>> host: so i bought the mixup. >> caller: i'm not impressed with either candidate rightim nw are old.hem trump is just as old as biden. very few years difference in the age. i wish there was another democratic candidate to actually run. i was thought mario komal, andrew cuomo from new york would run he would make a great president and somebody who could really challenge cup. trump has no integrity. he has no integrity and nobody keeps talk about how her life for so much better. my life was better 20 years ago, not, and is cut and increase and worse over so i don't think that trump being in office made my life any better. as a matter fact he made it worse for poor people and people don't vote. they vote for like the woman before he said she wasn't voting because somebody was popular but a lot of people don't vote their interest because trump didn't do anything for poor folks all along.

i'm hoping i was wondering though, my last thing what was he going to do with those records, sell them? unit, those classified documents. is that what he is going to do because he'sst a shyster and businessmen going to see them something because i was lucky what is going to do with him because he's not a brilliant guy. so what the health speeders we will leave this year to keep her over for your commitment to live coverage of congress. today senate lawmakers are considering a u.s. court of appeals judge for the first circuit. a confirmation vote has been set for 5:30 p.m. eastern. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, on yesterday

we commemorated the end of american slavery. we were reminded by the violence in our land of the truth of john 8:34, which states, "everyone who sins is a slave of sin." free us from fear, self, others, and sin. have mercy upon us, o lord, and deliver us from the chains of hatred and prejudice. as we remember juneteenth, may we our ourselves become slaves of righteousness. lord, help our lawmakers and everyone they serve to discover the holiness

to which you call us, as we experience the eternal freedom to be found in living for your glory. we pray in your powerful 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 and resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, julie rikelman of massachusetts to be united states circuit judge for the first circuit.

mr. schumer: madam president. the president pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: first on housekeeping i ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to treaty document 112-8 be 5:00 p.m. today. the president pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: now, madam president, a remarkable change is taking hold in our country and around the world due to artificial intelligence. the public is now more conscious

of this technology than ever before and thanks to recent advancements and machine learning and neuronetworks, a.i.'s impact in the coming years will be world altering. tomorrow morning i will speak at the center for strategic and international studies on how congress can begin acting on a.i. in ernest. -- earnest. i will share my ideas on a comprehensive framework congress can use to supercharge a.i. innovation in a safe and responsible way. and because a.i. is moving so fast, it is so complex and so outside congress' expertise, i will talk about some steps we must take to stay ahead of a.i.'s rapid development. many of a.i.'s impacts are truly a exciting. it will reshape how we fight disease, tackle hunger, manage our lives, enrich our minds and ensure peace but we cannot ignore a.i.'s many dangers. a.i. will dramatically disrupt our workforce, could lead to massive and sow fist kateed misinformation and weapons,

could jaundice our elections and democratic system, and there's the danger that we may prove incapable of managing this technology at all. congress cannot behave like ostriches in the sand when it comes to a.i. some might think it's better to ignore these issues or hope someone else figures it out because it's so complex. but ignoring a.i. is untenable for congress. in the 21st century, elected represent gives must treat a.i. with the same level of seriousness as national security, job creation, and our civil liberties because a.i. will touch on these issues and many, many more. on want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are ready -- already putting a.i. front and center, including our little team of senators heinrich, young, and rounds, as well as chairman cantwell, peters, klobuchar, warner, and durbin as well as their ranking republican members. i want to commend colleagues from both sides of the aisle

that have spoken out on a.i.'s challenges including senators benefit, thune, blumenthal and many others. both parties working with goodwill, bipartisan cooperation. that is the only way our efforts will succeed in the ways it should. now, on nominations. later today, the senate will vote on the confirmation of julie rikelman to serve as circuit court judge for the first circuit. for years ms. rikelman has had a hand in some of the most important legal fights over women's rights, and civil liberties. she was the attorney who defended the mississippi clinic in the dobbs case that ultimately overturned roe. few lawyers have fought harder, smarter, and more effectively to protect women's rights in america than ms. rikelman. on the bench i'm confident she will serve with excellence to uphold the constitution. appointments to the circuit

court are essential. the lion's share of all federal cases are decided at the circuit court level so it's necessary these vacancies are swiftly filled with exceptional nominees like ms. rikelman. this week the senate will also advance the nomination of natasha merle to be a district judge in the eastern district of new york. with ms. merle's confirmation, the senate will reach a major milestone. 100 district judges confirmed by senate democrats under president biden. many of these hundred judges have knocked down long-standing barriers to the halls of justice. the first muslim district judge, the first woman of color to be district judge in maryland and oregon, the first openly lgbtq judge in puerto rico, and the list could go on and on. district judges are an important reason why our federal judiciary is far more balanced, far more diverse, and far more experienced than the one we just had a few years ago. so hitting this milestone of a

hundred district judges is very significant and senate democrats will continue moving forward on more judges in the weeks and months to come. now, on the chile tax treaty. tomorrow the senate will vote to advance a crucial treaty impacting america's clean energy and business relationships between chile and the united states. a lot is at stake in our treaty with chile, including america's global competitiveness and the future of our clean energy transition. this u.s.-chile treaty is very similar to other treaties we have with more than of 0 countries around the world, many of which support u.s. jobs and business growth. so i hope this treaty passes the senate very quickly. chile is one corner of the so-called lithium triangle, home to the world's largest lithium reserves and currently the second largest lithium producer. lithium is a key ingredient for so many important and emerging technologies from iphones to batteries, to energy storage. nations around the world,

including the u.s. are racing to source these precious materials. but right now american companies are at a significant disadvantage because the u.s. doesn't have a tax treaty in place with chile they face double taxation and other barriers to investment and trade. countries like china have an edge on us. it's an unnecessary roadblock to a fruitful and economically prosperous partnership between chile and the united states. ratifying the chile tax treaty would quickly remedy this issue. it treaty has been in the works for over a decade. it now has strong bipartisan support and now is the time to finally get it across the finish line. i'm pleased that we're finally moving the treaty forward on the floor this week. and i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, senators menendez and risch, and many others for their work. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

president and ceo of the foundation. good morning. >> good morning. >> welcome to washington journal. let's start off by talking about

the foundation. what is the mission? tell us about your organization. >> is based in baltimore, we were started by the founder of ups and his mother and we are focused on helping children have a brighter future so the focus on trying to make sure strong families and others have economic stability to provide and they can live in strong and healthy communities. >> you say the founder of ups's who establish this foundation, is that how you're funded privately or are there other funding sources now? >> we have a creative play jim casey so we don't solicit donations. >> your organization released 2023 kids count data book, can

you tell me about this document or what does it entail? >> the foundation has created to provide policymakers and the public with accurate information about children's well-being. we invite 16 key indicators of child well-being, health, education, family and community and economic well-being. every year provide information at the national level and state level so we know how children are appearing in this country. within ranked the state so they see where they are doing well and take inspiration from other jurisdictions how they can improve the lives of the children and their community so it's our 31st birthday and we

take the opportunity to highlight a particular issue and this year we highlighted the issue of child care. >> all right. speaking of childcare, what are the findings, how would you describe the current state of childcare in the u.s.? >> we have a broken childcare system in this country which is troubling because childcare is important for many reasons. for children first, 23 million children in this country under the age of five. 12 million were accessed at some time during their childhood and we want all of the children to get off on a great start so they are paired so it is important for children that we have a strong child hood system. it's also important to parent because parents need to childcare in order to go to work

and to care for the families. 250% of working people are parents so i sent him the only that childcare support to enable them to go to work and family child care is important for our economy, who are to make sure we have workers available to meet the needs of this country. we estimate $122 billion is lawson's ventricle all caps the economic impact so we know there are a lot of challenges from axis to affordability to low pay childcare workers so you want to call attention to data to the conversation and ensure we've got the right infrastructure for our country. >> we are talking with lisa hamilton, president and ceo of

the anti- casey foundation. mr. mcconnell: madam president. the president pro tempore: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcconnell: senate democrats continue to dutifully

advance the biden administration's radical nominees. this week the senate will decide whether to give yet another left-wing lawyer a lifetime appointment. to the federal bench. natasha c. merle is an activist lawyer with a person ant for staking out extreme and inflammatory positions that are thoroughly divorced from reality. for example, she attacked widely popular election integrity measures, claiming, quote, it's inconsistent to denounce white supremacy but not repudiate voter i.d. laws.

alongside the self-proclaimed wild-eyed leftists, democrats just confirmed to the bench last week, ms. merle went after the state of alabama for daring to verify the identities of people who cast ballots in elections. meanwhile, ms. merle has found time to attack what she calls unfounded yet repeated public assertions that there's widespread lack of respect for law enforcement, and criticized efforts to promote law and order as, quote, an illegal attempt to advance a false narrative that law enforcement was being attacked. well, madam president, president biden's first year in office saw the largest number of law enforcement deaths in the line

of duty in 20 years. but ms. merle doesn't appear to like grappling with facts that don't suit her narrative. normally, a record like this would be shockingly i did qualifying, but under the biden administration it's not an outlier, it's an essential qualification. unfortunately, the president's affinity for radical nominees applies to folks already on the job as well. last week democrats on the epw committee rammed through the nomination of jeffrey barron to another term as commissioner at the nuclear regulatory commission. mr. barron already has an extensive record as the nrc's

resident liberal obstructionist. while his colleagues collaborate on regulatory frameworks that encourage safe and efficient energy production, this nominee prides himself on being a stick in the mud. even leading climate activists understand that mr. barron's dedication to hindering nuclear development harms the environment in the process. they know that reducing carbon emissions means embracing safe nuclear energy. mr. barron, however, does not. at every opportunity this nominee has opposed commonsense efforts to revise regulations and keep pace with the smaller and more affordable nuclear

technologies of the future. he's shown that his blanket anti-nuclear approach is both a tired relic and an active obstruction to american prosperity. so no wonder even some senate democrats are thinking twice about rubber stamping mr. baran's nomination. i'd urge each of our colleagues to oppose him. now, on an entirely different matter, over the weekend the secretary of state traveled to beijing and engaged senior chinese officials, including president xi, in meetings intended to reduce our differences. managing and reducing tensions with america's adversaries is a

typical responsibility, of course, for the secretary of state. but this isn't necessarily an end in itself. it's a means of advancing other key interests. reports of the secretary's meetings suggest beijing blamed america for increasing tensions. well, i certainly hope secretary blinken responded by holding up a mirror to the prc. madam president, it is china that has issued increasingly threatened the people of taiwan with military force. it is china that continues to test the limits of cyber espionage around the world. it is china that has stepped up threatening an unsafe interactions with u.s. vessels and aircraft operating legally

in international waters. it is china that continues to do business with iran, enriching the world's top state sponsor of terror. it is china that continues to provide cover for russian aggression in ukraine. it is china that continues to wrongfully detain innocent foreign citizens, including americans, while repressing its own citizens. and, as just reported today, it is china that wants to build a military training facility in cuba 100 miles from u.s. soil. china's conduct threatens stability throughout the indo-pacific and calls into question its willingness to

behave responsibly. these are the plain facts. one side is ramping up its provocative behavior, and this week the senate armed services committee should reflect on beijing's behavior, as it considers the national defense authorization act. ndaa is our primary opportunity to set congress' national security priorities. it is a chance to determine how america should defend against growing threats from the prc, and it is the congress' basic responsibility to establish appropriate funding levels for our armed forces. so our colleagues on the armed services committee will be called upon to carefully

consider the requirements identified by our commanders that have gone unfunded in president biden's budget. they should think about the steps that could improve our ability to project power into the asian pacific or the assistance that could support vulnerable partners in that region. so, remember, threats of sanctions and stern diplomatic warnings don't deter vladimir putin in ukraine. words alone will not deter chinese aggression in asia. the biden administration can continue to speak softly, but congress must ensure that america -- ensure that america carries a big stick.

mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip is recognized. mr. durbin: madam president, over the last 17 years a lot has changed in the senate. back in 2006 we counted two future presidents in our ranks -- barack obama and joe biden. the chairman of the judiciary committee in the senate was the late-arlen specter, back when he was a republican. and i was the most junior member of that judiciary committee. well, today i want to tell you about one thing that has not changed since those days, and that is the dedicated, diligent public service of a man who has stood by missive every step of the way. -- by my side every step of the

way. as i have gone to serve as chair of the committee, that man's name is dan swanson. dan is the embodiment of wisdom, patience, kindness, dedication, and selfless public service. sadly you this is his last week as general counsel for the senate judiciary committee. while dan would never say it himself, he's just too humble, the truth is he's made an indelible mark -- indelible historic hark on the history 6 this nation. he has been my go-to man in addressing our nation's challenges. and every one of those challenges he's been guided by love for the law hand a belief that our government can and should help people. when you consider his background, you can understand. dan is the son of two teachers, and you can see their influence on the way he engages with others.

no matter the time of day he always finds time to talk through the details of statutes and case precedent, often from memory and -- memory and never, never, loses his temper or patience. and just about any young staffer on the judiciary committee will tell you, dan is the best teacher and mentor you could ever hope for. moreover, his integrity and intellect are respected by senators and staffers of both parties. he is remarkably consistent. growing up. he was always calm and kind, and he always knew what he wanted to do. in fact, dan's parents say he was just about ten years old when he first told them he wanted to write laws when he grew up. while other kids were dreaming of being astronauts or athletes, dan knew his future was in the law. years later he pursued that dream by going to harvard law

school because he thought it would help him land a job in the senate judiciary committee. he then had the courage and determination to leave a well-paying job at a prestigious law firm and accept a job as a legislative correspondent in my office. within weeks of joining, we realized dan swanson was indispensable and soon enough we were directing the hardest assignments of all to his desk. no matter how complicated the topic, dan would always master it quickly. his legacy is too long to list in a single speech but let me tell you about a few notable accomplishments. dan is the mastermind behind what is known in banking circles as the dreaded durbin amendment, a reform that has saved billions of dollars by setting limits on the so-called interchange fees which banks charge merchants

every time you swipe a debit card. i had never heard of an internet fee. he described the process for retailers across america were forced into signing agreements with a major banks and credit card companies, visa and mastercard, agreements which many times they never even had a chance to read. it was a take-it-or-leave-it proposition and in many ways it still is. the notion is, if you want to run a restaurant new hampshire a shop or a chain of -- a restaurant or a should be new hampshire a chain of stores and you want to use visa or mastercard, you have to pay with fee. if the labor costs, of course, and of course the basics of food in the restaurant are the supplies needed.

the third most expensive thing which retailers face day in and day out are these interchange fees or swipe fees charged by the big banks. can you imagine taking on that industry and trying to force through reform? i couldn't do it. well, i couldn't do it without him. dan swanson understood. he reached the point where he mastered that particular area of the law to the point where we offered a change, and the way we do business in america when it comes to debit cards. it was a long process. we had to offer an amendment on the floor in the banking reform bill and dan every step of the way was my guide as to what we could achieve. we changed the law, and we reduced the costs to the retailers and to merchants and restauranteurs. i don't have many friends in the big banking industry as a result of it, but i can tell you, we

made the big banks pay $8 billion a year that they otherwise would have collected in these swipe fees. and by not collecting them, consumers and retailers were the winners. my lead advocate in that area, my expert in that area was dan swanson. he understood it, and he did it so well. he also helped save countless lives from gun violence, a topic on which he has been my top advisor. just last year he joined the group that wrote the bipartisan safer communities act, the most important gun safety reform to pass congress in nearly 30 years. and dan swanson has also been my point person on federal judicial nominees for my state of illinois. he even helped create the bipartisan process we use in our state to select candidates to recommend for presidential judicial nominations. dan has overseen the confirmation process for all but two of the federal judges currently serving in the entire

state of illinois. the judges he has helped reach the federal bench bring not only strong credentials and experience, they have brought vital, new perspectives. with dan's help, this senate has confirmed the fishes women to serve as -- the senate has confirmed the first women to serve as judges and he was instrumental in the confirmation of the first african american woman on the u.s. supreme court, justice ketanji brown jackson. dan has not only changed america for the better, he has also experienced some changes of his own. dan does not like to be in the spotlight, but ten years ago -- i love this story -- he and his wife made a splash in "the washington post." they were on their way to the hospital for the birth of their second child, but they didn't make it in time.

little aria was born in her parents' car. she arrived a few years after her big sister maya. so while our team regrets losing dan, i know their two little girls are going to enjoy quality summer time with dad. i hope the further of them have a chance to head up to vermont soon to take long walks in nature and enjoy countless helpings of dan's favorite jell-o and pie. a writer i admired once observed, with the lives that we live and the choices we make, let our goal be to give the world more than we take. dan, you've given everything you can possibly give to public service. and i have been the beneficiary. i am grateful. america is grateful. thanks, dan swanson. madam president, i yield the floor.

so outside communist expertise, i will talk about steps to stay ahead of the rapid development. a.i. impacts are exciting. it will be how we tackle hunger, manage lives and ensure peace we cannot ignore a.i.'s dangers. a.i. will dramatic disrupt our workforce can lead to sophisticated misinformation and weapons.

there is the danger we may prove incapable of managing this technology ill. congress cannot behave like ostriches listen when it comes to a.i. some might think it's better to ignore this or help someone else figures it out because it's so complex but it's untenable for congress. the 21st century elected representatives must treat a.i. with the same level of seriousness as national security, job creation and civil liberties because a.i. will touch on these issues and many more. i want to thank my colleagues were putting a.i. front and center. as well as their ranking republican members. i want to commend colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have spoken out on the challenges including senators

blumenthal and many others. we must prepare for the age of a.i. together. both parties working with goodwill bipartisan cooperation. that is the only way our efforts will succeed in ways it should. nominations, later today the senate will vote on confirmation of julie to service circuit court judge. for years she's had a hand in the most important legal fights over women's rights and civil liberties. the attorney who defended mississippi dogs case that ultimately overturned row. few lawyers fought harder, smarter and more effectively to protect women's rights in america. on the bench and confident she will serve with excellence to uphold the constitution.

all federal cases are decided at the circuit court level of necessary vacancies are swiftly exceptional nominees. this week the senate will advance the nomination of merle to be district judge in the eastern district of new york. with his confirmation the senate will reach a major milestone, 100 district judges confirmed under president biden. many of these judges knocked down long-standing barriers to the cause of justice. first woman of color in maryland and oregon, first open the lgbtq judge in puerto rico and the list could go on and on. district judges are an important reason a judiciary is far more diverse and experienced than the one we had a few years ago. this milestone very significant

and senate democrats will move forward on this in the weeks and months to come. tomorrow the senate will vote to advance the treaty for the clean energy business relationship between chile and the united states. a lot is at stake with children including america's global competitiveness in the future of clean energy transition. if the chile treaty is other than 60 countries around the world many of which support jobs and business growth we hope this passes the senate quickly. chile is one corner of the lithium trial home to the world's largest lithium reserves and currently second largest producer. lithium is a key ingredient for important technologies. motions around the world including the u.s. are racing to

source precious materials. right now american companies are at a significant disadvantage because the u.s. doesn't have a tax treaty in place with chile, they faced barriers to investment and trade. countries like china have an edge and unnecessary roadblock to economically prosperous partnership between chile and the united states ratifying the chile tax treaty, it's been in the works for a decade and has strong bipartisan support and now is the time to finally get it across the finish line. i'm pleased we're moving forward the fourth is weak and think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with her work. note the absence of a quorum. >> democrats continue to dutifully advance the biden

administration incredible nominees. this week the senate will decide whether to give another left-wing lifetime appointment to the federal bench. natasha merle is an activist employer taking extreme inflammatory positions to the relief divorce from reality. for example, she attacked wildly popular election integrity measures claiming quote it is inconsistent to denounce white supremacy will not repudiate voter id law.

alongside the sender claimed leftists democrats and people who cast ballots in elections. meanwhile, the time to attack repeated assertions for lack of respect for law enforcement and to criticize and promote law and order illegal attempt to advance what law enforcement would be. president biden's first year in office in the line of duty in 20

years. ms. merle doesn't appear to like the facts that don't suit her narrative. normally a record like this would be shockingly disqualified but under the biden administration is an essential qualification. unfortunately radical nominees applies to folks as well. last week democrats on the committee ran through the nomination for the nuclear regulatory commission. already has an extensive record

and his colleagues elaborate on the frameworks that encourage safe and efficient production, this company prides himself to be a victim the mud. a leading climate activist understand his dedication to enter nuclear development on the environment in the process. they know reduced carbon emissions and safe nuclear energy, mr. barron however, does not. every opportunity this nominee has opposed efforts to revise regulation to keep pace with the smaller more affordable nuclear technologies of the future.

he's shown is approach is an active obstruction to american prosperity. no wonder even some senate democrats are thinking twice about representing this nomination. i would urge each of our colleagues to oppose. an entirely different matter, over the weekend the secretary of state traveled to beijing and senior chinese officials including president xi jinping intends to produce our differences.

this is an end. reports of the meeting suggest beijing blamed america for increasing tensions. i certainly hope secretary clinton responded to the pr see. the people of taiwan's military force, it is china that continues to test the limits around the world. it is china that has stepped up and aircraft operating legally

in international waters. china continues to do business with iran reaching the world's top state sponsor of terror. it is china that continues to provide russian aggression. china continues to wrongfully detain including americans. as just reported today, china wants to build a military training facility in cuba 100 miles from u.s. soil. mr. presid. mr. president, tomorrow morning the health, education, labor and pensions committee will be marking up three landmark pieces of legislation which will make it easier for workers to form unions, it will guarantee up to

seven paid sick days for every worker in america, and it will make sure that women in our country finally receive equal pay for equal work. if these bills are signed into law, they would represent the most significant set of labor reforms in the modern history of our country decade significantly improve the lives of many millions of american workers. mr. president, we are living in a moment where corporate america decade the 1% have more economic decade political power than they have ever had in the history of our country. the time is long overdue for congress to stand up for the working families of our nation,

60% of whom live paycheck to paycheck decade not just -- paycheck to paycheck decade not just wealthy campaign contributors decade lobbies. -- lobbyists. let me be clear, the american people are sick decade tired of the unprecedented level of corporate greed they see every single day decade they are tired of the outrageous decade illegal unit -- and illegal union busting. they are sick and tired of ceo's making nearly 400 times than the average worker. unheard of in american history. ceo's, major corporations make 400 times more than their average employee. the american people are sick and

tired of billions in stock buybacks going to the people on top while millions of americans today are struggling hard to put food on the table and pay their rent. the american people want justice and that's what we are going to begin doing tomorrow in the help committee. the american people look around them and they see more income and wealth inequality in america today than ever before, three people on top owning more wealth than the bottom half of american society, 165 million americans. three people here, 165 million people and that gap is growing wider. while the people on top do phenomenally well, over 18 million families in our

country are paying more than half of their limited incomes on housing, which is soaring in many parts of this country and some 600,000 americans are homeless. american workers want to know why -- why it is that despite huge advancements in technology and worker productivity, the average worker in america today makes about $50 a week less than he or she made some 50 years ago after adjusting for inflation. in other words, the very rich are getting richer and the average worker is going nowhere in a hurry. now, there are a number of reasons, many, many reasons for why the gap with between the very, very rich and everyone else is growing wider, many

reasons why wages have remained stagnant. one of the reasons is, of course, we have a federal minimum wage today, a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour, a wage that has lost nearly 30% of its purchasing power over the last 14 years, and raising the minimum wage is something that the help committee is going to address in the near future. but probably above and beyond the need to raise the minimum wage, the most important reason that real wages are lower today in america than they were 50 years ago is the fact that corporate america and the billionaire class have been waging a war against the right of working people to exercise their constitutional privilege to form unions.

the constitutional right to form a union, freedom of assembly. and as a result of that aggressive war against union organizing, trade union membership today is at its lowest level in the modern history of america. in our country today, 71% of the american people approve of labor unions. labor unions today are more popular than they have been in a very long time. yet, despite that only 6% of private sector workers belong to a union. mr. president, tomorrow the help committee will be asking why at a time of record breaking corporate profits, why are multibillionaires decade ceo's of -- and ceo's of large

corporations are doing everything they possibly can the working people the right to join awb union? why? why in their never ending greed are they doing all kinds of illegal actions to prevent workers from forming unions decade negotiate for decent wages decade benefits? and the answer to that question really is not that complicated. what corporate america understands is what most people in this country understand is that when workers join a union, they earn better wages, they receive better benefits, and they work with better working conditions. in fact, union workers today earn nearly 20% more on average than nonunion workers. corporate america also understands that 64% of union

workers have a defined benefit pension plan that guarantees an income in retirement compared to just 11% of nonunion workers. corporate america understands that union workers are half as likely to be victims of health and safety violations compared to nonunion workers, and all of these reasons, the fact that union workers do better than nonunion workers, have better working conditions, better benefits, all of these reasons and more is why we are seeing in a -- a significant upparticular in -- uptick in union organizing in america today. in fact, it is higher than we have seen in many decades. workers understand when they stand together in solidarity,

they will do a lot better than if they have to go begging to their employer. so what we are seeing today is more and more union organizing at blue collar jobs. a couple of months ago a factory in rural georgia organized a steelworkers local. we are seeing it in white collar jobs all over the country and seeing it on college campuses. furthermore, very interestingly, as health care becomes more corporate advertised -- corporatized in america, we are seeing nurses form unions decade doctors form unions, resident doctors voted overwhelmingly to form a union. and with that growth in union organizing, what we are also seeing in this country is a

vicious corporate response. and that is that major corporations all across this country are taking unprecedented and illegal actions against employees who are fighting for economic justice. and that is why major corporations like starbucks decade amazon -- and amazon and others have spent hundreds of billions on anti-busting campaigns. they hire fancy consultants because at the end of the day they would rather spend millions of dollars trying to prevent workers from forming a union than pay those workers decent wages and decent benefits. part of the corporate strategy

is the reality that over half of all employers in america threaten to close or relocate their businesses if workers vote to form a union. imagine that. you work for a company for years, you want to form a union decade then the -- and then they say we're going to mexico, we're going to china, we are going to leave this state. that is why when workers become interested in forming a union, they will almost all the be forced to attend closed door unions to hear anti-employer propaganda. they have all of their executives there and tell them how terrible a union would be and the consequences to them if they form a union. as human rights watch said, and i quote, freedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure when workers in the united states try to

exercise it. end of quote. in other words, yes, in america you have the constitutional right of freedom of assembly. you have the constitutional right to form a union. but if you exercise that right, all kinds of corporate power will be thrown at you to prevent you from succeeding. and here's something that really is quite incredible. even when workers overcome all of these incredible obstacles, and when they win their union elections, 63% of workers who vote to form a union do not get a union contract a year later. so what corporations do is they do everything they can to stop workers from forming a union and then if by some miracle workers vote to form a union, what corporations do is stall and

stall decade throw all kind of legal minutia in in this the -- in the process. on average because of corporate obstructionism, it takes 465 days, on average, to sign a first contract after a union wins an election. imagine that, well over a year after you win the election can you actually get a contract. one-third of successful organizing campaigns cannot get a contract in the first three years after a union victory. that's what corporate obstructionism is about and that's what corporate greed is about. all of that is unacceptable. that should not be happening in the united states, and starting tomorrow the help committee will fight to change that reality by

passing the protecting workers right to organize act, otherwise known as the pro act. the p.r.o. act will make it easier for workers to exercise their constitutional right to form a union, free from fear of intimidation or coercion by their corporate bosses. not everybody wants to form a union, and that's what part of freedom is about, but if you do want to form a union, you should not be hit with illegal activities to prevent you from doing so. this legislation will make it easier for workers to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. it will finally hold corporate ceo's accountable for the unprecedented level of illegal union busting that is taking place all over this country.

under the pro act, corporations will finally be held accountable for violating federal labor law. mr. president, incredibly in america today, corporations are charged with breaking labor law in more than 40% of all union elections. and yet -- and this is the important point -- the penalties for this illegal behavior are virtually nonexistent. in other words, you can break the law with impunity. pathetically, pathetically, far too many corporations have made the calculated decision that it is much more profitable and beneficial to their bottom line to break the law than to follow the law. ordinary people follow the law. average people follow the law. not large corporations because they figured out you can break the law. you can stall this out forever and nothing is going to happen

to you. in fact, mr. president, the financial penalty for corporations retaliating against pro union workers in america today under current law is zero. no penalty at all. that will change under the pro act. under this legislation, corporations will be fined up to $50,000 for violations of the national labor relations act and up to $100,000 for each repeated violation. in other words, shock of all shock, large, profitable corporations will have to obey the law. i know that's a very radical concept in america today, but that's what i think should be happening. under the pro act, we will ban captive audience meetings that are designed to intimidate, coerce, and threaten workers who support forming a union. under the pro act, we will make

sure that all workers have a first contract within one year after winning a union election through binding arbitration. in other words, this -- you know, it should not take years to work out a first contract. that's nothing more than a stalling tactic on the part of the corporate world. under this legislation, we will ban once and for all the permanent replacement of workers who go on strike. no longer will companies be able to hire replacement workers or withhold benefits from workers who go on strike to improve their wages and working conditions. mr. president, this legislation will override so-called right to work laws that have eliminated the ability of unions to collect dues from those who benefit from union contracts. this legislation will end the ability of corporations to misclassify workers as independent contractors or label

ordinary workers as supervisors to prevent them from organizing. and yet, mr. president, that is not all that the help committee will be doing tomorrow. the second bill that we will be marking up is the healthy families act which will end once and for all the international embarrassment of the united states of america being the only major country on earth not to guarantee paid sick days to workers. this legislation would guarantee that every worker in america receives up to seven paid sick days from their employers. you know, mr. president, we hear a lot of talk here in this town about family values. everybody is deeply concerned presumably about family values.

so let me be clear. when a wife is diagnosed with cancer and a husband cannot get time off of work in order to take care of her, spend time with her when she's struggling with cancer, that is not a family value. that is in fact an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. when a working mom is forced to send her sick child to school because she cannot afford to stay home with that child, that is not a family value. that is also an attack on everything that a family is supposed to -- i don't think it is a terrible radical suggestion that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world in 2023 people should not get fired

because they stay home with sick children. let us be clear. the united states of america is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee one single day of paid sick days. not one. in germany, workers are entitled to a total of six weeks of sick days at a hundred percent of their salary. in france workers are entitled to a total of 90 days of paid sick leave at 50% of their salary. in denmark, workers are entitled to at least 30 days of paid sick leave capped at about $680 a week. in canada workers are entitled to ten paid sick days at 100% of their salary and are eligible to receive 26 weeks of paid sick benefits at up to 55% of their

salary. that's what germany does, france does, canada does. countries all over the word do it. in the united states of america, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, workers are entitled, workers are guaranteed a total of zero paid sick days. that's the reality. and that, my friends, has got to change. last place is no place for the united states of america. we can't go around telling people we're the greatest country on earth and be the only major country that doesn't guarantee one day of paid sick leave. it is time for the united states of america to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee at least seven paid sick days to every worker in america. and in doing that, we will still be way behind most of the

industrialized countries. mr. president, just a few months ago, the american people learned about what rail workers in this country were going through and in fact they as workers doing difficult, dangerous work often in inclement weather, they were not guaranteed one single day of paid sick leave. we had a big discussion on that. i offered an amendment on that issue which failed. but i'm happy to tell you that as a result of a strong grassroots trade union movement and i think the railroad companies getting a sense of how the american people feel, that is beginning to change. today unlike a few months ago, over 50,000 rail workers are now guaranteed up to seven days of paid sick leave and i have a feeling that in the weeks and

months to come, more and more railroad workers will get that benefit. we need to build on that momentum by guaranteeing seven paid sick days not just to rail workers but to every worker in america. mr. president, last but not least, the third bill that the help committee will be voting on tomorrow is the paycheck fairness act introduced by senator murray. this legislation would end the absurdity, the unfairness of women in america being paid just 84 cents on the dollar compared to men. and, mr. president, as bad as that figure is, 16% less for women than for men, it is even worse, much worse for women of color. in america today, asian women make just 80 cents for every dollar a man earns. for black women, it's just 67

cents. and for hispanic women and native american women, it is just 57 cents. so i don't think it is too much to ask in this country that people be paid equal pay for equal work no matter who you are. and the truth is, of course, the current situation does not have to be that way. in belgium, another industrialized country, the gender wage gap is just 1.2%. women make virtually the same amount of money as men do. in spain, norway, and denmark, the gender wage gap is 5% or less. women make 95% of what men make. across the entire european union, the cap is just 10.6%. in the united states it is 16%. the paycheck fairness act would close this gap by guaranteeing

equal pay for equal work and making it easier for women to come together, file lawsuits against unscrupulous employers who commit wage discrimination. mr. president, these bills are not only good policies, they are precisely what the american people want. according to the last polls i have seen, 87% of the american people support guaranteeing paid sick leave to every worker in our country. 84% of the american people support equal pay for equal work. 59% of the american people support the pro act. mr. president, the bottom line is that most americans understand we live in a rigged economy. people on top are doing

phenomenally well, have never done better. ordinary workers are struggling to put food on the table to. the presiding officer: the health care they need to take care of their families, to send their kids to college, to take some time off for a vacation. that is not what america is supposed to be about. tomorrow the help committee begins the difficult and long journey, are beginning to bring justice to the working class of this country. until the ceo's and the corporate executives and the 1% that they cannot have it all, that this economy has got to work for working people and not just the people on top. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

. >>. >> from their jurisdictions about how they can improve lives of the children and their communities so this is our 31st, 31st aid a book and we also take the opportunity to highlight a particular issue each year and this year we highlighted the issue of child care. >> speaking of childcare what are some of the findings? how would you describe the current state of childcare in the us ? >> well, we have a broken child care system in this country is troubling because childcare is important for many reasons. it's important for children for most.

there are 23 million children in this country under the age of five, 12 million of them are in our nations childcare system at some point during their childhood and we want all of those children to get off on a great start so that they are prepared or kindergarten when they start school so it's important for children first and foremost we have a strong childcare system. it's also important to parents because parents need that childcare in order to go to work and care for their families about more than 50 percent of working people are parents so at some point during their child's life they're going to need that support to enable them to go to work and finally care is important for our economy. we want to make sure we have workers available to meet the needs of this country. we estimate that 122 billion dollars is lost in this country, that's economic impact on a strong childcare

system so there are lots of challenges through this with access to affordability, to the impact of locating childcare workers so we wanted to call attention to this issue and bring data to the conversation so policymakers can ensure we've got the right infrastructure for our country. >> we are talking again with lisa hamilton who is the president and ceo of the annie casey foundation. were going to get to some of your calls in a moment but i want to give you the phone lines they are different than normal. if you're in the eastern or central time zones call us at 2027 48,000 and if you're in the mountain or pacific time zone call us at 202 and 40 8001 but we have a special phone line for parents of caregivers of children. that number is 202 748 8002.

if you are a child care worker, we want you to call us at 202 748 8003. use those phone lines to start calling in now. if you have questions or if you want to share your thoughts or experiences in childcare or obtaining childcare so go ahead, start calling in now. while we wait for calls to come in, lisa, you talked about childcare systems in your words being broken. what are some of those big challenges you say lead to this broken system? >> it's certainly a capacity issue in this country. there are not enough slots for the children who need care so we definitely got capacity issue. there are issues with affordability, the average cost of childcare is about $10,600 for toddler care.

it's more than for instant care if you think about the rising cost of everything from rents to food to housing, having this significant expense and arising expensed on families in a tremendous strain on any old budget, it's about 10 of the married couples budget but single parents approaches the percent of their budget so affordability is a tremendous challenge. and then accessibility.

ms. warren: mr. president.

senator markey and i were pleased to recommend julie rikelman to the president for this important role on the federal bench. she received bipartisan support from the senate during her cloture vote last week and i'm sure the same will be true shortly when we vote on her confirmation to the first circuit. julie rikelman is an accomplished lawyer who has significant experience in both private practice and public interest. and whose career demonstrates an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. ms. rikelman's commitment to the rule of law and the constitution is informed by her personal experience, fleeing religious persecution. in late 1970's, she and her family came to the united states from ukraine as jewish refugees seeking equal opportunity denied to them in the former soviet

union. ms. rikelman went on to graduate from harvard college and harvard law school. after law school she clerked for justice dana fay, on the alaska supreme court, and then georgia morton greenberg on the united states court of appeals for the third circuit. following a two-year stint at the center center for reproductive rights, she entered private practice, first as an associate at fendlman and in 2006, she joined nbc universal as counsel before being promoted to senior litigation counsel in 2008 and vice president of litigation in 2011. she has worked on issues rerelated to

securities, employment r discrimination, intellectual property, and constitutional law matters. in 2011, ms. rikelman returned to the center for reproductive rights as a senior staff attorney. one year later she was appointed u.s. lit litigation director, and in that role she argued two cases before the united states supreme court. ms. rikelman's exceptional qualifications are bolstered by the support she has received from lawyers in public and private practice, from prosecutors, from defenders, from academics and from former judges representing a range of political perspectives. whether appoint bid republicans or democrats, her supporters, quote, share a strong belief that ms. rikelman is a lawyer of uncommon talent and ability, broad experience, sound and

fair-minded judgment, and unquestioned integrity. her former nbc universal and simpson thatcher bartlet colleagues describe her as, quote, thoughtful and, quote, open-minded, and observe that she, quote, carefully considered every argument without prejudgment and without regard to her personal views. there it is -- fair-minded, experienced, thoughtful, and exceptionally talented, these are the qualities a federal judge should possess and these are the qualities that julie rikelman has exhibited throughout her career. in addition, her personal and professional experiences will bring important diversity to our federal bench and underlie her respect for the rule of law. finally, it is important to note now more than ever that we

have judges on the federal bench who deeply understand reproductive rights law, and ms. rikelman's experience in this area makes her an exceptionally qualified nominee. i have every confidence that julie rikelman will continue to uphold the rule of law and our constitution as a first circuit judge. i want to thank our bipartisan advisory committee in massachusetts for all of the work they did to identify and recommend candidates like julie rikelman, and i want to thank president biden for nominating her to this position. i urge my colleagues to support the confirmation of julie rikelman, a supremely qualified candidate who will bring her commitment to delivering equal justice under the law to the first circuit court of appeals. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, this week marks the one-year anniversary of the supreme court's dobbs decision overturning roe v. wade. this disastrous decision has sown chaos and confusion across the country and led to dozens of states restricting or banning abortion care. republicans are obsessed with banning abortion nationwide, and they are using every vehicle possible to advance their radical anti-abortion agenda. tomorrow my colleagues and i on the armed services committee will begin our markup on the fiscal year 2024 national defense authorization act. the ndaa is an annual bill that

sets our nation's defense policy. despite our differences, congress has come together to pass an ndaa on a bipartisan basis every year for the last 62 years. while republicans and democrats may disagree about military policy, we have always kept the readiness of our forces above politics. from combatting threats abroad to rebuilding dod infrastructure at home, we have no shortage of important issues to work through in this year's bill. but right now, my republican colleagues are threatening to derail the bill by injecting anti-abortion provisions into a bill that has nothing to do with abortion. after the supreme court's disarserus -- disastrous dobbs

decision, servicemembers stationed in states with abortion restrictions were allowed to travel in order to receive reproductive care. this updated travel policy in no way, shape, or form, authorizes the dod to pay for abortion care. there is no language in these provisions that pay for abortion. they simply allow servicemembers to access care they would otherwise be able to access but for being stationed in states that do not allow such care. my republican colleagues are hell bent on outlawing abortion nationwide and expert -- expert erting control over their freedom by preventing their travel to receive health care. amending the ndaa is one way for them to impose their will on the

dod o' -- dod. one-my republican colleagues on the committee currently has a hold on more than 250 general and flag officer promotions within the department of defense because he objects to the dod's travel policy and wants to make a point about his displeasure. the secretary of defense, as well as secretaries of the army, navy, and air force, have all testified that these holds impact our national security. radical republicans are pandering to their maga base and the american -- the american people will pay the price. while the republicans continue their anti-abortion crusade, we should be working to craft an ndaa that addresses the real challenges our servicemembers face and gives them the

resources they need to continue protecting our nation, including access to health care. that's what i'll be focused on when we begin our markup tomorrow, and i urge my republican colleagues to join us in this important task in the ndaa markup that we will begin tomorrow. our servicemembers and the american people are counting on us to get this job done. mr. president, i yield the floor.

# #

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until the end of the congress, kneel colombo, reagan fieldback, john ora antas. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: republicans have watched democrats in congress burn through trillions of dollars of their hard-earned money. early on in the administration

when one of their radical proposals made its way to the senate floor, i would hear from tennesseans wanting to know who the democrats expected to actually pay the bill for these programs, but as time has gone by, the be democrats confirmed, as they have every time they have been in power, that their plan has -- it was to keep squeezing taxpayers for as much money as possible for as long as possible. indeed, the federal government has a ceaseless nonending appetite for taxpayers' money. i don't think i have to tell you how discouraging this is for tennesseans, it is confirmation that their president knows what is happening to them but he just does not care. they're in pursuit of a goal. they see this as a means to an

end. now when i am at home in tennessee, as i was this weekend, people don't ask me where all the money went because they know the democrats have wasted it on handouts and green new deem schemes -- green new deal schemes. all they want to know is when will this stop in they can't plan ahead. they can't save for special occasions. even something as simple as a holiday cookout has slipped out of reach for so many families. independence day is coming up, but what should be an exciting time for everyone has turned into a source of stress because in one year -- one year the price of a bag of chips, up

7.9%, ice cream and -- 8% more, poe at ito sal -- potato sal saladad is up 11%. hot dogs and hamburgers have gone up, when you account for the 16% hike on ketchup and mustard and the 13% hike on pickles and a ridiculous 12.4% hike on the bun to put it all on, you can cross your main course off the menu also. there's no reason why a meal like this should suddenly be out of reach of many families, but it is. and it's not just due to the price of the hamburger bun. that's just something that really is adding insult to

injury. since joe biden became president, grocery prices have increased 20%, which is something every single person serving in congress has seen in action. you cannot deny this. any trip to the grocery store tells the story. energy bills have gone up 36% since joe biden and the democrats took power. rent is up 15%. clothes, 12% more, a tank of gas is up 51%, and a used car to put that gas in is going to cost you 33% more today than it did last june. to counteract all this, the fed has raised interest rates at the fastest pace since the 1980's, which has in turn destroyed access to consumer credit and made it harder for small

businesses to take out the loans they need to grow. the problem isn't limited to a holiday celebration. our president and the democrats have made life too expensive to afford every single day of the year. needless to say, spending has been out ever control for over a decade and regardless ever what this administration believes, we cannot spend our way to prosperity. it does not happen. but we can directly trace this crippling inflation back to the reckless spending policies of this administration. so let's take a look at some of the things they have chosen to prioritize over the good of the country and the good of the people. they used the 6,825-page

consolidated appropriations act of 2023 to set a new precedent for wasteful spending that frankly continues to baffle most tennesseans. this bill which no one had the opportunity to read included billions in pure waste and authorized over $1.82 trillion in total discretionary spending authority. to make matters worse, the inflation reduction act which passed last august gave the internal revenue service $80 billion for -- guess what? -- more irs acts. they estimate the resulting increase in harassment will take $204 billion from hardworking taxpayers who are already struggling to make ends meet. the ira also included $386

billion for joe biden's radical climate agenda, including $27 billion for the greenhouse gas reduction fund, the sole purpose of which is to increase the power of the epa. $3 billion in environmental and climate justice block grants, and an extension of the affordable care act's premium tax credits. this is hundreds of billions of dollars going to pet projects of the left while americans are struggling to put food on the table. but the spending won't stop there. earlier this year, prik release -- president biden released a pledge to make things worse. it's in the form of his 2024 budget request. this exorbitant wish list proved that he has no desire to get our

national debt under control. and included annual budget deficits ranging between 4.6% and 6.8% above the baseline. he also included trillions in tax increases, and added even more funding to the irs. he troubled the tax on capital gains, increased the corporate income tax rate to 28% which is the second highest rate in the developed world and then made sure the irs could find ways to take even more money. not exactly a taxpayer friendly approach. this path is not sustainable and will only lead to our children and grandchildren baring the full brunt of our massive national debt burden.

in my opinion, this is immoral. this is why every congress i introduce legislation to cut spending by 1%, 2 prks, and 5 -- 2% and 5% all across the board. these small changes would make a big difference and help us return to a path of fiscal stability and fiscal sanity. the consumer price index rose 4% in may. incredibly enough, the biden administration celebrated this as a win which leads me to believe they're still counting on the american people somehow ignoring what a mess they've made and continuing to fork over the money. let's be clear. 4% inflation is still double the target rate. this is not a win. it is not normal. the day joe biden came into

office, inflation was at 1.4%. now, what this does do, it does guarantee that tennesseans will face yet another month of groceries that are too expensive to afford and unsustainable spending on programs they did not vote for and that they do not want. if we were to passion a 1% across the -- across-the-board cut of federal spending, then there is a chance we could reverse this trend. and to ease the impossible burden that the biden administration has placed on the american people. but if we continue to ignore the problem and spend even more money, that will lead us even further down the path to economic collapse. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will -- will the senatord.

mrs. blackburn: i will withdraw the request. ms. duckworth: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. ms. duckworth: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for up to seven minutes and senator grassley be permitted to speak for five minutes prior to the scheduled vote. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. duckworth: mr. president, i've come to the floor today with a simple question. when exactly was the moment that military women like me no longer had the right to bodily autonomy? our nation was just fine with me using my body as i saw fit when i chose to use it to fight wars on its behalf. it was all right with me using it as i wish when i decided to risk every drop of blood in this body to fly a black hawk into combat. it was even okay with me losing parts of this body leaving parts of it strewn across a battlefield in iraq in defense of this great nation. in fact, people thanked me for

my service for making it incredibly -- for making that incredibly personal choice about my own being, my own life. i know the same is true for many of the other female servicemembers and veterans who have made this decision to serve our nation. so my question is, precisely when do the folks pushing antichoice policies think that we american women no longer have the basic human right to make our own decisions about our own health? i ask because over the past year since the supreme court announced its dobbs ruling, we have faced an onslaught of antiwomen, antichoice bills that would effectively turn women into second class citizens. rendering them incapable at adjudicating matters related to their own bodies, transforming them from people with autonomy into mere vessels subject to the political whims of lawmakers whose believes tend more toward insurrectionists than feminist.

lawmakers who think making america great again equates to sopping away women's rights again. this weekend is no exception because this week my colleagues across the aisle led by my fellow veteran, senator ernst, are trying to hold our annual defense bill negotiations hostage in an attempt to force through an extremist amendment that would overturn existing dod policy, an amendment that would keep troops and their families who are stationed at military bases in antichoice states from getting the resources they need to travel elsewhere to get basic reproductive health care. you know, our servicemembers often move every two or three years. they don't get to choose where they're stationed. they receive orders to be somewhere. then me pack up their rut sacks and they go. i've seen estimates that about 40% are assigned to bases in states that now have draconian reproductive rights laws. now, if senator ernst's amendment to the ndaa becomes

law, thousands of military women would be stripped of their right to bodily autonomy just because they've chosen to serve their country. think about how shameful that is. think about how disgraceful it is that so many of the same so-called leaders who applaud these women for choosing to put themselves in harm's way overseas are trying to arrest control over their bodies away there them when they're back on u.s. soil. and think about how astounding it is that the folks backing this kind of policy seem ignorant to the hypocrisy laden in the idea that the greatest democracy in the world, a nation borne out of a fight against governmental overreach and that takes pride in self-determination would actually strip away the right to personal freedom from the very citizens who've sworn an oath to protect others' rights, to keep others free. when i fought in iraq at the beginning of our rotation, it was so early on in the war that

the full logistics was not yet set up. we were still living in tents and had no personal hygiene facilities other than the wet wipes we get in care packages. so when it came time for me to deploy, army doctors issued me birth control patches so i could control my menstrual cycle since for the first two months i was set to be downrange, there would be no female sanitary support. in other words, because i wouldn't be able to get tampons, pads or the like for the early days yet i still needed to fly my missions, it advantaged the military for me to control my reproductive cycle. i was happy to do it. because it was for the good of the army, the good of the mission, and thus the good of this nation that i love more than life itself. but looking back, especially after this week, my takeaway is that our country was just fine with me seeking reproductive care when it suited them. but only when it suited them.

because today we live in a america whose representatives waiver even on the basic question of whether women should have access to the kind of care they readily supplied me whether it fit their needs. to me this republican amendment effectively punishes women for their willingness to put on the uniform. the policy is both morley corrupt and militarily shortsighted. how could it not impact the future recruitment and retention of our armed forces if women understand that if they wear our nation's colors, that if they follow orders and are stationed at wharve base they're told to report to, their fundamental rights may remain forever out of reach. yes, we're talking about abortion, here, certainly. but this amendment my colleagues are so focused on passing also impacts a range of other basic lifesaving and sometimes even life creating reproductive care. including fertility treatments, both of those who have worn the uniform and for the part nears of those who serve.

or the urgent medical services needed in the tragic event they miscarry a child that they do want. so when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle championing this policy, what i hear them say is that they either don't understand or don't care about the very real severe effects that servicemembers and dependents could face if they can't access reproductive care. what i hear them say is that they want to force female servicemembers to give birth whether they want to or not, whether they are ready to or not regardless of the burden, the cost, the implications for their careers, and more importantly, their lives. what i hear them say is that they don't believe that the readiness of women servicemembers affects our military's readiness. that they don't think recruiting women is important for the future of our military. that they don't care about the contribution that women make to our armed forces. that they don't value the service of women, point blank. and ulgt madam presidentially,

sadly, -- ultimately, sadly, that means they don't care about solving our military's recruit mandate challenges as much as they do as getting on the good side of billionaires who bankroll campaigns. that is offensive and hypocritical. these proposing -- proposals are cowardly. in other words, it's a perfect snapshot of today's self-interested, self-defeated gop. look, we democrats on the senate armed services committee have used every negotiation tactic under the sun to try to stop our republican colleagues from crashing down the entire defense bill negotiations with this one poison pill. but let me be clear. we cannot pass a defense funding bill if this amendment is hidden deep in its fine print. we've even offered to hold a separate vote on the same exact policy as a stand alone bill, a solution that would both protect this week's larger ndaa process while also letting the rest of the senate have a say on this

single piece of legislation. but republicans have decried this offer calling it a ploy. it's not a ploy. we're giving them the vote that they say they want. they don't want a solution. they don't want fairness. they just want to scream and shout. they want to show off to the most fringe parts of their base knowing that in a few days, they'll somehow contort reality and blame democrats, even when they're well aware that their own political agenda is at fault for congress failing to pass this critical national defense legislation. so just as i made my own decision about my body when i signed up to fly black hawks in iraq, i'm using my voice to say enough. we must not allow republicans to score political points by restricting the personal freedom of the very people who have dedicated their lives to defending that most fundamental, most american ideal. our females and military families deserve access to health care regardless of what part of the country they happen to be stationed in.

they zev to have full control over their bodies here at home just as they did when they were carrying rucksacks and m-4's on those bodies overseas. to my colleagues on the the other side of the aisle, if you care about the strength of our commitment, if you care about defending our freedoms that have defined america since the first drop of ink was written 0 on our constitution, then you will vote against this amendment. please, do not abandon the women who have done so much to keep our yawn safe. please do not repay our heroes for their sacrifices by telling them what they can and cannot do with the bodies they put at risk. and, please, as you sit at our fancy desks under this hallowed, historic dome ask yourselves if you're so desperate for a pat on the back from fox news that you'd beological to strip away the rights that these women have spent their lives protecting? i certainly could not live with that decision you with that vote. i hope the same is true for each of my colleagues.

i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the foundation is based in baltimore. his philanthropy started by jim casey who is the founder of ups and his mother was annie. we are focused on helping all children have a brighter future. so we focus on trying to make sure kids grow up strong families. that their families have the economic stability to provide for them. they can all live and strong healthy communities. quick to say the founder of ups is also who establish this foundation. is that how you are funded privately or are there other funding sources now? >> we have an endowment created by jim casey. we are self funded and do not

solicit donations for our work. >> your organization just released the 2020 reef kids count data book. can you tell me about this documents? what does it entail? >> for 34 years the foundation has created a data book to provide policymakers and the public with accurate information about children's well-being. we identified 16 key indicators of child well-being and for domains health, education, family and community economic well-being. every year provide information at the national level and the state level so that we all know how children are failing in this conflict. using that data we rank the states so states can see where they are doing well and take inspiration from other jurisdictions about how they can improve the lives of the children in their community.

since the data book and we also take the opportunity to highlight a particular issue each year end this surely highlighted the issue of child care. >> speaking of childcare, what are the findings? how would you describe the current state of childcare in the u.s.? >> we have broken childcare system in this country which is troubling. childcare is important for many reasons. for children first and foremost under the age of five. about 12 million of them will access artists childcare system at some point during their childhood. we want all of those children to get off on a great start. they are prepared for kindergarten when they start school it's important for children first and foremost we have a strong childcare system.

it is also important to parents. parents need the childcare in order to go to work and to care for their families than 50% working people are parents. so at some point during their child's life there going to need the childcare support to enable them to go to work. and finally childcare is important for our economy. we want to make sure we have workers available to meet the talents needs of this country. as the economic impact of not having a strong childcare system. we know there's a lot of challenges in the system from access to affordability a comment to impact of low pay childcare workers. but to call to this issue bring status are policymakers can ensure we have the right childcare infrastructure for our country.

>> we are talking again that hamilton who is the president and ceo of the casey foundation. were going to get to some of your calls in a moment. want to give the fold lines they are little different than normal. if you are in the eastern or central time zone calls to 027-48-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zone you can call (202)748-8001. parents or caregivers to children that number is (202)748-8002. if you are a childcare worker we want you to call us at 202-74-8003. use those phone lines start calling now if you have questions. or if you want to share your thoughts or experiences when childcare or obtaining

childcare. soak ahead and start calling in now. while we wait for calls to come in, lisette you talked about childcare systems being broken. what are some of those big challenges that you say lead to this broken system? >> it certainly is a capacity issue. in this country there are not nearly enough slots for the children who need care in this country. we've got a capacity issue. there are issues with affordability the average cost of childcare in this country is about 10,000 $600 for toddler care it is more expensive for infant care. to housing. it's a tremendous strain on a household budgets by attempt of

the married couples 30% of the budget. affordability is a tremendous challenge. and that's about lots of childcare is not on public transportation were low income parents might need to access it. the issue is challenging for rural parents as well. often childcare is in many miles away from their home. those are the issues for those trying to access childcare. there also issues for those providing the childcare. out of every 100 workers in this country are in the childcare industry. but they are among the lowest paid workers in our economy. that certainly puts a strain on their households. it also has a ripple effects in their communities. we all childcare workers are women and a large portion of them are women of color. when you think about the impacts to their families and their

communities, there are tremendous ripple effects from low-paid jobs in the childcare industry. that's why we describe this as broken. unaffordable. it's inaccessible we do not have the capacity we need. there are challenges for those who are providing care in this industry. >> before we get to the phone lines and want to bring up the axioms article that says the average cost of childcare are 2021 statistics with the average cost was 10,000 $600 annually or a toddler in the center -based care. there is also a map that nays a3 shows

test:

mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: is the senate in a quorum call, mr. president? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. bennet: we're not? thank you, mr. president. i ask the motion to reconsider with respect to to the rikelman nomination be considered made and laid upon the tablerd, and the president be immediately

notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc, calendars number 46 through number 52, number 82 through number 107. number 110 through 113. number 130 through 139. 180 through 205. number 224 through 234. number 236 through number 246. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the

tics with that, they're playing politics with our national security. if they're willing to play politics with that, they're playing politics with the expectations of people who have spent an entire career defending the national security of this country, serving the public, serving in the department of defense, and who now have been promoted to a position of trust and responsibility. by the way, this doesn't just affect those people that are getting that promotion. it also affects the people that are below them that can't get the promotion that now is no longer vacant because they're stuck in the job that they're in. and i'm shocked that somebody here would do this and prevent

this is common, this is the way the senate functions, this is the way the senate, as my colleague from alabama has said, just does its business. this is not how the senate ever does its business. it's not how the department of defense does its business. and it's particularly, i think, should be particularly aggrieving to the american people because of the reasons the senator from alabama is doing what he's doing. mr. president, tonight we're here on basically the one-year anniversary of the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade, in the hobbs decision. if you told me when i was in law school that a majority of the supreme court would join the majority opinion by just alito that would say that if it wasn't a right or a freedom in 1868, it's not a freedom today, if you told me that was the basis on which they were going to strip a

fundamental freedom from the american people, i would have say that will never happen, it's never going to happen. that is what is happening, and that is the result of a 50-year crusade to overturn a woman's right to choose in the united states of america. it's the first time since reconstruction that we have given up a fundamental right here. it's the first time since reconstruction we've been stripped of our fundamental right and our freedoms have been diminished, that they have grown smaller, in the hands of a 50-year campaign that was waged to put four people on the supreme court, a majority on the supreme court, who subscribe to the best-named doctrine i've ever heard name in american political history, or anybody's political history, and that is the doctrine of originalism, a doctrine that was dressed up to

create a scenario, or a legal set of arguments, that somehow there were a group of people in this society with such mystical powers that they were capable, unlike anybody else in america, they would be capable of divining the original intent of the founding frearts -- of the founding fathers. putting aside the fact tonight that everybody in this chamber who studied the constitution, even for ten minutes, knows the founders had fundamental disagreements about themselves, and that the constitution itself was a product of this fundamental differences. not their fundamental consensus, but fundamental differences. there was consensus on some issues. there was compromise on other issues. but i dwell on that for a moment

just to say to, especially people around here, maybe the pages in the senate, that you shouldn't give this theory of legal interpretation any great weight just because they dressed it up and call it something called originalism, or they said somehow they could divine what the founding fathers said. what fundamentally it came down to in the case of the supreme court was that because abortion wasn't a freedom as they said in 1868, a country where women didn't even have the right to vote in the united states yet, that it was not going to be a freedom today. and they stripped the american people of this freedom. and there are people on this floor, people in the other party who spent 50 years trying to create a supreme court like this, basically since ronald reagan was our president. i think ronald reagan would be shocked by the extreme nature of

the opinion that was rendered by justice alito, but who knows. what we do know is this has been a 50-year campaign that's been waged. and the second that the supreme court did what they have been shooting for the last 50 years, what they started to say was don't worry about it, it's not a big deal. this is just reverting to states' rights. this fundamental constitutional right, this fundamental constitutional freedom, it's just reverting to the states. what's happened since then, mr. president? 20 states have banned abortions since that decision was made, or restricted access. nine of the states have no exceptions for rape or incest. like the state of alabama, i think, which has an exception for the life of the mother.

so there is a lot to worry about in this decision. there's a lot to worry about for our men and women in uniform. before dobbs, women in the military had at least some assurance that wherever the pentagon sent them, they'd have minimal access to reproductive care, a protected constitutional right, a protected freedom. that is no longer the case. one of the very first calls i got, mr. president, after dobbs was decided was from a woman that i know in colorado who was an air force officer. she was a pilot. she told me her personal story, and then she said i don't understand how they could possibly have made the decision that they made, because this is a fundamental readiness issue. they didn't have to deal with that. they didn't have to deal with that fundamental issue of readiness. ne didn't have to -- they didn't have to deal with the fundamental fact of how people every single day would be

dealing with the loss of this right or the loss of this freedom because nothing in their interpretive doctrine requires them to do that. it only requires them to ask was it a freedom in 1868, not a freedom today. and in response to this shocking development -- and it is shocking. you know, if you are the age of the pages that are here, if you're my daughter's age -- my oldest daughter is 22 years old -- you're wondering how it is possible. we were having this conversation the other day, driving by a billboard in colorado, advertising some stuff in colorado. amazing thing that we could be, on the one hand, legalizing marijuana in this country and on the other hand, banning abortion. if you told me that when i was a teenager in america, i would have said what are you smoking? that's impossible.

that's impossible. and that's where we are. what the supreme court did in this case is fundamentally unpopular with the american people. the american people are angry that this has happened. it didn't happen by accident. this is a war that has been waged on a woman's right to choose. it's a war that has been waged for that doctrine of originalism. and a lot of people and a lot of institutions in america are having to make adjustments in the wake of this shocking development. and the pentagon is one of those places. and in the wake of the supreme court overturning roe v. wade, the pentagon extended two policies that already exist for

servicemembers if a medical procedure is not available near their duty station. one was a travel allowance. if you're not, you can't get that knee operated on close to your duty station, we're going to pay you to travel. that is what the rules say today. by the way, that's not a law that congress passed. that is the dod making regulations, which is how this works, to ensure that the people serving our country are able to get the medical care that they need. we say, you know what, you're going to to have a travel allowance. and because you have to travel to do this, we're going to give you paid leave to do that, to go get that knee surgery. and what the dod said in the wake of the dobbs decision reversing roe v. wade, is that if you are doing that because you have, you've made a decision to seek reproductive

health care, you have made a decision to have an abortion, we're going to apply the same rules to you that we apply for these other surgeries. we're not going to treat you differently. we're going to treat you exactly the same. that's what we're going to do. and if you need to travel because it's not available, you can do it. so if you live in a state like alabama, where my colleague who is blocking every single appointment or promotion in the dod, where he lives, where you can, if you're a doctor and you perform an abortion, you can go to jail for 99 years. if you're living in a state like alabama where abortion is banned and there are very limited exceptions, if any exceptions, that you can go somewhere else to do it. or the dod will actually pay for you to go. and the dod will give you paid

leave. and that's true whether you're getting -- you're seeking women's reproductive health care or you're going for knee surgery but knee surgery isn't banned in 20 states in this country. and there was one other thing that the department of defense said, which was they said, you know what? in the case of a pregnancy, you can tell your commanding officer or you can tell your command 20 weeks after you learned of your pregnancy. you don't have to tell people right away because things might happen in the early stages of a pregnancy, where you might make decisions to have an abortion in that time. this was an attempt by dod to harmonize the rules at dod for health care with the changes in

the supreme court. it would be difficult, in my mind at least, to imagine a more modest set of changes to the rules by dod. i thought about it. what could be more modest than saying if we're going to pay people that are getting knee surgery, pay them paid leave, then we're going to do this for everybody else, for women who need reproductive health care. we're going to pay people to travel for these other things, then we're going to let people travel. i would think that most people who have disagreements about abortion in this country might say, well, that is fair. people have the right to be able to make this decision on their own, or they should have the right to make this decision on their own, and we shouldn't discriminate against people just because we might have a disagreement about abortion. one thing this set of rules does

not do in any shape or form is pay for an abortion. and the senator from alabama has almost admitted as much on this floor. he said it's sort of tantamount to that, sort of this, and senator lee was saying sort of. but they know it's not. that's not what the rules do. that's a debate we're going to need to have here, but that is not what's happening here. what's happening here is the rules, as i stated. and the senator from alabama, mr. president, was so enraged by this, so infuriated by this, so angered by this that he's now put a blanket hold on 249 military promotions to unwind those rules, to change those rules, to force the dod to retreat and the dod to say, okay, from here on out, here's what we're going to do. we will pay for your travel for

eferlz -- every single operation you can't get at your duty station except if you're a woman seeking reproductive health care. if you're a woman who is going to have an abortion we're going to discriminate against you, we're going to treat you differently than everybody else for every other purpose. and we are going to give you paid leave because we understand that it's inconvenient to have to go somewhere else from your duty station. by the way, you haven't asked to be at that duty station. we're going to give you paid leave except if you are going because of reproductive health care, in which case we're going to discriminate against women and say uniquely you do not get paid leave. and i guess you have to inform your commanding officer -- somebody does -- that you're

pregnant sooner than the 20 months. that's the world that the senator from alabama is trying to pursue here on this floor by holding every single military promotion, every flag officer promotion in the united states of america when putin is invading ukraine and china is sailing their shiny new navy all over the south china sea. and i know he knows it. he can't think it's a good idea. i know he's come out here and said don't worry about it. there are acting people that are doing those jobs. don't worry about it. the generals don't actually make decisions. it's the enlisted people that are doing all the work. don't worry about it. you know, somehow this is going to help with the recruiting quagmire that he has pointed out. i don't think, by the way, it's going to help with the recruiting quagmire that he's talked about out here, that

women that are thinking about joining the military are going to know that their life, their lives are in the hands of politicians in washington, d.c. their very lives are in their hands. their destiny is in their hand. dod can send them to a place where abortion is banned and doctors go to jail for 99 years if they perform an abortion, or they might be lucky enough to serve in a place like colorado where we've codified roe v. wade already. we're the first state in america to do it. and i don't have to tell the presiding officer how, who, by the way, served and has been on the armed services committee, how important these jobs are we're talking about. the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, air force general c.q. brown, the chairman of the joint chiefs of

staff, the chief of the national security agency, the next military representative to nato, you think that's an important job? soon this hold is going to include the next commandant of the marine corps, the army chief of staff, the chief of naval operations, putting our national security at rifng -- risk. mr. president, i'd ask at the outset of tonight's proceedings, i ask if we can have unanimous consent on a number of these promotions and i would like to put the names and the ranks into the, and positions into the record, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. former defense secretary gates, who, by the way, for those who don't know, was appointed by

george w. bush, said that the senator from alabama has made the military, quote-unquote, a pawn. that's a guy who served in a republican administration. we've had secretary of defenses, secretaries of defense from both sides of the aisle who said that the senator from alabama is hurting our national defense, is hurting our national security. he's playing politics with our department of defense. and what is his justification again? well, it's no different than what i already said. he uses different words. he he's said that the dod has made the department of defense by making these rules into an abortion travel agency. that's his words, an abortion travel agency. that's not true. we talked about the absence without leave and the more time to notify. i'm sure there are some people,

and handful of people in america who couldn't see the wisdom in that, who would disagree with that, but i'll bet you the vast majority of people in this country, including people who have a different view on a woman's right to choose than i have would say that women ought to have right in the department of defense to get travel paid for just like anybody else and to get paid leave and to be able to have 20 weeks to be able to tell their commanding officer that they -- that they're pregnant. this is an effort to punish women who are seeking reproductive health care. and forcing them, for reasons that i don't understand, to tell their commanding officer the minute that they are pregnant.

this is reminisce reminiscent -- this is reminiscent, to me, of the states after the court overturned roe v. wade that are started to look at bills to -- to try to prevent women from traveling from states that had banned abortions to states that had, you know, made abortion illegal. it's kind of a shocking place for us to be in, to hear people, party embrace freedom and talk about freedom all the time and -- and still live in a place where we're talking about trying to ban americans from traveling from one state to another. we're not allowing the department of defense to pay money or -- or to use paid leave for women's reproductive health

care the way they do for anything else. i mean, i do believe strongly -- i believe strongly in a woman's right to choose, and i believe it should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor. most americans agree with that. i know that there's profound moral disagreement on this question, and i -- and i respect that. but i think it's fair to say that the senator from alabama's position on this to not allow paid leave, to not allow paid travel, to not allow women to get 20 weeks before they have to tell their commanding officers that they're pregnant, the vast majority of americans, i think, would agree that those rules are appropriate. by the way, the other reason -- one of the other reasons the senator from alabama has

objected to this is he said if the senate wanted those rules, it should have passed those rules. well, the senate doesn't write rules like that. we didn't write the rules that exist today for people to be able to go get surgery or paid leave. those are the rules that the department of defense makes having been delegated that authority by congress. but, man, he's in a totally different place on this. he says that he's going to keep his hold until the pentagon follows the law or congress changes the law. that's the way we do it here in the senate. that's a reference to what i was just talking about in terms of the rules. and, by the way, this is not how we do this in the senate. it's just not. it's not. and the evidence is no one in

the history of this body has ever done this ever in the history of the country. nobody's done this. nobody's done it. and i would say that not only has nobody done it, nobody has done it and taken a political position that's so far outside the mainstream of conventional american political -- i think the american people should be asking their senators where they stand on this. there are only 100 people here. it's not hard to find our telephone numbers or our

addresses. he should be asking them, do you agree -- do you agree that we should be holding up every single flag officer's promotion because one senator thinks that we shouldn't have paid leave or paid travel for women that need reproductive health care? that's -- he says he's going to relent only when that's true. he's only going to relent when there is a dod policy that pays for every other surgery that somebody could get that has paid family leave for any other procedure that you could get but bans that for abortion. that is an extreme position. that is an extreme position.

it's extreme -- it's an extreme position to say that we're going to not allow people to have 20 weeks to make alabamans believe that. but the majority of americans certainly don't. the majority of americans believe that a woman has a right to choose and the majority believes that a decision is best decided between a woman and her doctor or a woman and her faith

if she has one, and that is it what my state believes, mr. president. we were the state to decriminalize abortion before roe was decided and the first state to codify abortions. that is what freedom looks like, mr. president. our state -- our state in colorado is the first state to codify roe since the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, and other folks are saying, you don't need to worry about states now one of the largest states i% of the people support a right for a woman to choose, the governor of that state, the state of florida, has banned abortion after six weeks, and he signed that law at 11:00 o'clock at night when nobody would be around to see the way he was trampling on the freedom of his

constituents. most americans, if they knew this debate was happening, would be shocked, i think to hear that what we're trying to do here is prevent women from getting paid leave, that we're trying to prevent women from -- from having paid travel, we're trying to prevent women from having 20 weeks from telling their commanding officer. that is what the senator from alabama is saying. that until that happens, until we're preventing women from those things, until we are discriminating from women who are seeking reproductive health care, that he's going to continue to hold all these nominations, forever? i don't know how anybody can take that position and say that

they stand for freedom, but that is the position that the senator from alabama has taken and i hope he will reconsider what he's doing because of the damage that it's causing our national security at a moment when, as i said, putin has invaded ukraine and china is pressing, you know, it's advantages in various places around the world many we need the senator to lift these holds and i'm going to keep coming to the floor until he does. thank you, mr. president. i'll yield the floor. i know it's late. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated are. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first

reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 277, an act to amend chapter 8 of title 5 of united states code and so forth. mr. bennet: i now ask for a second read gd and in order for the -- and in order to place the bill on the calendar, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. bennet: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, june 21, 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. following the conclusion of morning business, notwithstanding rule 22, the the senate resume consideration of the veto message with respect to s.j. res. 11 and the senate vote

on passage of the joint resolution at 11:30 a.m. following disposition of the veto message, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the merle nominees, following the cloture vote on the mr nomination, the senate recess at 12:30 p.m. for the caucus meetings and at 2:15 the senate vote on the mr nomination, if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the senate be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. bennet: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

then and today confirming julie to the computer judge for the first circuit later this week members will continue with my judicial nominationsnd may take up a u.s. tax treaty with ile. they could also vote to override president biden's veto of legislation repealing an epa rule on admission standards for heavy duty trucks. when the u.s. senate returns watch live coverage on cspan2. what a video on-demand any time online at system.org clear points of interest feature tiling tool that quickly guided to newsworthy and interesting highlights. his points of interest in intent online at cpan.org. wednesday the justice department former special counsel jon durham testifies on his

investigation of the fbi pbe of alleged links between the 2016 truck presidential campaign and russian operatives rigid or release a finalast month on these findings. you watch house judiciary committee hearing live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three, susan now are free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including media. accept media, we believe whether you live here, or right here, or wait out in the middle of any right you should have access to faster libel internet. we are leading the way. next media, support c-span as a public service. along these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >>ve