created on a bipartisan basis, something which has been of special importance to the president of the senate, would be is subject to cancelation. these cuts would jeopardize parents or spouses' access to home care, which allows people with disabilities and the elderly to receive care in their homes instead of moving into an institution. unfortunately, and i'll close with this, mr. president, there are real-world examples to illustrate what happens when a state adopts counterproductive bureaucratic requirements. during the trump administration, federal health agencies allowed arkansas to conduct this work-reporting experiment. within the first year, 18,000 people lost medicaid coverage, about a quarter of those subject to work reporting.

a year later, nearly 90% of those who lost coverage had not reenrolled. those who were enrolled in the arkansas works, as it was titled, program, painted a very bleak picture. reporting their work was all kinds of red tape. the website was down nights and weekends, supposedly for maintenance. plagued by errors, difficult to access on mobile devices, calling the help line resulted in an endless parade of robotic questions and dead ends. these are some of the hoops that these bureaucratic requirements designed really to deprive americans of health coverage. keep in mind that these are families that walk an economic tightrope, every week, balancing food against housing, housing against transportation, many don't have reliable access to the internet or cell phone. especially true in rural areas.

it's no secret that affordable health coverage is critical to staying healthy and financially stable. if you need medical treatment, but you can't afford it, getting and keeping work is going to be that much harder. that's why this policy envisioned in the house is upside down and cruel. it slams the door and throws away the key on americans trying to get back on their feet. the reality is that having medicaid health coverage supports americans' ability to join the workforce. it doesn't deter them from working. it's not just medicaid the house republicans want to come after. my colleagues talked about food assistance, like snap. you talk about food assistance, a real lifeline to people staying healthy. mr. president, even in the early months of this congress, i want to say tonight that it is

possible to find lots of room for bipartisan agreement on health care. right now, i'm working closely with my partner on the senate finance committee, my colleague from idaho, senator crapo, to take on the drug middle men, known as the pharmacy benefit managers. i am confident that we can find common ground and we will be on the senate floor with this idea to make a positive bipartisan change for american families. everybody who is paying attention to this. not a big secret that there are other ways to save taxpayer dollars. last week, the senate finance committee dug into the question of how the big pharma companies generate their sales, almost all of them in the united states and then for purposes of paying taxes race overseas for low rates and hiding their profits. i'll close by way of saying

cutting vulnerable people like i think is going to happen with all of this back and forth in states trying to figure out how to pay their bills, it's going to hurt nursing home patients, what this is all about is the house is going to create an entire new level of bureaucracy and paperwork all in the name of taking away health coverage for more americans. this is not a proposition that colleagues on this side of the aisle are going to support. i want it understood as we wrap up, as chairman of the senate finance committee, i'm going to work with my colleagues on our committee and throughout this side of the chamber to fight policies, fight these policies that come after medicaid. we will fight them every state of the way, every step of the way because they are wrong, wrong, wrong. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: you're back. i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider

calendar 175. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, jeremy c. daniel of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion yo, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 175, jeremy c. daniel of illinois, to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois, signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 177. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, darrel james papillion of louisiana to be united states district judge for the eastern district of louisiana. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 1717, darrel james papillion of louisiana to be united states district judge for the eastern district of louisiana, signed by 19 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 20. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the jies do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. nancy g. abudu to be circuit judge for the 11th circuit. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. mr. schumer: we --. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of, do hereby move to bring debate to a close signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: 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. schumer: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 2, an act to secure the borders of the united states and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. schumer: mr. president, finally --. the presiding officer: the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. schumer: mr. president, finally i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, may 16, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of

proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day and morning business be closed, following the conclusion of morning business the senate proceed to the consideration of h.j. res. 42 received from the house. further the senate received from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for caucus meetings. at 2:30 pk -- p.m. the senate vote on the passage of the joint resolution. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> tuesday morning, lit koenen congress reporter and reporter talk withs the latest on the federal debt limit debate and the limit over raising the debt ceiling and border policy with georgia republican congressman buddy carter and henry cue a and

live tuesday morning on cspan and cspan now, the free mobile app and join with the facebook comments, texas messages and tweets. >> tuesday morning, former bank officials from silicon valley bank and signature bank testify on recent failures. watch live before the senate banking committee beginning at 10 eastern on cspan3. the free mobile video app or online at cspan.org.