[applause]. [applause] >> well, let's give one last round of -- big round of applause for the recipients. [applause] >> the senate is about to gavel in for the day. lawmakers are continuing to work on more of president biden's judicial nominations and will vote later today on the confirmation of a u.s. court of appeals judge for the 11th circuit. if confirmed the first black woman to serve on that court. take you live now to the floor of the senate here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, our help and strength,

we bow in awe and reverence before you. you are the mighty fortress, in whom we find refuge. you do for us more than we can ask or imagine. lord, strengthen our senators for today's journey. in all the changing scenes of their lives, help them to bear in mind that you will empower them to meet every challenge. give to them the abiding awareness that nothing can disturb their peace if they put their trust in you. may our senators live in the sure faith that you can enable them to live worthy of your

grace. we pray in your loving name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive

session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, nancy g. abudu of georgia to be united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit.

if confirmed nancy abudu would be the first black woman to serve on the court. over in the house considering several police-related bill this is week as national police week continues. watch live coverage of the house on c-span and live coverage of the senate on c-span2 and live congressional coverage on the free mobile video app, cspan now. >> i believe strongly that we preserve the diversity of the banking system from community banks to mid sized banks to regional banks. to look forward and continued industry and regulatory individual lens is critical.

banks and beyond the daily headlines and the banking system remains a source of strength for u.s. economy. before closing, mr. chairman, i want to be your clear, our customers are the american people, not the banks, full stop. thank you and i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> superintendent welcome to the committee. >> good morning, chairman brown, ranking member scott scott and member was the committee. on sunday, march 12, 2023, signature failed after experience ago propull sieve run on depot -- experiencing propull sieve runs on august 10th and south liquidation of south silver gate bank and failure of silicon valley bank on march 10 following unprecedented run on its own deposits. in order to avoid a disorderly midday monday shutdown and further contagion evidence of infection cross the banking system on the evening of sunday,

march 12, dfs took possession of signature and appointed fdic as receiver. beforing its failure on march 12, regulators documentedly kidty -- documentedly kidty regulated -- liquidity regulated bankingses and many issues identified by the regulators were unresolved when the bank failed. the luck we disagreement of silver gate and subsequent failure of svb. on friday, march 10, signature experienced the runoff of 18.6 billion in deposits in a matter of hours, reducing the banks deposit base by 20%. thruout the day friday and into the night, the regulators work

closely with each other and signatures to find sufficient liquidity to satisfy the significant volume of customer withdrawal requests. after avoiding a default on friday, regulators had time over the weekend to assess the condition and come to a considered view as to whether the bank could open safely on monday. dfs had one objective that weekend. to preserving the safety and soundness of the financial system. three paths were identified for the bank in order of preference. the first was to find a way for signature to open in a safe and sound manner on monday and continue as a stable institution. the second was to find a purchaser for a bank on open bank basis. third dfs and fdic worked in pair hell to prepare for last resort scenario of taking possession of the bank and appointing fdic as receiver. the regulators spent the weekend

collecting and evaluating information from signature in order to make a data driven decision about the bank's viability. signature's inability to provide reliability data and a credible liquidity strategy to operate in a safe manner on monday led dfs to take possession and appoint fdic as receiver. at the time they took possession, the bank had $4.72 billion of liquidity available to cover known withdrawals ranging from 7.4 and $7.9 billion. these withdrawal estimates do not include additional known withdrawals that could reasonably be anticipated on monday in light of market conditions. taking possession of the bank was the option of last resort to avoid a disorderly monday shut down and stop any further panic and contagion across the broader banking system. dfs financial institutions are safe and sound today but the

department instituted heightened monitoring of banks with higher risk profiles and implementing recommendations made by office of general counsel to modernize the supervision of the global financial system. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before the california department and my name is [inaudible] and served as commissioner since december of 2021 building on over 100 years of state regulation and the current department was restructures in 2020 and strengthening california's financial oversight.

regulation and supervision and fdic promotes safety and soundness and consumer protection. state chartered banks like silicon valley bank are regulated by both state and federal regulators and state leglators play a vital role in maintaining the strength of the dual banking system. particularly for local banks that serve diverse communities throughout the community. state leglators supervise almost 80% of all biancas in the u.s., which equates to more than 3,800 banks and $8.5 trillion in assets. this includes overseeing two-thirds of agricultural lending and half of small business lending and the localized supervision equips state regulators to better understand the unique demands faced by banks in local communities. in california, the fbi supervises 99 state charted

banks with anarchal asset size of approximately 4 billion nearly under 1 billion in assets and nine of our banks are over 10 billion. the department supervises 113 credit unions with an average asset size of 1.4 billion. life sciences and healthcare sector and life science and small businesses and march 8 the bank announced a loss of 1.8 billion and a capital raise. depositors reacted by initiating withdrawals of $42 billion where approximately 25% of total deposits over a 24 hour period causing an unprecedented run on the bank at the end of march 9,

the bank had a negative cash balance of approximately 958 million. we determine the bank was insolvent. on march 10, the fbi took possession of the bank and appointed fdic as receiver. the fbi examed the bank in the federal regulator and san francisco federal reserve bank and federal examiners led the examination of silicon valley bank compliance with federal regulations related to enhanced prudential standards and review the liquidity risk and department and flag concerns about the bank soliquidty management beginning in 2021 and interest rate risk beginning in 2022. though it is typical to provide time to remediate, the time line

were not conducting and publishing a supervision and closure of silicon valley bank. that review and the recent failure of first republic bank highlight the need to make changes to promote safety and soundness of state chartered banks. immediately prompting efficiencies and better allocate staff according to resident and can increase the focus on bank level of unassured deposits and require banks to evaluate and account for emerging risks such as social media and realtime withdrawals. i look forward to working with congress the regulators are

california state legislatures to implement changes that strengthen our financial system. thank you very much. >> any good banker knows and regulators point out problems and you fix them right away. once issues are identified by the regulators the ceo of svb is and signature with the leaders corrected de-efficiencies in a timely -- deficiencies in a timely way. answer yes or no if you would. did they quickly fix the problems your examiners identified? >> they fixed some problems and most not. outstanding matters requiring immediate attention at the time they failed.

>> no senator. >> will all six of you commit to examining crack down harder and faster bank executives that just don't listen? >> mr. barr? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> .y >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> thank you. in response to the question on tuesday and the investment portfolio and greg becker and ceo of svb threw up his hands and pardon my cliche but this fits and pushed his employees under the bus. of course the ceo of a bank is all responsible for crashing his bank and chair is difficult to hold senior executives in large complex account and will driving upper bank into the ground and we have the authority >> i

agree. >> we need to close the gaps and many members on both sides of the aisle agree and i agree with mr. chairman becker and the two executives from signature. i'm working on legislature to make sure executives of big banks like silicon valley bank can't hide behind their subordinates of accountability. let me follow up on the impact of fast gross subject and most touched on and was the subject of much of the testimony on tuesday. they're reporting the problem of svb and signature got worse and the signatures of larger more complex banks were not larger and a prom nathanial hackette bank lawyer testifying they need to be revisited and essentially

long transition periods allow $200 billion bank like svb to be treated like a $50 billion bank. these this question for vice compare par and commissioner hewlitt. >> how did they contribute to the condition in all by failures. >> under the prior approach, they would have had heightened prudential standards applying to them as they grew in size over the last three years because of the way the stale rule worked at federal reserve and basically had three year. >> that was vice compare quarter's rule? >> correct. the board as a whole made a decision to put that rule in place in 2019. >> but he had your job at the time; correct? >> he d. he was vice chair and led on that effort and typical culture at federal reserve and

lael lael brainard and the fed generally follows; correct? >> the vice chair for supervision has explicit statutory authority to take the lead in regulation. >> okay. >> commissioner hewlett, your comments on that? >> yes, a new program of regulations put in place by our federal partners and large foreign bank organization program. sill chronovalley bank was the first bank --

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: so, on a.i., yesterday, mr. president, i met with a bipartisan group of senators, two democrats, including myself and two republicans, to talk about spearheading our bipartisan efforts to focus on comprehensive a.i. legislation. our group agreed that because a.i. technology is developing so quickly, congress has to move fast. over the past several weeks my staff and i have met with close to 100 ceo's of companies who do a.i., scientists, a.i. academics, leaders in the industry of many different viewpoints, and critics of a.i., and i plan to continue to do this. if harnessed responsibly, a.i.

has the power to do tremendous things for the public good. it can unlock unimaginable marvels in medicine, business, national security, science, and so many other areas of life. but if left unchecked, a.i. has the power to do tremendous, tremendous harm. it can accelerate misnption, breed new forms of racial prejudice, create severe economic disruptions and hinder human agency in the most severe of ways. let me make a few observations in light of my conversation and our meeting. first, as i said a month ago, congress must move quickly. many a.i. experts have pointed out that the government must have a role in how this technology enters our lives, even leaders of the industry say they welcome regulation. so, if we're to fulfill our role properly, our approach to a.i. must be fast-moving.

we can't move so fast that we do flawed legislation, but there's no time for waste or delay or sitting back. we've got to move fast. second, our group also agreed that any approach must be bipartisan. a.i. technology already touches virtually every industry, field, and facet in our society, so our process must be collaborative and draw from a broad and bipartisan range of views and issues. third, we think we have a good case study for how the bipartisan process can work, chips and science. when the senate passed chips and science, both sides came together on an issue that impacted the nation, involved a lot of committees, inputs, and views, much like a.i. will. because there is so much bipartisan overlap in chips and science as there is in a.i., it makes it a lot easier to do this in a way that brings bipartisan groups together from the very beginning. so, i hope chips and science can

be a model for how we approach a.i. i thank my colleagues, so many of my colleagues, not just the four of us who met, for their attention on this pressing issue, and i look forward to continuing to work with a wide range of senators, from many committees and from both sides of the aisle, a as we move forward. default -- all week long, both sides have kept talking about the future of our nation's budget. while at the same time moved closer to fulfilling our responsibility to preserve the full faith and credit of the united states. avoiding default is nonnegotiable. it must be our north star. and that cannot change. i am pleased that over the course of this week everyone has acknowledged that allowing the country to default would be a catastrophe. i'm will go pleased that the other side has recognized the best way forward is a bipartisan

piece of legislation that can secure enough votes to get through both the house and the senate. partisan legislation just won't produce the result we need. i am hopeful that soon both sides will find an agreement that keeps default completely off the table. we've made good progress this week, but the work continues. no one will get everything they want. from the beginning, democrats have said, and i have said, that this process demands bipartisanship. it's how we avoided default under president trump. it's how we avoided default under president biden. it's now we should avoid default this time too. it brinksmanship, hiding plans, hostage taking, none of that moves us any closer to a solution. but working together, accepting that nobody will get everything they want, is the way to go. since the founding of our country, one thing has remained constant -- when it's time to pay the bills,

america has followed through. it is one of the cornerstones of our nation's success. if america would ever fail to pay its bills, the consequences would be horrific. default would bring recession. default would kill eight million jobs and see soaring costs on credit cards, small businesses, loans, and reroad 401-k's -- erode 401-k's. nobody wants that. americans can't afford it, so we in congress must avoid it at all costs. i hope negotiations continue in the right direction. i yield the floor.

>> are you considered alabama the ripple effect of the potential new regulations on those at the lowest end of the credit quality spectrum given the tightening we're seeing in the marketplace and more regulation means less capital

which means fewer loans and means fewer people achieving the dream. mr. barr. >> thank you, senator scott. first of all, let me be absolutely clear, i accept full responsibility with respect to the supervisory failings at the federal reserve. i have been clear about that from the start and i remain clear about that today. >> thank you, mr. chairman barr. >> the buck -- thank you mr. barr. >> the buck stops here and i remain committed to stopping this. >> who did you fire? >> we have not fired someone as a result of this review. >> thank you. >> we plan to conduct further review of our supervisory structure and as we do that, we'll be making sure we have the right personnel in place to get the job done. >> i hope that includes making room for the right personnel by removing the wrong personnel, thank you. >> senator reid of rhode island is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you panel for your excellent testimony.

i want to look back on the safe bank act and it's designed to provide access to banking for the cannabis industry and there's language that would prohibit supervise herbs that they cut tie withs customers in any industry even if those customers are on high risk unless there's only one exception is >> thank you, senator reed. congress is taking on this issue of potential conflict of state and federal law and let me say with respect to section 2010, i

would be concerned of any language limiting the ability of the supervise tore take prompt action and aggressive action to ask hard questions. i think one thing we've seen with respect to the institutions we're talking about today is we need supervisors to do that and not hold back and happy to work with the committee on the reforms with respect to that provision. >> thank you. mr. suh, your position of acting counsel. >> i agree with vice chair barr and vitally important that supervisor haves discretion to identify risks and act on those in a timely manner and includes requiring mediation and i'm not comfortable with any limitations on supervisors ability to enforce compliance with rules such as bsa and ftc rules. >> thank you very much. mr. barr, capital stress test with the federal reserve

oranges, creates the test and proposes a test upon the banking institution. in fact, several times scb was notified that the federal e privately a failing its is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> and no action was taken? >> action was taken but some of it was quite counterproductive with respect to the actions taken. so, for example, one step that the bank took with respect to liquidity risk is when it saw that it was breaching its

liquidity limits, change the modeling assumptions to make the tests less conservative. >> so it took that test, failed the test and rewrote the test and passed the test, which is good if you can do it. i presume and hope the federal reserve is looking closely at adopting stronger liquidity rules, i'd be very similar to capital rules. >> yes, senator. >> let me ask one of the question. the president of mr. baker was also on floor board of the semper cisco fed? >> that's great. >> that that influence the treatment of this bank? >> the evidentiary record review looked at did not find evidence of that. of course the structural issues are there. >> absolutely. it's again you've got a bank that's changing the test because they failed edge of the bank being expected by someone who is in a way directly accountable to

the president of that bank. >> the board structure the way it works under the federal reserve act, a third of those members are selected by the local bakers and our bankers. they are forbidden from having anything to do with supervision as as a matter of policy and law. and so that's the structural way that the reserve act intends to deal with those issues. >> yes, but rather than structural or institutional, human dimension, if someone is sitting on your board and even though they have no legal right, there's us certain sense of dude i would expect by the inspector. >> the evidentiary record we have from the review does not show that in this case. >> i think that's another area where you might look at. thank you very much, mr. chairm. >> senator rounds of south dakota is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for it to me today

and participating. vice chairman barr, the federal reserve issued an mra, matter requiring attention, for svb interest rate risk. this is november 2022. 2022. the supervisory findings stated the firms interest-rate risks simulations were unreliable and that they gave a false sense of safety in the rising rate environment and really messed the need to take action earlier in the rate cycle. greg becker who testified before us, the former essie the ceo told this committee on tuesday that findings in writing are done in some cases months after the initial verbal feedback is given. vice chair barr, when did the fed's give the initial feedback regarding interest-rate risk to svb, and why was simply an mra issued as opposed to an mria?

>> i believe in that case the writing was actually quite close in time to the finding of difficulty with the interest-rate risk modeling. as you suggested, the basic problem was that the model was showing that the firm would be earning more money when interest rates rose and the opposite was actually the case. in terms of the timing for remediation, i think that one of the findings of the review is that the federal reserve staff could've pushed harder on the firm to move faster with respect to remediation. of course the timeframe between november and march was pretty tight and the firm failed in march. >> was that perhaps because svb

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: last week's inflation report reinforced what working families across america already know -- washington democrats' inflation is still packing a punch. prices climbed 4.9% from this time last year. just in the last month, they accelerated nearly half a percentage point. the biden administration called the news, quote, welcome

breathing room for families. welcome breathing room for families? according to the latest data, families have paid thousands of dollars more just to put food on their table under his watch. in colorado, your average family has paid over $2,000 in additional food costs since 2021. in arizona, those same groceries have cost households $1,800. in montana, over $1,700. in my home state of kentucky, families have paid $1,600 more on average since president biden took office. doesn't sound like breathing room to me, mr. president. especially at a time when workers' wages are failing to keep pace with out-of-control

prices. meanwhile, confidence in president biden to do the right thing with the economy is at its lowest point since the great recession. that's hardly surprising when his top economic advisers refuse to even admit there's a problem. the president's latest pick to lead his economic advisers has repeatedly said this administration miss a thing on inflation. so while the biden administration puts itself on -- pats itself on the back for a job well done, let's remember where we were just two years ago. since the president took office, prices have climbed a staggering -- listen to this -- 16%. 16% since the president took office.

gasoline up 54%, electricity up 22%, groceries up 20%, and higher interest rates are making it harder for working families to borrow and save for the future. washington democrats' reckless spending and green energy fantasies are sending our economy deep into the red. for two straight years, americans have had to tighten their belt just to get by. it's time for this administration to wake up and do more of the same. on another matter, as our nation observes police week, cities across america continue to grapple with the rising tide of violent crime. and our nation's capital is certainly no exception. this year washington has already endured the deadliest first four months of any year in the last decade.

motor vehicle theft in the district is up 115% just from this time last year. and now the left-wing d.c. council wants to make the tough job facing the brave men and women of the metropolitan police even tougher. with violent crime spiraling out of control, the council proposed a new law that would strip police officers of collective bargaining rights, make more of their personal information available for public harassment, and add new hurdles for the use of force in indistinguishing themselves and the -- in defending themselves and the public. remember, congress already had to step in when the council tried to go even softer on felony sentencing with another bill earlier this year. even president biden balked at such a radical measure. the latest law, which is already

in effect on an emergency basis, has had a devastating impact on local law enforcement. the local police union reports 1 serks 200 officers have chosen to -- 1,200 officers have chosen to leave the force since the law took effect. in a city that's facing its worst bout of violent crime in at least a decade, the police chief estimates he has fewer officers to fight it than at any time since the 1970's. to make matters worse, the department is fighting a losing battle against the city's soft-on-crime prosecutions. last year washington's u.s. attorneys office declined to press charges on -- listen top this -- on two-thirds of the arrests made by the police department. in other words, two of every three times an mpd officers

risks their safety to take a suspect into custody, the suspect walks free. no wonder, as chief contay reports -- conte reports, the average homicide suspect that the department encounters already has a rap sheet of 11 previous arrests. left-wing officials in our nation's capital are taking a cue from the washington democrats' approach to border security -- catch and release. catch and release. it's simply unacceptable. this week the junior senator from ohio brought forward a resolution to say enough is enough. after a bipartisan vote in the house, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle voted yesterday to reject -- to reject -- the d.c. council's new law.

i'm grateful to senator vance for his leadership and i'm proud to join colleagues in continuing to back the blue. now, on another matter, this week some of america's closest european allies have continued preparations to equip ukraine with new weapons ahead of a planned counteroffensive, including long-range cruise missiles and american-made fighter aircraft that would require authorization from the united states. as president biden meets in japan with our strongest economic partners, i hope he will build on the west's support for ukraine by clearing the way for a transfer of f-16's, long-range firearms, and clustered munitions that will help ukraine win. as ukraine prepares to liberate territory from russian occupation, its friends must

move at the speed of relevance to approve the transfer of critical weapons and munitions to help those efforts succeed. now, mr. president, on one final matter, today the senate will bid farewell to a longtime member of our institution's staff. after 37 years of service, the senior audio operator for the senate chamber, paul casasco, is embarking on a well-deserved retirement. paul arrived in the senate in the spring of 1986, just in time to help stand up the audio- visual production that will broadcast floor proceedings to the american public. in the years since i understand he's had a hand in just about every facet of the senate's multimedia recording operations. from committee hearing rooms to

affectionately named crow's nest in the gallery of this very chamber, paul has had a front-row seat to decades of senate history. he's captured consequential debates and preserved crucial records. so i know my completion will join me -- so i know my colleagues will join me in thanking paul for his devoted service to our institution and in wishing him much happiness had his retirement. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

much more agile much faster and much more forceful and we will be doing that. spy hope the other regulars do so. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator vance from ohio is recognized. >> great. thank you, mr. chairman and thanks to the panel for tolerating this arctic conditions they put this in groom in. it's really cold in here. but i want to ask, direct my question to mr. barr. one of my concerns here is that we have a semper cisco said that clooney was asleep at the wheel. i think a basic examiners were you would've set silicon valley bank had serious problems and

the fact we didn't identify it until the bank effectively blew up is a serious problem. so, one of the things we have seen is the san francisco fed is clearly focused on diversity equity inclusion initiatives and also climate risk. and i as a person who recognizes if your focus on one thing you are not as focus on other things. i want to target this particular think. instead of focusing on the safety and sounds of a banking system in the san francisco fed was publishing economic letters and research on a number of social justice causes. some of the selected obstacle disappointing facts about wi-fi gauge what, how -- full potential of your states cotton hosting seminars and publishing primers on racial equity, making it a commitment of the equity goals would help to try their approach to hiring and that's not too much of their involvement in the fed's racism and the economy series. that's after a quick scan of the semper cisco fed the website.

i worry when you have the san francisco fed sounding a a lie bit more like an ivy league political science or economics department that you miss some things. mr. barr, could you explain how this research in these activities support the fed's monitoring dual mandate for supervisory charge for safety and soundness in the banking mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, it may have taken a while, but it looks like the white house may finally be coming to the debt ceiling negotiating table in a more serious way.

the president has appointed members of his staff to have negotiate directly with speaker mccarthy's team, a logical and overdue step since passage of debt ceiling legislation depends on around agreement between the -- on an agreement between the president and republican-controlled house of representatives. i was also encouraged by the white house' statement after tuesday's debt ceiling meeting which noted that the president is, quote, optimistic that there is a path to a responsible bipartisan budget agreement if both sides negotiate in good faith and recognize that neither side will get everything that it wants. and recognize that neither side will get everything that it wants. that part is very important, mr. president, because previously democrats and the president's position was that democrats should get everything they want, and that republicans should get nothing. an extremely unrealistic position and one that subjects

the democrats did not understand the nature of divided government. so i'm grateful that the president seems to be taking a more realistic view of what is necessary for an agreement. it's unfortunate that it's taken the white house if long. speaker mccarthy has been ready to negotiate for months and the president should have engaged seriously months ago. but, mr. president, better late than never. and i hope over the next few days the two sides will be able to swiftly reach an agreement. a good place to start would be with a good, long look at the policies and the house republicans' limit save, grow act which pairs with commonsense reforms. things like unclaimed covid money, modestly strengthening work requirements and entitlement programs for able bodied americans, a move, i might add, supported by more than 60% of the american public in order to help individuals

move from welfare to work. capping discretionary spending for next year at the fiscal year 2022 discretionary spending level, the same level we were successfully operating at mere months ago. repealing the green energy subsidies and the so-called inflation reduction act whose estimated cost has ballooned since the bill was passed. passing permitting reform, a bipartisan priority to help get both conventional and green energy projects off the ground more quickly, which could help grow our economy. repealing the president's reckless student loan giveaway which could otherwise end up costing american taxpayers close to a trillion dollars. and other commonsense measures. mr. president, the provisions of the limit, save, grow act have been the subject of a lot of fearmongering from democrats who have been set against including

any spending reforms as part of a debt ceiling package. but these are responsible ideas worthy of consideration as part of a debt ceiling agreement or for that matter in any other context. our nation has a massive national debt, $31 trillion and counting, and a serious spending problem. and the limit, save, grow act is a reasonable and responsible attempt to get our nation back on a more fiscally sustainable path. saving on the order of $4.5 trillion over the next ten years. and while as the president pointed out neither side will get everything it wants in negotiations, i hope that ideas from the limit, save, grow act will make it into a final debt ceiling agreement. despite the president's attempts to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, the truth is that spending under the biden administration has reached staggering levels compared to

prepandemic federal budgets. and if we don't get spending under control, we're going to be facing some pretty serious economic consequences. so as i said, i'm pleased that the president seems to be taking negotiations a little more seriously. i hope he will not allow himself to be distracted by extreme members of his own party, like the individuals who are suggesting that the president attempt to raise the debt ceiling on his own using a dubious interpretation of the 14th amendment if democrats don't like the debt ceiling agreement. debt ceiling increases have a long history of being paired with deficit reduction measures or other budgetary policy changes. the fact, mr. president, seven of the last ten debt ceiling increases have been accompanied by budgetary reforms and policy changes. and it's time for all members of the democrat party to recognize

what the president appears now to be recognizing, and that is that in divided government, both parties have to compromise to reach an agreement. so credit to the president for acknowledging this fact. and i hope, i hope, mr. president, that over the next few days, we will see a deal emerge that not only raises the debt ceiling but also puts us on a more sustainable fiscal path moving forward. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

we will be looking at both. >> but the point is here, and i don't mean to that you are bound on this, it's a matter of fact. i think regulation needs to fit the risk. i think 2155 was put up those put up with the idea that if you had a risky portfolio regardless of size that the fed and the other agencies had the ability to tailor those to whatever, to whatever threat that those risky business dealings -- right. >> we are not seeking any change in law from this committee but we believe with ample authority under existing law to provide better approach to supervision and regulation going forward. and i'm committed to doing this. >> one of my main concerns and was one of the things we talked

about several years ago is that i come from a rural state. you know this. i don't tell any of you guys what's going on here. you deal with rural areas, and we don't have, that ain't a lot of banks every other blog. it ain't like walking down the street in l.a. or new york, okay? my concern is the community banks that don't have risky portfolio will end up paying the price for a ceo by the way the toll this committee a couple days ago that they took care of all the problems that you just pointed out that they are 31 of them that they didn't. so how do you protect folks were doing an honest job providing capital, supporting agriculture, supporting main street businesses, supporting working families? how do you protect those? because in 2008 i stood appear along with brown and others and we railed on regulators. we railed and railed and railed because he didn't do their job. do you know what they ended up doing? they ended up regulating the hell out of them thinking

industry to the point where the made the bigger banks bigger. talk to be. >> it's vital we have a strong and vibrant community banking and regional banking sector as we do today. community banks around the country in states all over the country are serving their communities well and where highly attended do that when we think about new approaches here. the kinds of rules that i'm talking about are for large banks, not community banks but i want to make sure that doesn't bleed down. marty, one last thing with the chairman's indulgence. senator rounds brought up some very good points on the president of the bank and may not have acted appropriately and tried to pad his own pocket. i'm not making that accusation but as you do your research i hope you hold them accountable. it sets a very bad form if you don't. >> senator cramer is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to all of the

witnesses. frankly i love the temperature in here. [laughing] i don't think there's any question that while we are always exactly in same place, we do to concerns. one, supervisors didn't do enough, and two, managers did the wrong thing. so i was a soccer referee before he took up this other crazy job. and when i would do particularly collegiate men, if i didn't pull out my yellow card at the first reckless act, that was like a license for them to go crazy. but when i did put up my yellow card with the first reckless act, everybody knew that if somebody else did it or if they did it again it could be a red card. if i warned them gently, , they often just kept playing rough. more rules and regulations without appropriate regulate team will get us nowhere. but we could be beat to death i

suppose. but i do have something that we haven't talked about how to want to ask about. what role a maybe a better way to put it would be, what if there hadn't been a run in svb? what if all things, everything was the same, we know they did some things, made some sales that raise some concerns legitimately, but what if there hadn't been a social media sort of pitch that caused this ron? would we even be here today? is it possible that nothing would've ever happen and have not been this sort of panic, fear, fear is a real deal, and maybe start with you mr. barr on that. am i crazy to think maybe this wouldn't have even happened? >> senator, , it's difficult to know in any circumstance what shock is going to come to the financial system. what we focus on as supervisors when we were doing our jobs right all

the vulnerabilities that a firm faces in making sure that the firm is addressing those vulnerabilities and making sure we have resilience in the system with good rules on capital and liquidity so that if there's a shock that nobody anticipates, they are not hit in a way that causes contagion in the financial system. so i take your point very much. >> i agree with all of that. i just worry that in today's social media world, that fear and panic accelerated, gets elevated, and i don't know what we're going to do about it but interested in your view on it. one other thing i would ask, there's been a lot of talk about the sale of the assets come sale of first republic to jp morgan, speaking of big getting bigger, the irony is rich, the lack of transparency in that, could each of you sort of tell me, i know the bid prices is a big thing, that's easy go to an auction,

but is a more to it? should we have considered other factors in approving that same when there were other bidders? stove with you, mr. gruenberg and then you, mr. hsu. >> thank you, senator. statutes under which the fdic works in these matters is clear and it really gives us one factor to consider, which is least cost. that was the only factor we were allowed to consider under the law in reviewing the bids that we received. >> said does the occ have additional leeway with regard to the soundness of the system that can be considered? >> the factors that were subject late out by the bank merger act, in the statutory mr. young: boston -- the presiding officer: senator, we're in a quorum call. mr. young: i request we vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. young: boston is perhaps a

surprising place to begin a tribute to indiana's veterans on the occasion of memorial day, but there, on augusta st. gaudin's magnificent memorial to the 54th massachusetts regimen their names are etched. maybe the coast of south carolina is no less unexpected a place to continue that tribute, but there on the shore they fell. the men who helped save our union, who forever ended its greatest scourge, who fought for the declaration of independence, though they had been denied the inale yenable -- inalienable rights it promised. seldom have american soldiers taking -- taken up arms and laid

down their lives with such selflessness and so much at stake. many hoosiers were among their ranks. their names should be knowns, their stories told. as proverbs 10:7 says, the memory of the just is blessed. abraham lincoln described the emancipation proclamation as an act justice. one of the greatest instruments of that justice was embedded at the tend of the document. it read that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the united states. such persons were black americans. lincoln's words spread far and fast and wide, and in my capital

city of indianapolis, pastor willis revels petitioned governor oliver morton to raise a fighting force, and when the request was denied revels encouraged hoosiers to join the first all-black regman forming -- regimen forming near boston. unable to fulfill its recruitment goals at home, the massachusetts 54th infantry sought and welcomed volunteers from across the union, and hoosiers answered the call. they were men, men like george brody. george charles. alfred lewis. george mcgowin. they came from across the great state of indiana, from places like newport, richmond,

louisville, centerville. they were farmers, black smith ps, barbers, laborers, and soon enough they were soldiers for the republic. there was no doubt of that when the 54th appeared on the dunes of morris island, before the twilight on july 18, 18363. -- 1863. they were in south carolina to take battery wagner, a seemingly unsurmountable obstacle between the union army and the port of charleston. when the 54th had marched to within 300 yards of the fort, shots streaked overhead. they were ordered to the ground, until the fire had passed, then they rose. they charged forward, through sand and marshy water, as the

sun sank in the western sky. and as they reached the fort, battery wagner exploded with fire. the 54th was razed, like grass before the mother sc ythe, one hoosier survivor wrote afterwards. in the end, the regimen lost nearly 300 men that night, over 40% of its ranks. fort wagner remained in confederate hands. among the dead were hoosiers thomp -- thomas ampy and john wilson. they didn't simply fall for a good cause. their bravery at battery wagner turned a tide. you see, it shattered prejudices about the supposed inferiority of black soldiers and debunked foolish notions about their

ability or willingness to fight. indeed, inspired by their example additional black regiments formed across the north. by the end of 18363, indiana had authorized the formation of the 28th united states colored troops. and old willis revels? he was at work recrewing hoosiers to fill -- recruiting hoosiers to fill its ranks. your country calls you, he declared. your country. initially, over 500 men enrolled forging six companies -- forming six companies. the gallant 28th fought during the siege of petersburg in virginia. its men fell at the battle of the crater. when the union army marched into the fallen confederate capital

of richmond in the spring of 1865, the 28th was there. they helped bring the rebellion to its knees and slavery to its end. and they were present in galveston, texas, too, when general order number 3 was issued on june 19, 1865, ending legalized slavery. an event we now celebrate as juneteenth. over 1500 black hoosiers served in the civil war, in the massachusetts 54th and 55th, the indiana 28th, and across the union army. as president lincoln acknowledged, the bravery of black soldiers from indiana and across the union helped preserve

the union. offering an appropriate tribute to the fallen on memorial day can be a very difficult task. how can we, after all, express sufficient thanks to those who died for us? to paraphrase president lincoln, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it will never forget the sacrifice of the men who fought in the 54th massachusetts or the 28th indiana. it took great curve ball for these black americans to -- it took great courage for the black americans to believe in the goodness of this country, its people, and the promise of its founding. the reason we build monuments

and memorials to those fighting dead is so their examples live, so that we might draw inspiration from these heroes who did incredible things and fought for a more perfect union and a world at peace. and so i close where i began, in boston, because there, on the memorial to the 54th, the names of fallen hoosiers, thomas ampy and alisha burkett can be found. their legacy lives on. we remember these men and all who paid the ultimate price for our freedom on this memorial day.

thank you, mr. president.

outstanding supervisory findings, and making sure we have proper answers on those, not on climate risk or changes but on what your actual job is. and so on that note while you mentioned earlier that the date svb failed there were 31 supervisory findings that were outstanding come is that correct? >> yes. >> and some of those my question is why your people didn't do more? it is my understanding they could've downgraded their

supervisory ratings, which obviously would have resulted in more frequent supervision and exams, or they could've taken enforcement actions like prohibiting dividends to shareholders, requiring immediate capital increases,, fines, other things like that. but they did neither, is that correct? >> the supervisors had downgraded the firm in the summer with respect to broad-based problems in governance in controls, risk management functions to deficient one, which means the firm is not well managed. as a result of that, the firm with subject to wait for him limitation which meant that it could no longer merge with or acquire nonbanking entities -- four him. the staff are also in the process of developing a detailed memorandum of understanding which is the first level enforcement action after a deficient downgrade occurs. so the steps were come what the

report found was our supervisors were not moving fast enough with respect to those action. >> so they had the tools in their toolbox but you weren't using them with the force they could have? >> yes. i think it's fair to say that the tools -- >> the tools were there. they didn't use them with the force. i'm hoping moving forward i don't think we need new tools. i think to your earlier point about creating a culture where those tools are used you can do that internally. that's a leadership issue. not we need more rules and regulations to do that. i'm almost out of time. my question, do you agree if silicon valley bank was sold while still an open bank it would've been better for the economy, the consumers and other banks who have now had to foot the bill to replenish the bank? >> yes, senator. >> so did you have any interested parties, any interested parties with interest to purchase svb night before svb

failed? >> i'm not aware if any, senator. we worked the primary regulator so we wouldn't have been the ones necessarily contacted in regard to that. >> but if they had come if there were interested parties and we find that there were, certainly should've been done the night before versus afterwards, it would've saved us all $35 billion? >> if there were opportunities for open institution solution that would've been perfect. >> if we find that i certainly hope that in the future we make those types of choices instead of ones that ultimately cause institutions all over the country to have to pay. thank you. >> senator warren of massachusetts is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so earlier this month when first republic bank collapse, multiple banks were interested in buying the failed bank. banking regulators chose jpmorgan bank, america's biggest bank. the result was a gigantic poorly

supervised make was swallowed up by an even more gigantic bank, another biggest bank in the country is about $200 billion bigger than it was before. so in order for the deal to go through, two separate regulators had to sign off. when the fdic sells the failed bank the law requires it to choose the highest bidder that will result in the lowest cost to the deposit insurance fund. but the law also requires signoff from the occ, and the occ's job, by law, is to consider whether the merger would pose, quote, risk to the stability of the united states banking or financial system, end quote. acting comptroller hsu, occ regulations include a list of factors that the occ must consider when evaluating, quote, risk to the stability of the banking system. do you know the first item on that list?

>> it relates to the financial stability come with us as a to financial stability. >> whether or not, but what is the item you're supposed to consider? the very first one on the list. >> i believe it is whether the merger will have financial stability impacts. >> because of? >> because of the merger. >> no. it's whether the proposed transaction would result in a material increase in risk to the financial stability due to an increase in the size of the combining institutions. it troubles me that you don't remember this. so how do we know if a purchasing bank poses more or less risk to the banking system? one metric that regulators use is the g-sib score, which estimates the impact on our financial system, that the failure of each of our largest banks. the size of the bank is a big

factor in its g-sib score. so let's look at the g-sib scores and figure out if jpmorgan, according to the occ's own analysis, presented more risk to the banking system than the other bidders that have been widely reported in the press. so pnc tried to buy the feeling bank that you approve jpmorgan instead. acting comptroller hsu, is the g-sib score for jpmorgan bigger than the equivalent score for pnc? >> it is. >> how much bigger? >> i don't know the exact magnitude of it off the top of my head. >> do you want to make a guess? >> it's a bigger. >> eight times bigger, doesn't sound right? >> yeah. >> let's take a look at another bidder, citizens bank. is jp morgan's g-sib score, that is a score that shows risk to the banking system, bigger than the score for citizens bank?

>> it is. >> a much bigger? >> significantly bigger. >> fourteen times bigger? >> perhaps. i don't know, having sex gores infinitely. >> comptroller hsu, , your job y law is determine risk to the system from making big banks even bigger. and you have a clear metric for doing that, the g-sib scores here so how do you explain approving a sale to a banking giant that increases the risk to the banking system by summer between nearly 800% and 1400% more than selling to other bidders? did you just ignore the fact that a failure at jpmorgan would blow a a hole in our banking system? that would be eight times more than the distraction to the financial system and let them grow by $200 billion?

>> senator warren, for every merger application we follow the law. we follow our guidelines. we follow our procedures. under the financial stability prong of the financial, of the bank -- there's a a number of factors compu named one had we followed a strict g-sib score call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. durbin: coming down to the wire here, june 1 looms on us, on that date unless congress takes action the united states will default on its debt for the first time in the history of our nation. all the people who are in the know tell us it would be a disaster of such proportion that it would harm individuals, families, and businesses across the united states and would ultimately diminish the united states' reputation for the most stable currency, the u.s. dollar, in the world. individual families would see

their 401 (k)'s and savings accounts diminish, the interest rates would go higher, businesses would fail and workers would lose their jobs. you have to ask yourself, why would we even consider pproaching that kind of calamity? well, you take a look at the agenda that's being offered by speaker mccarthy of the house of representatives, and he spells out exactly what his goals are. first, he wants to cut spending in areas that he thinks are wasteful. for example, he would wipe out 30,000 law enforcement and border patrol jobs. how many times has the speaker's party reminded us that we have a crisis on our southern border and need to martial our resources to protect america? whether he's exaggerating or simple flating a fact -- sitting

state -- stating a fact is your own conclusion. but can any part of his warning be answered by eliminating our personnel, our national personnel on the border? i don't think so. this approach by speaker mccarthy would also threaten the house -- housing and food security for tens of thousands of american individuals, including many veterans. it would deprive one million senior citizens of access to meals on wheels. that's what his goal is in terms of cutting the budget. and i might add a couple other things for your consideration. he would cut money for medical research in the united states by 25%. i've tried to work over the last six or seven years with the goal of increasing medical research spending by 5% real growth every single year. we've gone from $30 billion to t.d. 48 billion in annual appropriations for what is

considered the most sophisticated and successful medical research practice many in -- program in the world and now the speaker has told us they want to cut back on medical research. tell that to the families of cancer victims, tell that to the families that are trying to cope with life-threatening diseases. the breakthroughs that come about because of this medical research should inspire us to spend even more, even more on research. to think that we may be close to a vaccine against pancreatic cancer? that is unthinkable a few weeks ago or months ago. but now there are reports that nih research is leading in that direction with some promising conclusions. to think that we have the possibility of finally dealing with those maladies of the brain which haunt us in every family of this country, the notion that the researchers, because of nih

grants at northwestern chicago have now found a successful way to breach the blood-brain barrier and have medications go directly into the brain -- what can that do? well it might deal directly with brain cancer, glioblastoma and similar maladies, but in addition they're looking at the possibility that it has applications for alzheimer's and parkinson's and laogai rigs. i ask the speaker, do you really want to slow down and stop research by the united states government that leads the world in these fields? mr. president, i think what really is at stake here is the speaker is calling for these dramatic cuts in critical american programs in an effort to preserve the tax cuts that were instituted during the trump administration. these are tax cuts that

benefited corporations which were not paying their fair share of taxes and continue to receive blessings from the trump administration to pay even less and wealthy individuals who are doing quite we will for themselves got -- quite well for themselves got got got a tax break at at that time. speaker mccarthy wants to preserve those tax cuts. well, that's not my priority serving in the united states senate. but there's one other item that i want to mention that is part of the speaker's agenda that is bringing us to the brink on our national debt. that is the house republican bill is really a gift for the fossil fuel industry. the bill that they're proposing guts critical environmental protections to fast-track new fossil fuel projects. it mandates the sale of new oil and gas leases and accelerates drilling both on and offshore.

that's not just bad for the planet. it's bad for our people, the economy, as well as our nation in the hopes of becoming energy-independent. if this maga manifesto becomes law, it would eliminate 140,000 clean energy jobs across america, jobs which we promoted with the inflation reduction act. the republican proposal would cut billions of dollars in clean energy investments, the majority of which benefit businesses and workers in their own states. importantly, these investments are not only job creators, they are vital to our nation's capacity to remain resilient in the face of an environmental crisis. just yesterday the world meteorological organization warned that the next few years will be the warmest on record for planet earth. temperatures may even breech the targeted set by the paris agreement. in the next five years. what we see coming from this is

not only warmer days but more extreme weather events. you have to be sensitive to that if you're paying any attention at all. we need to make sure that every community in america is prepared for this challenge, but the house republican proposal would make us more vulnerable in a climate crisis, cut funding for projects that expand access to clean air and clean water, especially in western states with chronic drought. and it would roll back programs that curb pollution in low-income communities in america. whenever we debate energy policy in congress, republicans revert to the same old arguments. they say, think about the economy. these republicans insist that if we want to become energy-independent, we have to choice but to invest more in oil and gas. in their view, america is hopelessly addicted to fossil fuels and are forcing us to remain beholden to foreign energy giants is the republican

answer toss that challenge a but the truth is, they're wrong. fossil fuels are not the future. we will need a transition, that's for sure. the future is going to be seen in communities like my own hometown of springfield, illinois. last month in springfield, an american-owned solar company broke ground on a project called double black diamond. if you are a skier, you have to wonder what that has to do with flat land in springfield, illinois. it has nothing to do with skiing. what they're talking about is building one of the largest solar farms in america in the area. the energy produced will be sent to the residents of chicago. it is amaze ago. these communities this ahave committed themselves to green energy are make being massive investments in clean, sustainable, renewable energy. solar is the fastest-growing, most affordable source of electricity in america. last year my wife and i decided to install solar panels on our

home in springfield. it was a decision which was guided more by determination to see if it worked and to do something positive in our family to help with the climate crisis that we face. well, we installed them and the good news is this -- in the first couple of months we started to see our electricity bill disappearing. what was $115 a month turned into $15 a month. and of course there are tax credited sable for the decision for our family and every family that moves in that direction. we estimate that 230,000 homes in illinois will do what we did, put solar panels on the roof. and with net metering, they'll find it is as benefit to the monthly utility bills and to the environment. right now if we don't do this, china and other countries will. they are going to pursue solar electricity and the next-generation technology. we will be left behind if the republicans have their way with

the budget bill. i would conclude by saying fossil fuels had their day. there is still a transition period where they will be needed. but we have got to point to the future where we can tell our kids andean kids we are sensitive to -- kids and grandkids that we are sensitive to the energy future. we are not going to take a back seat to china or any other country. we've got to think about tomorrow. i yield the floor.

mr. sue said we should be looking at deposit insurance coverage and it should be update. should we be looking at this insurance and what should we be considering it? >> the comprehensive report on this outline some options. the one we thought had the most

promise and moral hazard and financial stability standpoint would be arguably increasing coverage for payment accounts that businesses rely on, they can't hold accounts for multiple institutions for operational reasons so it poses a moral hazard risk but because of the payment function it can have financial stability concerns. if we look at an option coverage, it will require legislation to do that and increase business payment accounts. >> one final thing that needs to be pointed out. we are in agreement there's enough blame to go around whether it was lack of supervision, a combination of things we have to learn from, but one thing and all of this, hearing this from others including my bankers, a

signature bank is having direct impact, with small businesses, workers and community banks, it caused banks to reduce their lending resources and less credit available. does anybody disagree with that? this is having an impact on working families and businesses and community banks and we have to address it. to figure out what went wrong, prevent it happening, but put regulation in place and make sure everybody who was responsible is held accountable, not just regulators but executives as well. >> senator haggerty of tennessee is recognized. >> the recent case study, a fundamental tension that exists between the fed's competing

priorities and a dual mandate, monetary policy mission to target low unemployment and stable prices. the balance has been difficult to manage in the current environment, driven so high and so fast and inflation we concurred during this administration. the primary mandate also highlights inherent tension for supervision response abilities. i understand there's a firewall for monetary policy supervision going down to what it should be but this conflict seems more pronounced than ever. as the fed raises rates which creates bank solvency wrists to supervisory role. how can someone objectively vote to raise interest rates to advance and inflation mandate while also serving as potential supervisor of supervisor bank safety which obviously would be impacted on interest rate decisions. is there an inherent conflict here?

>> i don't believe there is an inherent conflict. it is important when we engage in monetary policy we are focused on our job at the fed and the fomc which is price stability consistent with maximum employment. that is what we've been doing and i voted to do that in each instance. our job -- >> you also wear a second hat, a supervisory role. i won't take more time with it now but something we should take a hard look at, but the potential conflict among colleagues in congress. i want to turn to you. tuesday in front of the banking committee, greg becker said he tried to assist the fdic's in navigating the balance sheet but his efforts were rebuffed. i want to know if this is true

and why would the fdc not and list to help somebody familiar with the balance sheet to better position assets for sale and reduce cost of the taxes. >> thank you for the question. my understanding that fdic's staff did meet with mr. becker on the saturday he gets input from him, on the condition -- >> that's contrary to what he said. >> and information from him on the institution. the national conversation again. it's entirely reasonable. we have a debt ceiling conversation right now about america taking care of our debts and our responsibilities, which we are a responsible nation, we're going to to do. but we should also have a grown-up conversation about our spending, to say are we spending on our priorities. because when you have $31 trillion -- actually let me

scratch that. $31.4 trillion because $400 billion is not a rowrngd error. $31.4 trillion in total national debt. we should pay attention to this especially when we're currently adding $1 trillion in new debt efertions year -- every single year and it continues to accelerate. recently someone asked me when does it get hard? when do we pass the point? i actually had to say to them ten years ago because in the last ten years our debts continued to accelerate like a rock rolling downhill and it's going to be harder to manage this and we've got to stop and say inflation is going up, we're spending almost senior senator -- almost as much on interest as we are on defense. at what point do we stop and say we've got to be able to fix this? i have a perspective. the first step on talking on debt and deficit is taking it

seriously and say what are we spending on that's a priority and what are we spending on that's not a priority. it's not unreasonable to say that would be nice to do, but we don't have the money to do that, let's set that aside. and for whatever reason in this town, any time you talk about reducing spending of whatever percentage or whatever amount, everyone freaks out immediately, there is no way you can reduce spending in government. we started seven years ago a habit of our staff, that we produce a book called federal fumbles. every we are we put out the federal fumble guide, and that's just a set of ideas to say these are areas we believe the federal government dropped the ball. the federal government and our agencies, we had a responsibility to handle american taxpayer dollars prudently and wisely, but that didn't happen. so we ask the question is this really what we need to spend for. in a nation that's keeping up with our infrastructure of our national defense, of education, of so many different

expenses and things that are truly governmental, we ask the simple question with $31.4 trillion in total debt, is that what we need to spend our dollars on. just to set context because this is difficult to be able to to do, when you talk about millions and billions and trillions, it gets easy to go those all sound alike, so they're similar. so people throw out millions of dollars or billions of dollars or trillions of dollars, and you think okay, i don't even understand what this is anymore. so i break it down as i have in the past. i break it down to seconds because that's something i can understand. a million seconds is 12 days. 12 days, that's a million seconds. a billion seconds is 32 years. okay? so there's a big difference between a million and a billion. 12 days and 32 years. a trillion seconds is almost

32,000 years. so let me knock that past us again. a million seconds is 12 days. a billion seconds, 32 years. a trillion seconds, almost 32,000 years. and to put this into the context of $31.4 trillion in total debt, that is 995,000 years, almost a million years of seconds to get to $31.4 trillion. the numbers here are large, and they're overwhelming. so, again, why don't we talk about ways that we can actually save money. in my reasonable conversation with federal fumbles every year, is just to say let's talk about it. is this really how we want to be able to spend americans' taxpayer dollars? we set up a top ten list that we listed out some of the things that we just say, okay, of the

50 different examples, we don't try to go into every spending area but lay out in the guide 50 different examples and ask the question is this the best way to spend america's dollars? again we've got different ideas on it. i'm just asking the question. for instance, last year the state department did a grant to ecuador to host 12 drag shows in ecuador with american tax dollars. now you may have different opinions in this room on drag shows. i'm just asking the simple question, is the best use of american tax dollars to actually fund drag shows in ecuador with u.s. tax dollars. i don't believe that it is. last year we actually did a differently funding through the state department that was actually done -- actually this was the national science foundation. excuse me, strike that. it seems like a state department thing. the national science foundation last year did a study of

butterflies in europe. so we funded with american taxpayer dollars a butterfly study in germany where we paid a swedish scientist to study butterflies in germany. i'm not real sure why american tax dollars, that was the best use of that but that was one of the grants done last year. last year there was an nea grant that was done to set up a display in brooklyn for the sergeant pepper's lonely heart clubs band. it's not even an american band, and i'm not sure why we had to pay federal tax dollars to be able to to do that. my sirnl question is always -- my simple question is why are tax dollars being taken out of oklahoma to be able to to do that. always popular, we had an almost, $350,000 grant to study

smart toilets was one of the grants we actually paid for with our federal tax dollars last year. we also had a grant that was done studying colonial mexican sound scapes. i'm sure colonial mexican soundscapes are fascinating, but we paid for a researcher to travel to mexico and then to be able to write a series about the sounds of colonial mexico and how they could be used to be able to influence communities. we last year did a study on helmets and seat belts in ghana to be able to study whether seat belts and helmets were effective for saving lives in ghana. can i just go ahead and answer that question for free? seat belts and helmets are a good idea. they save lives. free, i can go ahead and give you that advice. how do you know that? because we've already spent millions of dollars in other

studies here in the united states, but instead we spent money in ghana studying helmets to see if they're actually a good idea there, and amazingly they discovered, yes, they are. there was also a grant that was done last year -- i've got to walk this one through. this was at the springfield museum of art in missouri. there was a grant on a display, an installation, an exhibit in a museum called yoko ono men's piece. let me read this to you. it's a simple white room where shattered cups and saucers are placed on a table and participants are asked to mend the fragments together using common household items like twine, glue, scissors and tape, and the resulting works are displayed on nearby shelves as evidence of the power of collective action. again, i'm not opposed to fixing broken saucers in a public place and displaying them. all i'm asking is why did

oklahomans work overtime last year to pay their tax bill to fund doing the yoko ono white room where people fixed broken -- i don't have a good answer, which the way. if you like wine country, great, you helped pay for it. one of the highest income areas in the world is napa valley, california. one of the highest income areas in the entire world. the good folks of oklahoma helped pay for a wine pedestrian trail through napa valley, because apparently napa valley didn't have enough cash to pay for the eight-mile walking trail through wine country, some of the most expensive real estate in the entire world. so the taxpayers in oklahoma had to pay for that wine country tour trail. if you like traveling to hawaii,

enjoy the trip. when you get there, if you go to a farmer's market, you will find out that you helped pay for that farmer's market because the farmer's market paid $3.4 million to fund the farmer's market. if you paid to get to a private location in new york city to go to the metropolitan opera, because almost three-quarters after million dollars was given to the metropolitan opera in new york to help them install a new fire suppression system with federal tax dollars. if you like traveling to paris and you go to a butcher shop in paris, you may be fascinated to know since the 16th century, butchers in paris have come up with a super, secret private language in paris. fascinating for the french is

study, ununfortunately, the -- but unfortunately, the americans have paid for the butcher private language in paris. so the americans paid for this study in france to study the secret language of butchers in paris. can't tell you why. you may know the story of the -- let's see if i can paul this out. this is a very biblical story, the power of the sword. this particular version was actually different. what your tax dollars paid for is actually an event that was done to teach climate futurism and to be able to use this from the bible and reteach a new religion called earth seed using

the biblical story in talking about humanity's destiny to be able to leave earth for other planets. it wasn't the writing of the book. it was a conference for teachers to make sure that teachers know how to teach this new version about the religion of earth seed to their kids. that was done with your tax dollars. not leaving ghana alone, there was also a study done in ghana last year, not only was there one on seat belt and helmet studies in guantanamo, we did a project almost $200,000 in guantanamo ton rint view taxicab drivers and truck drivers to ask them how difficult driving has become with climate change. if it's harder to drive now in ghana because of climate change. if your tax dollars paid for that. if you don't like my discussing

anything on climate change, well, perfect, there was a fund done with your tax dollars in the national science foundation to study on how to influence people who disagree with the issue of climate change with a study done with $400, pluralistic gaps on climate change change and how to influence people who are ignorant on climate change today and be table to reeducate them on that. so if you disagree on this issue, we are studying on how to reeducate you on this issue. last year we spent $991 million on soft-sided facilities, those are called tents, along our border in mexico. now, best estimates on this. there's about two million people illegally crossed the border last year, so if you run the numbers on it, we spent somewhere around $500 a person on the tent facility they were

processed through just to travel across the border. listen, we've got differences of opinion on lots of issues. i'm respectful of that. i understand that the people of oklahoma don't think like people in other areas of the country. i also understand not everybody in oklahoma think the same way. i'm respectful of that. i have yet to find anyone who wants their tax dollars wasted. people literally work overtime to be table to feed their families. they work in two or three jobs and in april when they pay their taxes, they want to it to go to -- they want it to go to roads and infrastructure and national security and what we reveal in federal fumbles is that, yeah, some of that was done, but some of it was also done because we lacked oversight and things were wasted and thrown out the door. we did a multi-thousand dollar

page omnibus bill last year that no one had read. no one. there were in committee hearings in the senate on appropriations at all last year and trillions of dollars were spent and no one knows what they were spent for. we try to bring, here's some of the way that americans tax dollars are spent. i bring it up to say, what are we going to do about it? are we going to do more oversight and to ask questions and spend money on priorities and not spend money on what's not. we put federal fumbles and you can go to my website to look at it. the goal is to look at $31.4 trillion in federal debt, can we focus on spending on priorities and target tears that

are not. with that, i yield the floor. mr. lankford: mr. president. can i do one quick addendum to my speech? i have a staff member named philip moran who worked to pull

these details together and some other team members that really helped me a tremendous amount trying to help to do the research on this. it is not one person that does all of this. i have a fantastic team that does this. i want those in oklahoma know that there's someone working for them every day so i appreciate that. i yield to the floor. mr. tillis: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: i ask a member of my

staff isabella murphy be granted floor privileges until may 19, tweent. the presiding officer: -- 2023. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: i'm here to recognize those in law enforcement. the law enforcement community, thousands of their families are here for police week. they are paying a tribute to the brave officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. i want to welcome all north carolinians here. our state is all-too familiar with law enforcement officers having to make the ultimate sacrifice, losing their lives in the line of duty. over the past year, north carolina has lost three law enforcement officers who were killed by others in the line of duty in addition to other officers who died from other causes. i'd like to take a moment to honor the service of those

north carolina law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty. in late august, we lost sergeant matthew ryan fischman, he was 28 years old. he was one of three disputes shot after attempting to serve a warrant. they were met with gunfire and the incident caused a ten-hour standoff. sergeant fischman died a day later. he had been a deputy since 2010, before that he was an officer in the mount olive police department. he is survived by his wife sarah, two children, his parents and two brothers. that same august, we also saw the death of sheriff, excuse me, national debt byrd, of wade -- deputy byrd.

deputy byrd stop and backed up his vehicle and shot several times by two criminals. unfortunately, the killing of deputy byrd revealed numerous failures. the criminals who killed him were not in the united states legally. one of them had been previously deported but was able to illegally reenter country. and, mr. president, when we talk about gotaways, this is a very important point because it happened just a couple of weeks ago in texas. someone who was illegally present in this country, was deported four times, got back a fifth time and murdered a family in texas, that's the face of a gotaway and it was a gotaway that killed this officer. and following the arrest, one criminal escaped prison and we had to apprehend him again in mexico. part of seeking justice must be looking at these failures and

making sure they don't happen again. deputy byrd was an air force veteran and served the wake county sheriff's department for 18 years. he's survived by his sister, brother-in-law, four nephews as well as his beloved k-9 sosha before christmas we lost deputy sheriff anavisca, he was 23 years old and served the office for two years. he was struck and killed by a car while investigating a robbery at 3:00 a.m. the driver ran through a red light, struck him and fled the scene. they eventually located the driver and he was highly inobjection intoxicated. in the wake of these tragic

losses in north carolina, i'm proud to see we saw the very best of our local communities. while we have some communities calling for defunding the police and making contributions to a website supported by act blue, i looked it up today, mr. president, and i -- i am shocked that it is still there. during police week there's a website out there called acab, send your money. what does it stand for? all cops are bastards. you would think in a week when we're looking at the sacrifice these officers made, they would take the website down, but they are still raising money. if you don't believe me, look up act blue, all cops are bastards, harass the police, look past the sacrifice they are making every single day. now, on the other hand, our communities had an outpouring of

love and support for those fallen officers. most support the men and women in blue, but some feel emboldened by the antipolice rhetoric. disrespect of law enforcement officers only contributes to an environment that makes our officers and communities less safe and far fewer people willing to even sign up to do the job. and if you don't believe me, ask local law enforcement. we have historic lows for people signing up to go to academies and historic highs for people retiring early, as soon as they are eligible. this is happening across the nation. in 2021, the intentional killings of law enforcement officers reached a 20-year high while the number went down in 2022, it is still well above what we've seen in years past. we need to take threats and acts of violence against law enforcement seriously. that's why i will reduce the protect and serve act in this

country. this legislation will make it a federal crime to intentionally assault a law enforcement officer. it's amazing it's not on the books today. it sends a strong message to criminals that targeting and assaulting law enforcement officers is inexcusable and you will be punished. i will continue to work across the aisle to get this legislation enacted into law and i'm committed to supporting our brave men and women in blue. this bill has the full support of the fraternal order of police and many of the nation's leading law enforcement groups. each year we take this week to celebrate those who serve us and protect us in public safety. this would be a great year to come back next year's police week and say that we got this bill passed. law enforcement has our backs every time and every day they put on a uniform. the least congress can do is to

support the protect and serve act. they need your support more than ever, and you need their support more than ever. to the men and women in blue in north carolina and across the country, i want to say thank you for what you do and the sacrifice you make. thank you. mr. president, i yield. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to june su of my staff during today's session of the senate. poip without objection. --. mr. cardin: i rise today in recognition of native american, pacific ryan -- hawaii heritage month. each day we recognize the contributions they have made to our history and continue to make today. as a nation we have made significant progress with respect to the inclusion and representation of the aapi

community across the many facets of our society. from actress michelle yo, barrier-breaking accomplishment this year as the first asian american winner of the oscar's best actress award. to runa miller, who was sworn in a few months ago as maryland's first immigrant and first asian american to be elected to statewide office, aapi children are finally getting to grow up, seeing faces that look like theirs in film, music, sports, politics, every other arena of public life. this progress didn't just happen overnight. it is the fruit of labor, of generations of aapi activists and leaders along with their allies. a labor that in some cases cost them their lives. i think of the chinese laborers, for instance, who played a critical role in building america's first transcontinental railroad, yet they were met with discrimination and exclusion at

every turn. they faced hardship, hardworking conditions and paid half as much as their white counterparts. in june of 1867, 3,000 chinese rail workers began a highly organized strike demanding equal wages and shorter hours. though they were initially unsuccessful in their demands, the strike demonstrated that the chinese workforce could not be taken for granted. over the next few months the rail company began raising rail worker wages. this is just one example of the historic legacy of the aapi activism against discrimination, whether perpetrated by the united states government, as with the internment of 120,000 japanese americans during world war ii, or by individuals like the racially motivated murder of vincent jin in 1928 which ignited the asian american civil rights movement.

but there is still much progress we need to make. stereotypes like the model minority myth continue to perpetrate the idea that the aapi community is monolithic, hard working and successful racial block which served as a model for how other minority groups should pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they just tried to work harder. stereotypes erase the diversity within the group we refer to as the aapi, which has the highest in many inequality across ethnic groups of any race in america. today aapi women are still earning on average 85 cents for every dollar earned by a white male. if you break that down into just native hawaiians and pacific islanderrers the number drops even further to just 60 cents for every dollar. the model minority myth attempts to pit aapi people against black and latino americans rather than acknowledging the role of

discrimination in america's socioeconomic and racial inequality. in spite of all this, there is a great historical legacy rarely taught in our classrooms of asian, black, and asian latin -- asian black and asian latino solidarity. frederick douglass, renowned abolitionist writer and marylander gave a speech in 1867, the same year as the chinese rail strike opposing restrictions on chinese immigration at a time when xenophobia and racism against chinese was rampant. remember this was in 1867, he said there was such things in the world as human rights. they rest upon no conventional foundation but are external, universal and indestructible. among these is the right of locomotion, the right of migration, the right which belongs to no particular race but belongs to all. it is a right you assert by staying here and your fathers

assert by coming here. it is this great right that i assert for the chinese and japanese and for all other varieties of men equally with yourself now and forever. i know of no right of race superior, superiority to the rights of humanity. and when there is supposed conflict between human and national rights, it is safe to go to the side of humanity. human rights has been a keen focus of mine during my entire congressional career. imagine frederick douglass over 150 years ago proclaimed this very same rights that we're still fighting for today. he was truly a man ahead of his time. in 1960's, 100 years after douglas' speech, filipino american larry ito leon led a strike long side american icon cesar chavez. their efforts led to raises in health care benefits and pesticide protections for the

striking grape workers and were primarily filipino and mexican descent. these examples show that there is power in solidarity towards a common goal. even as we celebrate the historic accomplishments of these and many more members of the aapi community we must also maintain a sense of urgency about how we as members of congress and as americans are meeting the needs of this community today. just a few months ago many east and southeast asian communities who were celebrating the lunar new year with their families suddenly had to fear for their safety following the back-to-back mass shootings together targeting asian elders from monterey park and half-moon bay. what should have been a time of celebration became a time of fear, anguish and grief instead. and these shootings were just the most recent in a string of violent crimes motivated by antiasian racism and xenophobia particularly in the wake of the

covid-19 pandemic. in a citied led in part by jenell wong, a university of maryland professor of asian american studies, 16% of asian american adults and 14% of native hawaii and pacific islander adults reported experiencing a hate rhyme in 20 -- hate crime in 2021. over 500,000 asian americans and 11,000 native hawaiians join me in calling maryland our home. they are a vital part of our state's economy and our communities in maryland are better off because of them. i particularly want to highlight the aapi community in frederick county, maryland. in the fiscal year 2023 omnibus appropriations bill i was proud to work with my colleague senator van hollen to secure a $375,000 earmark for the asian american center of frederick. the aacf provides vital services to lower-income, minority

groups in their community. services include translation services. english as a second language and citizenship classes, business development services and so much more. because of the funding senator van hollen and i were able to attain, the center will be able to increase programming for language-appropriate and culturally relevant early childhood education. this is crucial in a county like frederick where 13.5% of the residents speak a language other than english at home. research shows that high-quality early childhood education increases the children's readiness for school and narrows the a achievement gap by half and i'm inspired by the aacf who are fighting for the futures of their children. there is still work to be done. i'm committed to the ongoing movement for the aapi equality and justice in congress and beyond. i hope the senate will use this

asian american, native hawaiian and pacific islander heritage month as an opportunity to recognize this community's shal- accomplishments. mr. president, i would ask consent that statements that i will submit for the record in regards to celebrating jewish american heritage month,ing celebrating american wetlands month, migratory bird day and endangered species day appear separately in the journal. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. president. one of the benefits of sitting in the chair, as the senator from maine is currently, is you get to hear a wide variety of views from our colleagues.

and i've had the opportunity over the past several weeks while sitting in the chair to hear my republican colleagues talk about their concerns regarding the lifting of title 42. they are concerns that are very often shared in many respects by democrats as well. but it's really important that we level set the facts when we're talking about what's happening at the border right now as the pandemic authority to stop people from applying from asylum is, as required by law, being lifted. it's really important that we understand that in this debate there's a lot of spinning, there's a lot of myths, there are some just outright mistruths that are being spread about what's happening at the border and what has been happening at the border. and so i'm down on the floor just for a few minutes today to try to talk about a short list of those myths and untruths that

are being spread sometimes on this floor, but very often on social media and on cable news, so that we can find a way to have a functional conversation between republicans and democrats of good faith who actually want to make progress. first, my sense is that there were a lot of conservatives out there and a lot of haters of president biden who were kind of rooting for chaos at the border, were hoping there was just going to be this overwhelming flood of crossings and apprehensions at the border when title 42 was lifted. here's maybe the most important thing to say -- it didn't happen. in fact, if you look at the number of people who were showing up at the southwest border right before title 42 expired -- and i will admit that that number was elevated -- we have seen half as many people crossing in the last four days as were crossing right before title 42 expired.

4,000, 5,000 people, that is still a lot of people per day who are being apprehended at the border, but it does not match the doomsday predictions that many on the right were making. so i think it's just important to acknowledge that fact. because if you read the newspapers, if you paid attention to cable news, you would have thought that the minute that title 42 ended there was going to be a doubling, a tripling of the number of people who showed up at the border. that didn't happen in fact. 50% less people are showing up. that may not hold. i can't promise that that's the future trajectory, but i'm going to tell you a story today about why that happened, and it's connected to things joe biden did. the second level-setting exercise i want to engage in is this idea that we should be in just lockdown fear of all these people who are coming to the united states at the southern border, that there is something uniquely dangerous about

immigrants who are at large, but more specifically, undocumented immigrants. this is a trope that's been around for as long as the united states has existed, that we should fear immigrants coming to this country. but we now have data to tell us whether or not people who are coming to this country as immigrants or people who are even coming to this country as undocumented immigrants are a risk, a threat to the united states compared to natural born citizens. this is a study that donald trump's department of justice released. this isn't joe biden, this isn't barack obama. this is donald trump's department of justice released a study that found, quote, undocumented immigrants had substantially lower crime rates than native born citizens and legal immigrants across a range

of felony offenses. that's the truth. it's donald trump's truth, that in fact people who come to this country, whether legal immigrants or without documentation are not committing crimes at a greater rate than natural born americans. that doesn't excuse our broken system. that is not an argument to continue to allow so many people to come to this country without documentation. it just means that we shouldn't set on fire these arguments that we have something unique to fear. why? because these people are coming to the united states for a better -- for a better life and to flee terror, torture, persecution, violence and economic destitution. there are criminals amongst their midsts, but at no greater rate of offense than people born in this country. it is just important to

acknowledge that. i want to talk about four of these mitds very quickly. -- myths very quickly. the first one is that president biden had the authority to keep title 42 in place. that's just not true. for the better part of the last two years, republicans, conservatives, the broader right has been pillaring president biden for not lifting covid authorities fast enough. the pandemic's over, the right says, why do we still have these restrictions on our movement? why are there still restrictions on air travel? interestingly the only restriction that republicans wanted to keep in place was the one at the border that stopped people from coming into the united states that looked different than them. the pandemic is over. title 42 can't stay in place. the president doesn't have the legal authority to continue to turn people around and deny them the right to apply for asylum. and so it is just not true that

this is president biden's choice. and if you are a constitutionalist, if you are somebody who believes that the president cannot and should not exceed his constitutional statutory authority, then you have to support the lifting of title 42, we could change the law, and there are proposals to do that, but president biden can't keep title 42 in place any longer. the second myth is -- and i've heard this from some mf colleagues here is that everything was great under president trump and it exploded under president biden. in fact, sometimes you hear this stat, that crossings were at an historic low under president trump. well, that is it true to the extent that gas prices were at an historic low under president trump. because crossings were at an historic low for one year, 2020,

when we were in the middle of the teeth of the pandemic. and no one was going anywhere. yes, during that period of time when we shut down the border, when nobody in the united states was moving, when nobody in mexico was moving woorks we did -- moving, we did have a relatively low number of crossings. but when president trump was in office, in 2019800,000 people showed up at the border. that was twice the number from the previous decade on average during president biden's time in office and then in 2019, the number spiked to 800,000. they go down for one year, but they came back up as soon as the worst of the pandemic abated. it's just not true that this problem was a creation of president biden's swearing in. numbers were abnormally high right before the pandemic and they started jumping back up once the pandemic started to

lessen in its severity. the third myth is that president biden didn't prepare for the end of title 42. that's also not true. and i gave you that statistic to show that in fact crossings right now are half of what they were right before title 42 expired. now, i can't -- i can't divine all the reasons for that and maybe those numbers are temporary, but it is it definitely true that president biden has taken extraordinary steps to be ready for this moment even while congress refused to act and give him any help, president biden surged thousands of troops to the border. he put more asylum officers there, he moved border patrol, he signed agreements with mexico to -- in which mexico agreed to take a certain number of individuals who were coming from countries like venezuela and cuba, and he implemented a really tough new asylum rule, a

rule that, frankly, many people on his political left say went beyond his statutory authority. but that rule says that you actually cannot apply for asylum at the border unless you've applied beforehand in a safe third country or you've made an appointment. that's a really innovative, tough, new approach to try to reduce the number of crossings and presentations at the border, a step that, frankly, president trump didn't even entertain. so it is just not true that president biden hasn't done anything. in fact, he's taken extraordinary steps to try to be as ready as he can, which leads me to the fourth and final myth, which this is all president biden's problem. it's not. it's our problem. we haven't significantly updated the immigration laws of this

country since the 1980's or 1990's. it's been 30 years since we have changed the laws of this nation to reflect the changing nature of migration globally and the changing nature of migration to the united states. we, through our inaction, have left president after president, republican and democrat, with a mess because our laws don't work. our immigration system is broken broken, and yet, we blame the president for failing to be able to work miracles out of a system that has been fundamentally rendered ineffective. and let's be very clear. republicans have had ample opportunity to fix the laws of this nation. in 2013, when the presiding officer and i got to the senate, there was a deal on the table to fundamentally reform our

immigration laws, republicans in the senate joined to get that done, but the republican speaker of the house refused to have a vote on it in the house. since then there have been a number of efforts to reach out and try to find compromise with republicans and it has generally been the republican party at large that there is too big a cost for them to pay to it try to find a common ground on immigration reform. i say that is a position of the republican party at large, because i do know and believe there are individual republican senators in this body who do want to find compromise, who do want to recognize that this cannot be solved by any president so long as the laws of this nation don't provide resources to move asylum claims faster, don't give border patrol what they need, don't allow enough people to come into this country through legal pathways. and part of the reason i'm down here on the floor today trying to correct these myths and

untruths because i think it is a necessary predicate in order for us as a body, republicans and democrats, to sit down and talk about solving this problem. the lack of action in congress has left president biden an impossible task. he's done the best that he conceivably can with a set of broken laws, but instead of spreading these myths and often outright laws about what's happening at the border and the consequences of lifting title 42, we should, as a body, do our job and fix our broken immigration laws. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to unmask one of the major players behind the republicans' debt limit brinksmanship. with renewable energy outcompeting fossil fuels, big oil is worried that its oil well has run dry and wants to keep pumping the american people dry for all that they are worth. so the oil and gas industry is running its tried and true playbook with speaker kevin mccarthy taking the snap as their quarterback. the republicans all voted against the inflation reduction act. they turned away from its provisions to create a livable future, its millions mf new clean energy jobs, its investments in environmental justice communities. the only thing republicans

haven't turned away is the billions of dollars in new investments unleashed in their states and districts from this landmark legislation with $150 billion in investments already announced across the country because of the ira, because of the largest climate bill in american history. mr. president, i've seen republicans on tv fearmongering about the inflation reduction act, but i haven't seen a single republican turn down any one of those billions of dollars or any of those jobs or benefits for those communities in red states. but the fossil fuel industry itself, it's actually scared that something might happen to their season of record-shattering profits. they're scared that utilities will finally wake up and realize that installing new renewables

is cheaper and more cost effective than running existing coal plants. natural gas plants are also setup to go the way of the dinosaur. in fact, we won't have it to dig up anymore dinosaurs in order to create the fossil fuels. building new solar and wind instead of new natural gas could save american energy customers billions of dollars. the average cost of energy for coal and gas is much higher than wind and solar. how much, well, coal is nearly double the cost of solar. natural gas is almost 1.5 times more costly than wind. and this is not accounting for the new ira subsidies, the new climate bill subsidies from last year. these statistics are the real

fear of fossil fuel executives. these clean energy gains threaten big oil's massive bonus and even bigger profit margin. big oil more than doubled its profits in 2022, making nearly $20 billion in that year and paying out a record to their investors -- investors, those are wind falls made and on the back of american families' budgets. republicans say they care about budgets. but the only budget they are committed to protecting are the ones of big oil and big gas industry across our country. that is why a tax on clean energy and climate action are on the republicans' debt limit and budget agendas. that is why republicans are attacking tax credits for the american-made clean energy that makes us more secure, saves money, and protects our health and our climate. and that is why republicans are reportedly trying to jam a big

oil and natural gas wish list masquerading as a so-called permitting package through debt limit negotiations instead of going through regular order on the floor of the united states senate. the republican permitting package would give fossil fuels even more of a leg up while their repeal of the inflation reduction act, clean energy provisions would hold our clean energy future hostage. republicans don't want to use the budget to give students and children head -- a head start. they want to give big oil a head start over clean energy. so just as we cannot default on our national debt, we cannot default on our debt to society. and that means that we cannot default on climate action for a livable future. climate should be off the table in debt limit negotiations. no repeal of the inflation reduction act.

no provisions to fast-track fossil fuel permitting in our country. we know we need to build a clean energy future, but the republicans' permitting proposal wouldn't help build on the ira, it would bury the ira. the republicans permit -- republicans' permitting priorities are a carbon bomb designed to unleash fossil fuels, to push renewable energy off the grid, to stall the progress that we've made. their priorities apparently don't include fixes or the electric transmission issues in this country when transmission is what could improve reliability and deliver affordable energy to all americans. in other words, they want to have permitting for more oil and gas drilling but they don't want to fix the transmission issues, and none of that is on the table that republicans are asking for in order to to solve the problem

of moving renewable energy across the country. permitting should be about transmission lines, not pipelines. and combined with their attacks on the inflation reduction act, their priorities will devastate our climate, take away good-paying jobs, and cost americanss about billions -- americans billions of dollars. the inflation reduction act is projected to save americans over thousand dollars. and it is projected to give us a fighting chance at meeting our climate targets. we cannot throw that away. we have a climate test for success. jobs, justice, and emissions reductions. that is our climate test. if we negotiate on the inflation reduction act and permitting as part of debt limit conversations, we will fail that climate test. and the end result will be an

environmental and climate catastrophe. climate action and clean energy progress can't be held hostage in this debate. fast-tracking fossil fuels while attacking renewables is and always has been and always will be the big oil game plan. so we can't play the game. we can't play with our future. we cannot default on our debt, but we also cannot allow the destructive republican budget to be implemented. and that's why i've joined with some of my democratic colleagues on calling on president biden to utilize his authority under the 14th amendment of the constitution which clearly states, quote, the validity of the public debt of the united states shall not be questions. it's in the united states constitution. and using that authority would allow the president and the united states to continue to paper the country's bills on time and without delay.

it will ensure that we prevent a potential global economic catastrophe, but let's not forget, it is the bush and trump tax cuts for the wealthy that are the driving force behind the debt that the republicans are now crying crocodile tears over. speaker mccarthy says he wants to limit, save, and grow. well, what he and his republicans really want for do is cut, gut, and slow, cut taxes even more for the wealthy and corporations, gut programs like medicaid, head start, meals on wheels, pell grants, community health centers, and slow the pace of the clean energy and climate action, wind, solar, all-electric vehicles, battery storage technologies that will revolutionize our energy consumption in our country and all to protect big oil buddies,

gas buddies all across the country. a livable future and affordable clean energy are budget realities. we can save money for american families and save our planet at the same time. the ira's climate provisions and fossil fuel permitting should be off the table during this negotiation. we cannot allow for the well-being of american families or our planet to be hostage to a radical right-wing conservative house of representatives that is out of control in terms of its relationship with reality. so, mr. president, with that i appreciate the attention of the senate, and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from la la.

-- the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm going to talk a few minutes today about house bill 12. that's not house bill 12 from the united states house of representatives. that's house bill 12 from the louisiana house of representatives. why dow want to talk about it? because it's important. it's important for my state, and i think it's important for other states. house bill 12 passed the house, louisiana house of representatives yesterday, maybe it was the day before, by a vote of 88-15, and it's headed to my

senate. mr. president, as you know, it's frustrating. the american people can do things that take your breath away. we can unravel the human genome. we can take a diseased human heart, we can do that in america, and replace it with a new one and make it beat. we can send a person to the moon, but we can't seem to teach our children how to read and write when we have 18 years to do it.

i don't come here this morning to assess blame. our problem shared in other countries. that's no excuse. our problem is caused by a multitude of factors. but i believe, mr. president, and i bet you believe that every child can learn. every child can learn. it's harder for some than others. i recognize that some of our children do not have a supportive home life. not just in america but in other parts of the world. it seems commonsensical to me, mr. president, that if a parent does not love their child, the

child is not going to stop loving the child's parent. the child is going to stop loving himself or herself. but i don't know how to fix that. all we can do is continue to believe that every child can learn. every child. my state unlike -- like other states has a problem with elementary and secondary education. over half of my children, my young people in louisiana, are not reading at their grade level. and at some point as the child is socially promoted in school and progresses, it almost

becomes impossible for a child to learn if the child can't read. it's not just money. go look at a list of what states spend on elementary and secondary education. not just states but local government and the federal government as well. one of our states in america is spending $54,000 a year on their public schools. i mean, god bless them, but that's a lot of money. it's not just money. we've got to try and we've got to be courageous enough to try new things that we think will work. now what does that somewhere to do -- what does that have to do with house bill 12 in the

louisiana state legislature? here is what house bill 12 would do. it would say look, we're not blaming anyone, but if you or a child in the third grade in louisiana and you can't read according to objective standards at an acceptable level, then you're going to stay in the third grade. we don't care if you're 16 years old, we can hold you until you're 18, but we think you can learn. and you can't learn if you can't read. now that doesn't mean that the child just repeats the third grade with no help. we will assign that child special tutors. we will assign that child

special attention. we will give that child a number of efforts to demonstrate that child's proficiency after getting the special tutoring and attention. but we think every child can learn. this approach has been tried in two other states, mr. president. mississippi and florida. and it has worked in both states, both states. we have copied it from mississippi and florida. we take no pride in -- after authorship, and i'm always willing to copy other people's ideas that work and give them full credit. let me just mention the success

in mississippi. and i hope my colleagues in the louisiana legislature -- i love every one of them -- are listening to me. after mississippi implemented its requirement that kids can advance -- can't advance until they can read, this is what one analysis says of the results of that effort. the results are stunning. in six grades -- in sixth grade, three years after the intervention, retained students outperformed similar students by 1.2 standard deviations. a 0.8 effect size is generally considered large with no measurable impact, none, on student absenteeism or special education classification, negative indicators sometimes

associate with retention. those aren't my words. that came from an indepth study at boston university. this analysis goes on to say, the magnitude of mississippi's accomplishments with early reading is truly impressive and rightly deserves attention and replication by other states. from low-income, black, and hispanic students by 2019, mississippi had risen to the top five of all the states in the fourth grade in an e.p. with each group showing more than a year's additional progress since 2013. and i could go on. i could cite you certain analyses and statistics for the state of florida. every child can learn.

it just requires a little extra attention and love for some of our children. now, h.b.12 in the louisiana legislature would copy the program in mississippi and florida. it has passed as it did last year overwhelmingly, as i mentioned, in the louisiana house of representatives. last year in the louisiana house of representatives, it passed overwhelmingly. this year just recently, it passed by a vote of 88-15. last year when the bill went to my state senate, the bill died. we're on our second try. and the bill is now before the louisiana state senate. i know every member of my louisiana state senate. i respect all of them. and i am pleading with them. please, please, please, pretty please with sugar on top pass this bill.

it's worked in other states. if it doesn't work in louisiana, i'll come right to this lectern and say it didn't work. we tried it. we gave it our best shot but it didn't work. but i think it will. and i think our kids deserve the chance. every child can learn. every child can learn. but some of our children need special attention. this bill, house bill 12 before the louisiana state senate will provide that attention. please, members of my senate, pass this bill. mr. chairman -- or mr. president rather, i yield to my colleague from hawaii.

ms. hirono: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, may is asian american native hawaiian and pacific islander heritage month. this month is an opportunity to celebrate the many contributions of aanhpi communities, and the critical role we have played throughout our nation's history. from trailblazers like patsy mink and anna may wong to our own vice president harris. members of our community have long been leaders in government, science, business, the arts and more. but while we celebrate our community this month is also a reminder of how much work remains to advance equality and equity for our community. the aanhpi community has long

been the target of racism and discrimination in this country. among other challenges, our communities are still combatting anti-asian violence, suffering from health disparities, and experiencing sex trafficking and violence at alarming rates. the aanhpi community is the fastest growing demographic group in the united states. in the past 20 years alone, the number of asian americans in the u.s. has nearly doubled, but we are not a monolith. aanhpi communities come from dozens of countries and speak countless languages. the diversity makes our community and our country stronger. that's why in a moment i'll seek unanimous consent to pass a

resolution recognizing aanhpi heritage month. this resolution highlights many of the leaders of our community throughout history, and some of the triumphs and challenges we have faced throughout the years. it affirms the important role our communities continue to play in the story of our nation and has bipartisan support. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s.r. res 209. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution, 209, recognizing the significance of asian american native hawaiian and pacific eye laner heritage month, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there

objection to proceeding to the measure? hearing none, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. hirono: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the hirono amendment at the desk to be -- preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. schumer: mr. president, the negotiations are currently making progress, as speaker mccarthy has said, he expects the house will vote next week if an agreement is reached, and the senate would begin consideration after that. following the vote on the abudu nomination, members should remain aware and be able to return to the senate within a 24-hour period to fulfill our responsibilities to avoid

default. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. today i rise to oppose the nomination of nan did i abudu for president biden's nominee and appointment to the u.s. circuit judge for the 1th circuit court of appeals. -- for the 11th circuit court of appeals. in a government as divided as ours at this time, we expect to have some controversial nominees that come before us at the judiciary committee. we expect debate. we do expect disagreement, but what we should never expect or tolerate is a nominee who has proven herself completely unfit for the role she's asking.

ms. abudu has shown us that there is no such thing as a good-faith debate. she views disagreements over policy as evidence of bigotry. she describes herself as a radical legal activist and has compared her fellow americans to jim crow-era racists and endorsed political violence against conservatives. she has stated that policing is -- and aim a. going to quote her here -- the true threat to our collective safety. hear we out on this. she has said that policing is -- and i quote her -- the true threat to our collective safety, end quote. she has embraced lawless sanctuary city policies and compared our criminal justice system to the horrors of slavery.

these are her statements and her positions. i would be doing a disservice to our federal, state, and local law enforcement officers if i didn't point out the ranking hypocrisy of my democratic colleagues' attempt to force this nominee through during national police week. now, mr. president, as i said, she feels like policing is a threat to our collective safety. but my democratic colleagues during this national police week are choosing to push her forward. she used the significant power her position within the southern poverty law center to weaponize charges of hate against her political opponents, all the while covering up play tant

discrimination within -- blatant discrimination within her organization. indeed, the southern poverty law center every year issues their hate list. this should give everyone pause. but perhaps the most egregious example of ms. abudu's hostility toward the rule of law involves this very chamber, those of us of each party that sit in this chamber. in 2021, mr. president, she engaged in a vicious mud-slinging campaign in an attempt to manipulate the u.s. senate into abandon respecting the filibuster and endorsing a radical overhaul our federal elections. her campaign was so full of misrepresentations and we'll just call them falsehoods that even some of the most progressive members of her party balked at what she was doing.

this is the conduct that the biden administration is seeking to reward. justice is to be evenhanded. justice, equal justice for all. one system of justice, not two tiers of justice. we must not tolerate what is happening here, and we must not approve this nominee. we had a great discussion in the judiciary committee about people that are unfit for the bench, unfit for public service, and the need to make certain that people are fit for this service. ms. abudu, by her actions, has proven herself to be unethical,

unscrupulous, and completely untethered from any acceptable philosophy of law. to approve this nominee would be to rubber stamp a nominee who terms herself a radical leftist activist. it would rubber stamp a radical agenda. it would rubber stamp an activist judge. we don't want that on our courts. this is something the american people have rejected repeatedly. i yield the floor.

mr. padilla: mr. president, i have five requests for meet -- for committees to meese during today's session. senate. they have thate approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. padilla: mr. president, i rise today as chair of the environment and public works subcommittee on fisheries, water, and wildlife to express my strong disapproval of republican efforts to undermine the integrity and authority of the u.s. fish and wildlife service. now, around the world scientists tell us that one million species face extinction, including 40% of animals in the united states. this is nothing short of a biodiversity crisis, one that will have dire impacts on the

ecosystems around us and the clean air and clean water that we need to survive. and yet last week for the second and the third time in just two weeks, republicans passed a congressional review act resolution to constrain the fish and wildlife service and their ability to protect our planet. three times now we've had to stop all other business of the senate and devote valuable floor time that we could used to pass legislation, to confirm or promote military leaders, and otherwise do the people's business. instead, we had to stop to debate the merits of protecting threatened and endangered species from extinction? that's not a joke.

for the folks watching at home, and this is not an exaggeration either. let's review. it was a half a century ago that congress acknowledged the reality of habitat destruction and the threats to america's unique biodiversity, and, yes, congress gave the fish and wildlife service the to you are to administer a process -- the power to administer a process for designating and protecting newly endangered species. congress intentionally and purposefully handed the appellate court over to experts -- handed the power over to experts in habitat loss and biodiversity to determine which species are most at risk and what we need to do to protect them. it's no different than how we

regulate prescription drugs, for example. we rely on the fda and their experts and their scientists to protect the american people rather than trying to individually legislate every single medication. imagine trying to legislate every single medication in this body. so the real effect of these cra's is to set a precedent for personal grievances and for the folks who deny the science and prefer gridlock to prevail. passage of these cra's is the equivalent of saying that whenever a powerful industry or a lone member of congress dislikes a rule that scientists at the fish and wildlife service issue in the future, that they're entitled to a vote, to second-guess and overturn the

actual experts. mr. president, i may be wrong, but i'm not aware of any wildlife biologists currently serving in this senate. at a time when more and more wildlife species are at risk of extinction, we can't constrain the ability of the fish and wildlife service from following the science and issuing rules to protect them. or in the case of the critical habitat designation cra, my completion are play -- my colleagues are blatantly ignoring the climate change and reducing the ability to respond in the years ahead. i suggest that rather than grinding congress to a halt, those of us who voted to follow the process that comes itself

created was a responsible way to allow the scientists and experts to do their job. rather than ignore the science of the climate crisis, i voted to live up to the responsibilities that we have as stewards of this great land. and while this last week senate republicans got their way, i'm proud to have a president in the white house who takes seriously our sacred responsibility to our planet and who refuses to overrule the experts and the scientists. but i also know that this is not the end of the cra's that our republican colleagues will attempt to overrule the fish and wildlife service and choose to put their personal grievances over progress in congress. so when that day comes again -- because there will be future attempts -- tylia proudly once

-- i'll proudly once again stand with the experts and vote no. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: senator, the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. fischer: thank you. i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: thank you. mr. president, this week is national police week. it is an opportunity to show our gratitude to the men and women in blue who risk their lives every day for our safety as well as honor those who lost their lives in the line of duty. this police week i want to tell the story of a police chief in my home state of nebraska. local broadcast outlet ketv interviewed the new police chief of ashland, a city of about 3,000 on the eastern sieftd state. -- side of the state. according to to ketv, chief

brian brady worked 19 days in a row at one point last year. he logged over 170 hours in a two-week period. chief brady clocked more than 800 overtime hours last year, but he's on salary so he's not paid for any of it. i am amazed at chief brady's dedication to the job. he works day shifts, night shifts, and picks up his partners' shifts when they get sick. but why does he have to do all that work? why does he have to do so much? well, because his department has encountered a staffing crisis. between retirements and trouble recruiting, the ashland police department has dwindled down to only a handful of officers. chief brady told ketv, quote,

somebody's got to work, so the buck stops here. so, you know, if no one else can work, i work. end quote. i've spoken with police officers and sheriffs all over my state, and i can tell you this is not a problem that's unique to ashland. no, it's not even a problem unique to nebraska. severe police staffing shortages are affecting departments all across our country. the police executive research forum, they found that agencies are losing officers faster than they can hire new ones. there were 47% more resignations in 2022 than 2019. in addition to 19% more retirements over the same time period. that means that large groups of

officers are leaving the force while few are trickling in. understaffed departments are doing that you are best to keep -- are doing their best to keep up with these changes, but there are also roadblocks that we can help them remove when it comes to hiring. over the past year i have worked with police departments across nebraska as well as national law enforcement groups representing departments across this country. from these conversations, i introduced the recruit and retain act which would help police departments staffing -- tackle these staffing road blooks. this bipartisan bill would work through the justice department community-oriented policing services hiring grants. these grants can keep departments afloat.

but recruitment expenses like background checks, psychological evaluations and other tests are not currently included in the eligible expenses. so this bill would allow cops grants to cover these specific costs and make it easier to on board new officers, reducing the cost of hiring, that would go a long way in helping law enforcement raise staffing levels. my bill would also establish the pipeline partnership program, a new initiate -- initiative aimed at fostering youth interest in law enforcement careers. departments and local schools would work together to launch mentorship opportunities, job fairs, and other activities that give young people better insight into law enforcement work. this program would bolster

community relationships. it would help to open up stronger local hiring pipeline for police departments too. finally, the bill would direct the government accountability office to study both the causes of this latest recruitment and retention challenge as well as the effects they have on public safety. i would like to thank senator coons for working with me on this bill for many months, as well as senators cornyn and klobuchar. it was great that we saw the judiciary committee pass this bill by voice vote today, and i look forward to its advancement. i was also glad to join my colleague, senator cornyn, to help introduce two bills that further support law enforcement's tireless work, the project safe neighborhoods act of 2023 would reauthorize the project safe neighborhoods

program through fiscal year 2026. the psn program is an effective bipartisan solution to violent crime that's been working since 2001. in nebraska, psn coordinates enforcement and prosecution partnerships among federal, state, and local law enforcement, in addition to involvement with nebraska communities to bring violent offenders to justice. the second bill, the back to blue act, would protect police officers by creating new federal criminal penalties for attacking law enforcement officers. too often police officers are harmed rather than honored in our country, and it's time that we make a federal statement that attackers will be punished.

another vital area to continue addressing is the mental health of our police officers who face daily strains from the intensity of their jobs. i am planning to reintroduce a bill that would direct the department of health and human services to create a publicly accessible online dash board so that organizations, including law enforcement groups, can easily search for federal funding opportunities that support mental health. potential applicants would be able to search for the right mental health grants and track the status of those grants. this bill could truly be a lifeline to officers reeling from staffing issues or difficult cases. in his interview, ashland police chief brady said, quote,

i love this community. the hours i'm putting in are because of my care for the people, unquote. that dedication, that is what we honor during national police week. but let's not leave our appreciation for selfless hardworking police officers behind on saturday when police weekends. i urge my colleagues to continue backing the blue throughout the year, and especially to pass these very critical bills. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ricketts: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in opposition to the nomination of nancy g. abudu to the u.s. court of appeals. i served as governor for eight

years and in that time i had the great privilege of appointing dozens of judicial appointments to nebraska courts. i appointed four of the current nebraska supreme court justices and many more to lower courts. when i considered a prospective nominee, i was often in mind of our state's motto -- equality before the law. that motto reflects a commonsense american principle that all people should receive equal treatment and equal opportunity, regardless of one's race or background. the women and men who serve in our courts should reflect this motto. when i considered nominees, i looked at a few things. i looked at whether they were leaders with high integrity and character. i looked at their experience,

and i looked at how they understood their role as a judge. did they think their job of a judge was to make the law or to interpret the law? i looked at if they had a respect for the law and whether they had the temperament to bring a thoughtful and fair-minded approach to each case they would have at hand. i looked at whether they were respected by their peers. and i'm proud of the appointments that i made. nancy g. abudu is not someone i would have considered for a judgeship. ms. abudu is a kind of soft-on-crime antipolice activist we actually must keep off of the bench, and i want to take a moment to go over her

record. ms. abudu has argued publicly and repeatedly that american voting laws and criminal justice system are racist and discriminatory. she has specifically maligned the three states that compromised the 11th circuit that she is being considered for. in alabama, she said that jim crow continues to cast a long shadow on the state's elections. she said that florida is engaged in a war to strip poor and low-income people of all political power. and she accused georgia state legislators of opposing voters and undermining democracy, that was her quote, and said that the state was, quote, a bad actor, and, quote, simply cannot be

trusted to protect the rights of voters. end quote. at a time when americans require certainty and security of our elections, ms. awb has consistently -- ms. nancy g. abudu has tried to undermine the public's trust of our elections and our voting rights. she has argued that prohibiting felons from voting is, quote, practically the same system as during slavery, end quote. she argued that requiring voters to present identification is voter suppression. my colleague, ranking member grassley, described abudu as one of the most activist nominees we have ever seen. she has doubled down on her

defense of work to challenge a miami ordinance to ban sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school. senator grassley asked her about an article where she advocated laws to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections and suggested that opponents of such legislation are, quote, trying to insight hysteria that undocumented immigrants are also taking over the ballot box in addition to our country. when asked which election she thought noncitizens should be permitted to vote in, she declined to respond saying, quote, in the article i noted that some cities allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections, end quote. republican members of the senate

judiciary committee questioned her about inflammatory statements she has also made, including, quote, systemic racism is embedded in the criminal justice system and other parts of our society. end quote. that the problem with southern states when it comes to voting laws is, quote, they're not always doing the right thing and the resettlement they feel is that -- resentment is that historically that the federal government has not allowed them to get away with it. end quote. quote, governor desantis are preventing people from voting. with respect to privatization of schools she said that we are not in a culture where we can rely on state legislatures to do the right thing, especially if they are black or brown, end quote. nancy g. abudu's work at the law

center since 2019 and currently as the strategic litigation director are also extremely concerning positions. for those unfamiliar with the southern law center, it is a far-left activist organization that only targets conservatives whom they disagree with politically. they are known for unapologetically and often without any justification stating certain individuals or groups as hate groups or extremists. as a federal judge recently found that the hate list does not depend upon objective data or evidence and its application of the hate group designation is entirely subjective. another federal judge ruled that splc's representation or description of nonprofit organizations as hate groups is not one of fact.

their hate map, as they call it, is outright deception to scare older liberals into writing checks to splc. floyd lee entered the research family's counsel headquarters with a pistol and a box of extra rounds and the intent to kill as many people as possible. fortunately he was stopped by the building manager from carrying out this shooting. under fbi interrogation, he said he chose to carry out the attack on the frc after it was labeled a hate group. in 2018, the splc paid $3.375 million in damage after branding a british muslim

reformer as an anti-muslim extremist. the splc has compelled to issue an apology for placing dr. ben carson on the extremist watch list in 2014. in 2021, we saw their reckless and misguided definition of hate groups used against the university of nebraska lincoln students, a christian student organization called the ratio christie filed a lawsuit alleging the discrimination against the christian views when it denied funds for a speaker. i spoke out at the time urging the university to support the speaker including christian speakers. the group of students secured legal defense for the alliance defending freedom. the designation of adf as a hate group was then used against the students media reports across the state. fortunately justice prevailed and in a victory for free speech

at the public universities, a federal court entered a partial -- who discriminated against christian student organization. the university revised its funding and provided for transparency in the process. in 2023 a whistleblower revealed that the bure re issued an internal memo on radical traditionalist ideology citing the ap -- splc, they said it was from the church developments since the vatican council and opposition to homosexual assault really. -- homosexuality. they said it should include places of worship. it presents a list of hate groups published by the splc as a place to start with this work.

the splc's hate level destroys civil discourse and breeds contempt for those who hold different views. americans want judges that understand their role is to and interpret laws, not make them. americans want judges who give every litigant a fair shake. americans want judges that believe in our founding documents. ms. abudu has failed to demonstrate she understands the critical role a judge should play in our legal system. her record proves that she is far outside the mainstream. far-left activists do not belong on the federal bench. i call on my colleagues to join me in opposing this radical nominee. thank you, mr. president. i yield back.

mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, today i rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of nancy g. abudu, to serve on the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit. she may well be the most radical judicial nominee. nominated, to date, by president biden. i had concerns with ms. abudu's radical views and her apparent lack of respect for the rules of the court ever since her nomination. then during her confirmation hearing, i asked her about allegations of potential judge shopping raised by judge burke of the u.s. district court for the northern district of alabama. in a series of cases brought by the southern poverty law center. as a result of troubling attorney conduct in this series of cases, the three federal

district courts in alabama took the extraordinary and joint measure of convening to hear concerns raised by judge burke and ms. abudu's legal team brazenly abused judicial process. ms. abudu is, to be clear, the director of strategic litigation for the southern poverty law center. strategic litigation is what they do. that's what they're about, and she's the director of this division. now, when i asked her about her strategic litigation decisions in this series of cases, she stated, quote, as director of strategic litigation, my responsibility is to oversee and provide general management for our cases, but it is the subject matter experts in the litigation -- and the litigation team that handle the day-to-day, including the filing of

complaints, the briefing and any oral arguments. close quote. in response to my question, she refused to be forthright. she didn't deny her oversight of these cases. she simply refused to admit that she was responsible for the strategic decisions that the three alabama federal district courts found so troubling. for lack of candor and her apparent disregard for the protections built into our legal system, disqualify her for a position on the united states court of a appeals for the eleventh circuit. as i asked her about these, about these cases, pointing out only that the date-to-day -- day-to-day litigation management was handled by other attorneys, which was honest, she avoided a direct line of inquiry, a line of inquiry that was very relevant to her nomination to

her confirmation process. but, unfortunately, my concerns with ms. abudu's nomination do not end, and they didn't begin, with this troubling series of cases that i've just described. you see, the attorneys general in every single state of the eleventh circuit who were joined, by the way, by the attorneys general of a number of officer states, but every single attorney general serving within the eleventh circuit was part of this letter articulating concerns and confirming that there are grave dangers in confirming ms. abudu to the eleventh circuit. the attorney general, along with attorneys general from 15 additional states, including my home state of utah, sent a letter to the leadership of this body expressing their numerous

concerns with ms. abudu's nomination. the attorneys general of the people who would be subject to coming before ms. abudu in federal cases are justifiably worried about her potential confirmation today. these are people who really need to be able to have the confidence that when appearing before judge abudu should not only respect the law but that she'll handle their cases without any preconceived biases, biases that could lead her off course. if anyone has preconceived notions, biases regarding how justice ought to be administered such that litigants could come to the conclusion that they wouldn't get a fair shake in front of that judge, not to mention preconceived prejudices against the good people living in the eleventh circuit,

ms. abudu has demonstrated that she does. ms. abudu is a current member and past leader of an entity called the national lawyers gild. this group eye identifies itself consisting of a radical movement of legal activists. their words, not mine. after violent protests against atlanta police officers, the national lawyers gild declared, quote, policing is the true threat to our collective safety. imagine that. it's not crime. it's not other problems that police deal with, it's police themselvessing the act of -- themselves with the act of policing. they didn't say specific police officers who may, like most officers, may not be doing their jobs right. they said policing, policing itself is the true threat to our

collective safety. imagine that. i agree with these toarchls that ms. abudu's position with this group is alone ground for refusing and rejecting her nomination. i find it very troubling indeed that those who would be subject to having to come before ms. abudu find her track record dishonest and divisive. let me quote from the letter outlining their concerns. quote, we are familiar with ms. abudu's work and her work to demonize those she disagrees. ms. abudu has proven herself unfit for the role. she has compared her fellow americans to gym crowe era racists, she has aligned with activists who view policing as the true threat to our

collective safety. she has proclaimed our criminal justice system is practically the same system as during slavery. these outraimgous statements vividly demonstrate that she lacks the judgment, fair-mindedness and integrity required of a federal judge. close quote. now, to be clear, ms. abudu chose to associate herself with the southern poverty law center which is itself well known for leveling unfounded charges of hate against any person or any group with which that organization happens to disagree. she became a leader in that organization and fully embraced its deplorable tactics which are not intended to foster debate and understanding but rather to silence opposition. they're well known for publishing things. their hate list has bought about hate, led to a shooting in washington, d.c. of an entity

here. someone got shot after believing that the southern poverty law center had indicated that that was the appropriate action. she's made offensive and baseless assertions against the people on the 11th circuit. now, i'm going to quote some more from the attorney general letter. quote, since blood pressuring a leader of the southern poverty law -- becoming a leader in the southern poverty law center, she has engaged in deplorable tactics about i disparaging those in her way including each of the three states. for example, she and her team submitted a report to congress about alabama's supposedly unwielding record of racial dis-- racial discrimination and voting. the alabama attorney general's office set the record straight in a follow-up report that went claim by claim documenting the splc's many misrepresentations. the quote continues.

quote, each misrepresentation served the overarching theme of ms. abudu's report that any disagreement over policy is proof that her political opponents are evil. indeed, according to ms. abudu, things in alabama are the same or worse today than they were in 1965. as she tells it, alabama's goal today is to -- now these are her words -- establish white supremacy in this state. the letter continues. while some might see room for a good-faith debate, for example, about the merits of alabama's voter identification law which was upheld by the 11th circuit, the court on which she's been nominated to serve, ms. abudu sees only a relentless commitment to finding new ways to keep alabamians from making their voices heard all part of a desperate attempt to perpetuate majority white control. her words, not mine. the letter concludes, these assertions are as offensive as

they are baseless and they are disqualifying for an aspiring federal judge. toll quote one more time from the -- to quote one more time from the letter, another part of the letter says, quote, though ms. abudu is surely aware of the facts, she prefers to use her powerful position at the southern poverty law center to sow division and erode trust among americans declaring jim crow is still alive and well in the south. the supreme court is recognized and as any fair-minded person knows, things have changed in the south. ms. abudu's contrary contention doesn't show simply professional disagreement. it shows at best insiewrpable bias. it more likely shows dishonesty and it certainly shows unfitness for judicial office. i ask -- by the way -- unanimous consent to submit and enter into

the record the letter from the attorneys general. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: she showed marked hostility toward alabamians, floridians and georgians. she's accused of suppressing minorities and poor people from voting. accused police officers of targeting minorities. all throughout her accusations is the thread of racism. it animates her every action, her every assault, her every view. she accuses georgia of being, quote, committed to keeping us in the past and that is scary. close quote. as the attorneys general appropriately ask, how could ms. abudu impartially adjudicate the many 11th circuit cases involving georgia, its statutes, its citizens and especially its law officers -- law enforcement officers when she already believes the state is a bad actor. with a culture of law enforcement that targets black and brown people. there again they're quoting her

words. ms. abudu's record of hostility towards the people and the laws of the 11th circuit is nothing short of alarming. when you combine that hostility with her lack of respect for the judicial system and her ongoing commitment to a group of self-described radical movement legal activists, i simply don't know how any member of this body can still believe she will serve the people of the 11th circuit or even less, our judicial system well. the only way one can justify voting for this nominee is if one agrees with her hostile views and is comfortable with her activist approach. i am not. and i oppose her nomination in the strongest possible terms. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from wisconsin. a senator: mr. president, i know of no further debait. the presiding officer: is there further debate? hearing none, the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 49, the nays are 47, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions.

test.

the plan is now in hands of negotiators. they are negotiating as we speak. i know president biden will be back on sunday. hopeful we at least have a framework by the end of the week, but again republicans are here and we stand ready to get f this bill

moving and not g default on our nation's debt. >> what do you think needs, mins here. number one, the judge we just confirmed i think to the eleventh judicial circuit, ms. abudu, is an example of the system being broken. this nominee that i voted against in committee is way beyond what i think the market should bewaring. it's my view a partisan's dream. it's okay to be a litigant on causes i don't agree with, it's okay to represent organization that's i differ with. i don't hold the client against a lawyer, but i do hold positions against the lawyer when it comes to caused-driven

litigation. this nominee, at every turn, has taken the left fork in the road to the point of being in the ditch. as a lawyer, she sued a florida community who were trying to protect children from sexual predators by having requirements that of notice but also being away from schools, certain distances, and she sued the community basically claiming that was unfair to the sexual abuser. it's moments like this that should be a wakeup call for this body. her record as advocate is not just representing liberal causes, but the rhetoric used and the arguments made convince

me -- convinced me in committee that this is an activist on steroids and i've tried to work with my democratic colleagues voting for circuit and district court judges understanding that democrats would pick someone i would not choose. that's the way the system works, but in this case it was a partisan vote. not one republican voted for this nominee and her record, i think, is one of activism and stridency that will, in my view, shape her time as a judge and shape the court in a way that is inconsistent with the rule of law as i know it. so, to my democratic colleagues, you have confirmed this nominee, but i'm sure that this is not the last we will hear about

ms. abudu. today it was announced that rachael rollins, the u.s. attorney for massachusetts is going to resign, i think. she's under investigation for unethical behavior and using her office for revenge. she is one of the few, maybe the only u.s. attorney that i voted against in this congress. there may have been one other, but it was pretty obvious to those of us on the committee that the warning signs regarding ms. rollins were rampant and that we were buying a problem. and the point i'm trying to make to my colleagues is that after we changed the rules of confirmation, you don't need one vote from the other side if you have a majority and there will come a day, maybe, where we will

find ourselves in that situation. i have always worried that doing away with a collaborative process to get a nominee to move forward, judges or u.s. attorneys, is going to create a problem where you're down to picking people who have the most vocal support but the most active extreme elements in both parties, and i think this is a case, exhibit a, of ms. rollins. and to my colleagues, all of us have to understand i respect the home state senator's ability to nominate judges, the blue slip, for judges and u.s. attorneys, but it puts pressure on us to up our game. and ms. rollins i voted against in committee, and it was obvious our concerns were justified.

mr. delaney, nominated for the first judicial circuit performed poorly in the committee. he represented a private school that was sued for allowing sexual harassment to be unchecked and to be covered up. it's okay to represent unpopular causes. everybody needs a lawyer, but his answers about how he engaged one of the plaintiffs, a minor at the time, were terrible, and it seems to me he would have been better prepared, and he had a lot of support from people in new hampshire, some on our side of the aisle. i guess my point is you have to be prepared to answer hard questions, and mr. delaney was woefully unprepared. to i -- to my colleagues on the

other side, i think you have done a very good of -- job of asking hard questions for our nominee, we've had good support for our judges and had some opposition. as to moving forward, i hope the white house will prepare these nominees better. the basic understanding of the constitution, of a litigant practice, basic concepts of the law like brady motions, just how the constitution's set up is just not too much to ask of those who want to be a judge for the rest of their lives. so, to the white house, this process needs to change. you need to up your game. your goal, i think, should be to try to find people some of us can vote on the republican side and when they get in front of

the committee make a good impression. i'm not saying we did it all right on our side when we were in charge, probably examples of where we didn't, but i try to -- tried to make sure that some people that weren't nominated didn't make it because some of us on the republican side said no. there's more than and handful of judges coming out of the committee that i think should not be on the bench, and i say that with the understanding that my inclination is to vote for judges nominated by the other side assuming that that's what i would like to happen when it comes our turn that if we all vote against the other party's judges, then you're going to put the judiciary in a world of hurt if we're ever a president of one party and a senate of the other. and we'll be there some day.

and given the behavior of the body, i don't know how we'll deal with it. but between now and then, i hope there will be more serious deliberation, my colleagues on the democratic side, to make sure the people we're putting forward can answer basic questions. sometimes we ask bad questions, but i don't think the questions we have asked are unfair. and it is stunning that some of these nominees can't answer the basics. the idea that you are going to come through the judiciary committee and not ask hard, relevant questions, i hope that has gone by the wayside. the idea that i will support democratic nominees is real up to a point. and there have been several of us on the side who have voted for more democratic nominees than we have opposed.

and i will try to continue to honor the process. i want to keep the blue slip in place. i'm asking colleagues from red states to work with the white house to see if they can find consensus. when i was chairman, there was a lot of pressure on me to do away with the blue slips so we could nominate anybody we wanted to at the district court level, if you had two democratic senators in the state, the blue slip would go away and we could nominate anybody we wanted to. i think it's bad for the senate and bad for the judiciary. i don't want it to change now and i do expect those on the other side to -- i want everyone to collaborate with the white house. having said that, the last several months have sort of been a disaster for the committee in the sense that people are not prepared and you're picking folks who should not have lifetime appointments from my

point of view and we can pass them along party lines and make it worse or you could get a handful of democrats who not only vote yes, but sometimes say no. mr. delaney i think will be fall by the wayside. that's no animosity toward him, but i think that's the right outcome. if that does happen, i want to applaud the white house for understanding that sometimes you can't go beyond what the market would bear, and i've shown a disposition, a willingness to work with you, but the recent nominee we just passed is way out of the mainstream and i'm hoping that we can get back on track, have nominees come before the committee that are prepared to make it, quite frankly, easier to find consensus. and if that doesn't happen, we're going to have less

consensus, and there's a handful of nominees waiting to come to the floor that i will vigorously oppose because i think they're not qualified. so, with that, mr. president, i wish you a great break and hope we can go home and do our business at home and abroad, wherever that takes us, and come back safely and with that, i yield the floor.

>> yes. reached terms of where act was passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling and spending grow by at

least 1% a year ago going forward so we have a plan, the plan is now in the hands of negotiators. they are negotiating as we speak, more of the staff. president biden will be back on sunday, mccarthy said hopeful we at least have a framework by the end of the week but again republicans here and we stand ready to get the bill moving and it falls on our nations debt. >> with -- of what is past, what passed in the house, what needs to be in any agreement, all of the proposed work are you okay with negotiating only having some of those proposals? >> i think we need to start with the framework. first of all, we are way over

our credit limit spending way more than we are supposed to. america has a spending problem so the framework needs to be understood. number one we need to pay our debt, we cannot have biden default on nations that. they have the obligation to pay it and as republicans we are committed to paying the debt. number two, we have to get the spending under control. i'm part pressed to believe there's not 1 dollar of savings we can find for the american people with our spending so we need to start with that framework. as it pertains to your question, i think we put together a reasonable common sense approach. i'm hard-pressed to give on anything without getting something more in return so i think that's where we stand.

getting covid dollars back, we are talking about putting caps on spending of 1% a year. i think those are pretty reasonable. defunding 87000 irs agents, again all reasonable requests. >> let's go over more specifics of what the republicans voted on in the house. raise the debt ceiling into 2024, reduce spending in fiscal year 2022 levels, limit future spending growth to 1% annually over the next -- recover unspent funds as you talk about, new requirements for recipients in federal aid, block student debt cancellation and refund energy permitting for green energy programs. i want to have you respond to this piece in today's new york times written by david, member of editorial board for the paper and former reporter in the

headline is republicans want to use the debt ceiling to inflict cruelty on the fourth. he writes this, demand for publicans would effectively cut healthcare for 1.7 million low income for 275,000 people. if the demands are not met they will refuse to raise the debt ceiling. plunging the country into unprecedented control and almost certainly creating recession. it's not that there is a crisis or scandal in the programs, republican making demands simply because the debt ceiling gives them the opportunity to do so. they are going after the same group of people for decades. >> my response is don't let the facts get in the way of a good story and it is exactly what it is -- an opinion but i have a hearing in which we testified against this. what i am amazed at his we give these departments money so for

example, let's say give them $100 million. the first place the democrats want to look to cut money is the poor and underserved. i find it hard to believe in fact, i went through and wish i would have brought the data with me but i'm happy to follow up with you, i think we should make sure we take care of our children and our poor and disabled first. i would prefer to take care of those people first as opposed to maybe spend $1.5 billion in planting but that's just me as republicans so remember when we get these departments and agencies the funds, it's up to them to prioritize so i would say shame on the democrats for using the fear mongering tactic of we are going to stop funding the children so let me give you

an example. my husband comes home and says honey, we need to tighten our belts. not going to pay my kids but i'm going to make sure that i would prefer to do is speed our children first and we can put our wants like re- wallpapering the bathroom replanting a bunch of trees after we take care of feeding our children. >> amsterdam, ohio. >> thanks for taking my call. representative, is it true you will get a raise he the republican represents to be -- how can you say it's not going to be cuts for everybody when he

won't even say what he's going to cut. >> i'm not aware of me getting a 30,000 dollars salary increase number one. i don't know where you're coming up on that. number two, your second question was how can we say there won't be cuts? will be cuts but when you put your cuts in place, it's a matter of prioritization so i would say it's like family. if you need to tighten your belt because you spent too much, maybe you would decide not to go out to eat three times a week. maybe you would make some cuts there as opposed to not paying your mortgage or there's a difference between want and need. i am hard-pressed to think the government is so efficiently run there's not 1 dollar of savings.

>> next in florida, independent talking with the congresswoman. >> i watched a hearing yesterday and they said this will cut veterans health. not one democrat voted for it. how many can't run your bill? >> i will say zero. >> that's right so why would mitch mcconnell take it up in the senate? it wasn't voted on, any democrat saying -- >> go ahead. >> one, again, don't let the facts get in away of a good story. there's no way we're going to cut veterans benefits. in fact, what i would challenge you is we are going to put the bill on the floor that talks about increasing veterans

benefits. i would challenge you to see how many democrats actually vote for that bill. as for him and why the democrats won't take it in the senate, it's their right if they want to take it up in the senate, they don't have to take it but what i would ask is we put a plan on the floor. what's the democrats plan in the senate? was schumer's plan? i think the only thing schumer passed in the senate is maple syrup month. i think we can do a little bit better than that. when you agree, sir? >> lancaster in pennsylvania, republican. >> thanks for taking my call. i think you can cut money from new green deals biden and the democrat party want to put in place and also i think stop

giving money to the poor, will have a poor problem in this country, we have a lazy problem and that's going to be addressed. >> in the limit wrote act, we are taking a look at the pre-new deal and the energy, money we are spending on green energy to see if we can spend it more efficient. there's no question. i still believe we do need some programs to help people get a hand up, not a handout and that's why in the bill we passed, it talked about work requirements put the number one gift we can give a person the ability to have a job because if

you can have a job, you have a sense of pride, you can begin to provide for your family. you then begin to give to charities, you can begin to have your own business. you can begin to pay taxes which let's not forget, the economic system and people paying taxes to give us our social programs so i still think we need to be conscientious and cognizant to help the people who truly are in need and give them a hand up as opposed to a handout. >> in rhode island, democratic color. go ahead. >> i wonder about the 14th amend section four the says shall not be denied. they knew it would get political leverage, it would destroy our economy. >> hold on, are you able to hear? >> the question around the

14th amend that? >> will have an answer that. >> the 14th amendment and i would agree with the constitution we have a right, and obligation to pay our debt and that's what the republicans are doing, we put forth a bill that will make sure we do not default on our debt. now it is in the democrats court specifically the president court to make sure biden does not default on the debt. >> if there's no agreement reached between house republicans and the white house, what you think happened then? with the house not bring a clean bill to the floor? >> we did our job, we passed a bill to pay our bills, pay our debt, to not default so again, i

hope biden and the democrats don't default on the debt but you want to talk about weapon rising and using that as leverage, 97 days the president of the united states ignored this issue. ninety-seven days. i don't think republicans are the ones using it as a political ploy. it's easy for democrats and clearly the president who waited 97 days before he even thought about negotiating. the reason the president decided to negotiate, decided to even talk about this crisis is because republicans came together, negotiated within our own, we are in a four vote margin so we have to listen to all factions of our conference. those of us in a heavy red

district and those of us in a biden district being renegotiated, give and take came up with a reasonable bill. >> president biden argued the president dictated clean ceiling happened, happened under previous presidents even president trump and the spending cuts, republicans put into your proposal should have been in budget negotiations, not debt ceiling negotiations. >> we are not and i'm not in favor when the country is in crisis. it's really simple if you give your child or young adult or your husband or whoever, a

credit card and the limit was $1000 in month after month after month they spent $1200 and $1500 and no plan to cut their spending, what would you do? you have the obligation to say we are going to pay the debt we incurred and owed but we have to get our spending under control. what is the matter with tightening our physical belt? was the matter with that x the government doesn't produce that, the government does not produce 1 dollar so they cannot fund 1 dollar of money, give one person 1 dollar has not first taken from somebody else. what republicans are saying is let's get our physical health in order and make sure we leave the next generation better off than vince generation.

right now get a bill for $94000. i think we can do better. >> in ohio, independent. question or comment for the congresswoman? >> good morning. i just have a comment. i like the way politicians refer to it as those people. we are not those people. we are what makes this country operate and move smoothly. if it wasn't for the workers and poor people and those people, the country would be nothing. another thing, as far as getting finances and check, when a person making $15000 a month which is what politicians make,

you expect a person to live on 1000 a month and then cut their food stamps? you got to be kidding me. this is obscene, i voted democrat for years. >> i think to cut food stamps that's not on our priority list little so i don't know where you're getting the information the first thing we're going to do is cut food stamps. again, we are going to give you a budget. if the agency decides if you want to cut food stamps first about the people in charge right now, the people coming up with

that, those are democrats. i sat here and said let's not on our list of priorities because i believe that i think i stated this earlier in the call, we need to give a hand of, not a handout and i'm not for cutting the programs but let me share with you what i am for, i'm forgiving people an opportunity and giving people a hand up, not a handout grade i do leave to sustain these programs that help people get out of poverty, we have to incentivize people to go back to work. able-bodied people to go back to work because we need those able-bodied people to support the program. >> next in washington,

republican. >> my comment is this -- i see over and over again democrats demanded going toward things like anti- israel parties in the senate given by burning in them, we are supporting ideology that plan to cause harm and commit genocide against other people and i don't like that at all and i think it's wrong. my question is, how do you deal with that? i've never heard of that. >> part of how we deal with that is how about we don't cut programs like food stamps and because those programs. what the democrats want to do, they want to scare people and

the first thing we will cut is food stamps, they want to cut veterans. we never said that. in fact, i challenge someone to show me where we are going to do that because that's not where we are going but i agree, i think we should cut programs like that is supposed to programs that help our underprivileged but that's the republican view. i'm in agree with you. >> democratic color, good morning. >> good morning. i have two questions and i know this has was been asked, i still haven't got a clear answer but why is it the debt ceiling only brought up the democrat president, three times when trump was in office? even got on tv last week and said not in the office so when i

get the office, that's not fair. the second question -- >> let's let her respond to that. >> the debt ceiling brought up every time, it just depends on who brings it up, reposing spring up on the forefront when there's of democratic president and vice a versa so i would say is always brought up, it just depends what side of the coin you are on. >> i think he's asking about it being a clean debt ceiling brought up and done so under president trump but now republicans don't want to because president biden is in office. >> i was in there but i think it's a copout answer so i don't think president trump increase

the budget as much as biden increased the budget with the ira. we can argue we needed to do that because of covid or whatnot but the end of the day, the issue is whether trump is an office or not, we have a spending problem whether there is republican or democrat, we have a spending problem. we have got to get our economic health in order and i challenge it when i'm here again and hopefully in 24 we have a republican president and remind me of passing a clean debt ceiling, who got to get our spending under control regardless who's in the white house. >> did you have a second question? >> my second question is while we are making cuts, everything was on the table based on mccarthy but raising the top 1%

is not on the table but cutting snap benefits is. why is that? everything else on the table, why are republicans talking about that? >> cutting snap benefits is not on the table. that's what i'm trying to get everyone to understand. nowhere in the growth act does it say we are going to cut snap benefits. that's a fear mongering tool democrats argue. i'm not in favor of that. if you are asking me to raise taxes on the top 1%, i'm not in favor of raising taxes on anyone because right now we're collecting more revenue than we've collected. the only cut to other terms in the history of our country so

it's not a revenue problem, more money and raising taxes will not solve the problem because if we spend a dollar, we will still spend a dollar .30. revenue is not the issue, spending is the issue. it's a two piece equation. in no way does it say we will cut benefits. >> susan is next in illinois, independent. >> i have a couple questions to let me give you the first one. i'm interested in finding out what is the publicans have against the democratic process because the way i understand budgeting is appropriations bills are in the house and senate and voted on. the president doesn't have

congress to negotiate with congress about what should be in the appropriations bill. the time to avoid the debt ceiling seems to be one spending is approved. both sides when the spending is approved so you know in advance if you hit the debt ceiling. >> we do. >> i think we understand the question and we are running out of time. >> we do know -- no one knows the exact date but you are spot on. we do know when we are going to hit that ceiling and we've been saying for a long time need to get our fiscal house in order so i would ask the question, why did you wait 97 days?

why did we wait to get to that cliff before deciding to negotiate? you are right, spot on. we do know in advance. >> the house is about to dabble in in a couple of minutes, how do you see the next couple weeks playing out? >> i think it's going to be a media frenzy, a bunch of disinformation and crazy things and rumors and speculation but what i think is going to happen is i think negotiations are happening grade you could argue it's too late but let's deal with the hand we have right now. for the first time in a long time everyone is sitting at the table. i've never been in business or i've been in business 35 plus years, i've never done a deal in business or relationship with

myself or whomever, one 100% me and zero you. that's called no deal. there's always give and take only get about 80%, with both wish we got more but we made progress. we have a better deal. i think that's what's going to happen or at least that's what i'm hopeful will happen the next few days. mccarthy stated he thinks we will have a framework by the end of the week. i have a tendency to believe the speaker, i think we will have a framework and i think it's going to get really dicey, messy but at the end of the day i think we will have something. i don't believe we will default on our debt. i don't think that option is on the table, i just think there's a lot of positions going on. >> we thank you for spending time with us this morning and talking to our viewers. appreciate it.

the revolution and a couple of other different pieces of legislation are a matter of privilege and members can go to the floor and the privileged to force the boat so that's what you did to say and what it does is require it within two legislative days. they do have options to avoid the vote and refer the

resolution to that so that's what they did to avoid with their leadership and what they're able to send it to. >> writers republicans mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, as i mentioned earlier, negotiations continue making progress. as speaker mccarthy says, he expects the house will vote next week in an agreement is reformed and the senate will begin consideration after that. members should be aware and be able to return to the senate within a 24-hour period to perform our responsibilities. i want to talk about some things the senate has worked on. over the work period, the senate confirmed over seven district court judges and flee circuit court judges, brassily garcia,

anthony johnstone, and nancy abudu, confirmed earlier this afternoon to serve a lifetime appointment on the 11th circuit that represents florida, georgia, and alabama. ms. abudu's appointment to the desk is barrier-breaking. she will be the first black woman to preside on the segregateth circuit and her -- 11th circuit and her home is home to nearly 8 million black americans. we have a duty to ensure that federal judges are individuals of the highest caliber and that includes appointing judges from a wide variety of personal and professional backgrounds. ms. abudu meets that higher standard, and she will serve admirably on the bench. with the confirmation of ms. abudu, the senate has now confirmed 129 judges under president biden, 129. elsewhere, the senate passed the bipartisan fire and safety

grants act, fire grants and safety act. so firefighters can better afford lifesaving equipment and personnel, particularly in smaller, more rural, and more suburban areas where the equipment is harder to find and harder to afford. senators also reintroduced the safe banking act to enable cannabis businesses to access critical banking structures. just last week the banking committee held its first hearing on this legislation. and i will also work to make sure we include criminal justice provisions to safe banking. last week the commerce committee moved on the bipartisan railway safety act out of committee. i will work with senators on both sides, including senators brown and vance, to bring the rail safety act to the floor for a vote soon. i will likewise work with my colleagues on efforts to make prescription drugs more affordable, including insulin,

last wooc the help committee advanced significant drug reforms and i hope to move forward in a bipartisan manner and will enable us to lower the costs of prescription drugs, particularly insulin. this work period i joined with colleagues and committee chairs to announce the next steps to outcompete the chinese government and preserve america's global leadership in the 21st century. last week the commerce committee marked up bipartisan legislation on the u.s. semiconductor supply chains and this week the appropriations committee held a bipartisan hearing on investments to outcompete the chinese government. house government affairs committee also marked up several bills on security and competitiveness. our committees will continue working on various efforts on this issue during the next work period. outcompeting the chinese government will be one of the great challenges of our generation. we must be clear eyed and act

accordingly. we have more judges, progress with fire grants, rail safety, competing with the chinese government, prescription drug reform and a whole host of important issues. and now i wish to thank and honor a congress-time employee of the senate recording studio. paulcasaco. paul is the senior audio operator for the senate chamber. his tenured dates back to the first days that the senate proceedings were televised in 1986. he witnessed the history and literally made history happen by using video to expand public access to the senate in ways we have never seen before. from helping install the cameras here in the chamber to operating

nearly every piece of production equipment, paul has played an essential role in broadcasting the work of the senate. paul's work has given the american people a front row seat to the senate, to hear every word, every speech, every debate. so on behalf of the united states senate, we thank paul for his many years of service to this chamber and congratulate him on a well-earned retirement and wish him and his family the very best. one more retirement, deeply meaningful to me. lane bodean, he has -- lane has done an amazing job covering foreign policy for me over a decade, he is so smart and level headed and so dedicated. when he comes up with ideas, i almost always say this is exactly the right way to go and when there's trouble brewing in

foreign policy areas, lane finds the best ways to try and solve those problems and ease the tensions we have seen throughout the world. in addition to his hard work, to his diligence, to his dedication and to his deep intelligence and thoughtfulness, he's a nice guy. everyone loves lane. he's decent, smart, he's caring. lane, i know you're going on to bigger and better things, many on my staff do after long tenures, i'm happy to say. this is ten or 12 years, we wish you the best and you will always be a dear friend to the schumer family and a member of the greater schumer family, our staff. we stick together, we watch each other and care for each other long after people leave. lane, godspeed. you're the greatest. i yield the floor. no, i do not. i thought i was done.

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate consider the following nominations, all nominees placed on the secretary's desk in the air force, army, marine corps an navy, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. no further moagz be in order, -- motions be in order and the president be immediately notified of the president's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business and senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes psm. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 221. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 221, promoting minority health awareness and supporting the goals and ideals of national minority health month and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i know of no

further debate on this resolution. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on the measure. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes to have it. the ayes do have it it and the resolution is agreed to. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to preamble and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration s. res. 222, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: vest 222 -- senate resolution 222, expressing the of the homecoming of united states prisoners of war from vietnam and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent resolution be agreed to, program, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourn to convene with pro forma sessions with no business conducted on friday, may 19, # 45:00, tuesday, may 23, 12 noon, thursday, may 25, 12:30, and friday may 2:69 a.m. that when the senate stands adjourned it stand adjourned until thursday, may 30. on tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. molg the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session, resume consideration of the darrel james papillion nomination, further the confirmation vote occur at 5:30 p.m. and if confirmed, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until ♪♪ >> funded by these television companies and more including cox. ♪♪

>> friends don't have to be. when you're connected, you're not alone. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> state and federal financial regulators including official federal reserve and fbi seek testified on recent bank failures in the senate committee. watch tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span2, c-span now, free mobile video up for online c-span.org. >> order your copy of the one 18th congressional directory now available at c-spanshop.org. access to the federal government and contact information for every house and senate number and important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agency and state governors. scan the cone to order you cy

today or go to c-spanshop.org. 29.95 shipping and handling every purchase supports our nonprofit operation. >> american history tv saturday on c-span2. exploring people in the american story. 8:00 p.m. eastern on history. political foreign policy and social of funds to define the spirit of the american 1990s. his research in the yunnan war policy and the conclusion that jfk was keeping military options open. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your