us, i want to thank mike for being here virtually and rebeccah coming in person and sean works here, thanks for coming downstairs. join me in thanking our panelists and mark for the great work and kathleen and alex and everyone else for organizing this panel. so, thank you. [applause]. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, mike. [inaudible conversations] >> c-span is you unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more including midco. ♪♪

>> midco supports c-span as a blic service, along with these other television providers, giving awe front row seat to democracy. >> we're expecting a busy day in the u.s. senate as work continues on president biden's nominations. three vote series are planned including confirmation vote on the deputy agriculture secretary nominee. the senate will also recess for party lunches and for a briefing on artificial intelligence and national security. live now to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. our father in heaven, continue to guide the steps of our senators. lift their gaze to the beckoning hills of your help, leading them on paths that bring them to hope and away from despair. lord, as they journey toward justice and peace, make them satisfied to follow your plans and fulfill your purposes. give them a positive attitude as they face today's challenges. direct them to discern what is your best for our nation and world. lead, kindly light, amid the

encircling gloom. guide us through the darkness of our own devices to the sure and certain destination of of your prevailing providence. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting 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 presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., july 11, 2023. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable

raphael warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of agriculture, xochitl torres small of new mexico to be dependency secretary. -- deputy secretary.

we are examining whether government officials regardless of who they are unfairly and wisely tipped the scales towards a preferred origin theory. when examining any conflicts of interest, biases or suppression of scientific discourse regarding the origins of covid-19. we are examining the sites of proximate origin because while i believe it's not solely a scientific question, the science behind the origins is vital. in one word, we are examining the scientific methodology applied to the origins question. in my mind at this point i do the processes to be flawed. if we are to do better in the future we must make every effort to mend our flaws. and over all, we are examining whether scientific integrity was disregarded in favor of

political expediency may be to conceal or diminish the governments relationship with the wuhan institute of virology while perhaps its funding of risky gain of function through coronavirus research, or maybe to avoid blaming china for any complicity intended or otherwise in a pandemic that has killed more than 1 million americans and this had a crushing effect on all of humankind. in the earliest stages of the pandemic, scientists and public health authorities raced to understand this novel coronavirus, called novel for good reason. to understand how it spread, who was at risk, it's origins, and most importantly how to prevent loss of life as work advance gradually on most of these fronts. the origins question stalled.

dated come from a natural spillover transferred from a bat to an intermediate source to a human? or was it the result of a a laboratory our research related accident? in other words, did it come from a lab. honestly, we may never know with 100% certainty the origins of covid-19, especially without full legitimate cooperation and transparency from all involved. however, we do know some things for certain, that the drafting, coordination, and publication of proximate origin and downplaying the lab leak was antithetical to science. not my words. that's what dr. redfield, the former cdc director and renowned neurologist testified to our select subcommittee in march. he testified that science never selects a single narrative. we foster debate and we are

confident that with debate sides will eventually get to truth. did we do that? that wasn't the case with proximal origin. dr. anderson testifying today wrote that the authors main work over the past couple of weeks have been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory. while it's true that the scientific method consists of racing hypothesis and then testing the hypothesis, often through falsifiability, it's not true no appropriate to make definitive conclusions based on falsification process riddled with assumptions. assumptions are not science. to be clear, the goal of science is to prove and disprove regardless it would be seemingly misleading to assume that proximate origin proved or

disproved anything it sought to test. its conclusion is flawed as it relies on unsupported assumptions, including guessing with what a hypothetical scientist would do with the hypothetical experiments. the facts are that the authors of proximate origin old we took a one-sided educated guess. they guess that in the previous three years science would discover a site and associated virus or viruses, and didn't. they guess that may be w id m wuhan institute of virology, wasn't working with viruses and they were wrong as related by odni. the office of the department of the director of national intelligence. perhaps most troubling it appears that the authors and use a potential lab leak changed

abruptly after the february 1 conference call with dr. fauci and dr. collins. the authors continued their pursuit to disprove the lab leak theory and fully support the nature theory employing faulty assumptions and willfully ignoring circumstantial evidence that tended to support a lab leak hypothesis. why? why? they also tended to act more akin to politicians than scientists. doctor rambo, dr. fauci, dr. collins all express concerns that the lab leak theory if verified what if significant international political implications, particularly for china. dr. fauci also wrote the downplaying of lab leak would limit the chance of new biosafety discussions that was

unnecessarily obstruct future attempts of virus culturing. these are quotes. why try to avoid biosafety discussions when people are dying? science should be clear. even when politics are not. on april 16, dr. collins expressed dismay at the proximal origin didn't fully squash the lab leak theory, and asked dr. fauci if there's anything more they could do to put it down. i want to pause and anything more we can do for a second. that would suggest that they already did do something. maybe this is a reference to proximal origin. i don't know for sure. but on the very next day on april 17, 2020, dr. fauci cited proximal origin from the white house podium when asked if

covid-19's leaked from a lab. he used proximal origin to downplay the lab leak theory. why? based on what absolute truth? the question as to the origins of covid-19 is fundamental to helping us predict and prevent future pandemics. protect our health and our national security, and prepared the united states for the future, and to save lives. i look forward to a strong on-topic discussion today. i would now like to recognize the ranking member for the purpose of making an opening statement. >> thank thank you, mr. cha. thank you to our witnesses for being here today. three years ago when reports emerged of a deadly highly transmissible novel virus, the race to better understand this threat and how we could fight it

begin. scientists, doctors and public health officials from across the globe sought to answer key questions like how the virus spread, how will it impact our most vulnerable and what we could do to treat it. while now we have those answers come when mystery remains unsolved. how did this virus even come to be in the first place. since the first outbreak of covid-19, researchers in the scientific community has worked tirelessly to get to the bottom of this very issue. our intelligence community has conducted a sweeping f a novel coronavirus origins at president biden's direction. so let me just remind everybody here, there is currently no consensus on how this virus came to be. whether came from a lab or from nature, it's still unknown. two federal agencies still assess with low and moderate confidence that the virus

originally in the lab, and four government agencies still assess with low confidence that the virus came about through natural transmission. the facts remain unknown, we should let expert communities continue to do their jobs while we as lawmakers focus on policies to help prevent the next pandemic and save future lies. but instead of doing that we're interrogating researchers are wrote a paper three years ago so my colleagues can push a partisan narrative and despairee spirit our nation's public health officials and institutions in the process. so let's just be clear. this isn't about building trust and public health and science. no. it's about tearing it down, about manufacturing a problem and manufacturing distrust to justify an extreme and partisan agenda. it's about scoring political points i by maligning public health officials who worked tirelessly throughout the

pandemic to reduce harm and save lives. what's worse is the preconceived conclusions being pushed create confirmation bias that inhibits experts from conducting objective politic free, scientific and intelligence investigation to actually help us understand the viruses origins in order to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic. nearly five months have gone by since the start of this select subcommittee work since then we focus on the wrong priorities and wasted time on this hyper partisan investigation which by the way has ended up disproving my republican colleagues own theory. so let's go over the facts. the crux of their three rest on a february 2020 conference call where they say dr. fauci and dro suppress the lab leak theory. their own investigation has thus far revealed the opposite.

in fact, documents and interviewed testimony provided to the select subcommittee at my republicans colleagues request confirms that dr. fauci and collins hardly participated on that call. what's more, by calling clinton dr. fauci and collins orchestrated the proximal origin paper. again their own investigation has thus far revealed the opposite. in fact, the records and testimony of those involved in the paper revealed that doctors fauci and collins, quote, played no role in the drafting of the paper, unquote. no, the select subcommittees investigation has confirmed it with actually a a scientist be name of doctor jeremy for our, who convened the conference call my republican colleagues have hyper belies, who paved the way for the drafting and publications of the paper so much so that the authors described him as quote a leader and quote a father figure of the

paper and who my republican colleagues didn't even bother to invite to the secret m look, te. a.i. is not like other issues congress deals with. it's not like appropriations or health care or defense where we have decades of experience to lean on. quite the contrary. from a legislative view, we are starting very close to step one when it comes to a.i. so today, the senate is taking the next step in our effort to learn about a.i. so we can be ready to act. later this afternoon we will hold the first ever classified all senate briefing on national security implications of a.i. it will be our second all senate briefing on this issue, close to 70 senators attended the last one. i hope we get similar attendance today. we'll be briefed by director of national intelligence, avril haynes, deputy secretary of

defense, kathleen hicks, and other top experts in a.i. from our defense and intelligence agencies. today's classified briefing is crucial because, of all the issues a.i. will impact, national security may well be the most consequential. in the hands of autocrats or foreign adversaries or domestic rogue actors interested in political chaos or financial gain. the dangers of a.i. could be extreme. but a.i. could also become one of our greatest tools for keeping americans safe, for predicting and intercepting attacks on the homeland, and for adding unprecedented sophistication to our cybersecurity and for protecting our elections. so we have a responsibility, a real responsibility, to educate ourselves on these matters. finally, these briefings are just part of a larger effort to learn more about a.i. and prepare the senate to take action. last month i laid out my safe

innovation framework for a.i. a way for congress to balance the urgent need to promote american innovation in a.i., while making sure it's done in a safe and responsible way. last month i also announced that this fall i will invite the top a.i. experts to come to congress and convene a series of first ever a.i. insight forums for a new and unique approach to developing legislation. there's a lot we still don't know about a.i. we need outside help if we want to ensure congressional action is effective, responsible, and promotes innovation in a safe way. so these insight forums will bring the best of the best to congress. our jobs as legislators will be to listen and learn as much as we can, so we can translate these ideas into action. we're getting a very positive response from those we are asking to participate in the forums, top people in the field

and in areas like intellectual property, like fair facial recognition that we need to look for, for guard rails. so, the positive response we're getting means that we expect these insight forums to do just what they're intended to do -- yield new insights on the issue. and today's briefing, likewise, represents an important step in our efforts to learn as much about a.i. as possible. i look forward to today's briefing. i want to thank senator rounds, senator heinrich, senator young for their help in making them possible. now, on white nationalism, for the paps few months -- past few months, the senior senator from alabama has embarked on a one-man mission to excuse and even defend the meaning of white nationalism. he did it back in may, when he bemoaned efforts in our military to root out dangerous white nationalism from our ranks. i call them americans.

those were his words. his words. a week later, he was asked to clarify his comments, and here's how he replied, what is a white nationalist? you'd think he'd learn from the overwhelming negative reaction he's received from one end of the country to the other, that he would learn from his -- learn from that reaction. maybe modify his comments. but no. last night, given another chance to clear the air, he suggested that are no white -- no, white nationalists aren't inherently racist, that, yes, white nationalism is american, and that the definition of white nationalism is a matter of opinion. it's hard to believe that the senator from alabama has to be corrected again. the senator from alabama is wrong, wrong, wrong. the definition of white nationalism is not a matter of

opinion. white nationalism, the ideology that one race is inherently superior to others, that people of color should be segregated, subjected and relegated to second-class citizenship is racist down to its rotten core. for the senator from alabama to obscure the racist nature of white nationalism is indeed very, very dangerous. his words have power and carry weight with the fringe of his constituency, just the fringe. but if that fringe listens to him, excuses and defends white nationalism, he is fanning the flames of bigotry and intolerance. last week, the gunman who killed 23 people in el paso walmart was sentenced to 90 life terms in prison. he was a self-described white nationalist. the man who murdered ten people at the tops supermarket in my home state of new york, in boafl, was a white -- in buffalo, was a white

nationalist. if those examples aren't clear enough, let's not forget charlottesville -- charlottesville where far right militias paraded through the streets and chanted, quote, jews will not replace us. those were white nationalists. this isn't a joke. this is deadly serious stuff. for a member of the united states senate to speculate about what might nationalism means, as if it's some benign little thought experiment, is deeply and terribly disturbing. i urge my republican colleagues to impress upon the senator from alabama the destructive imen packet of his -- impact of his words and urge him to apologize. now, on senate business, today the senate will continue working to confirm two district judges and two executive nominations. last night, i filed cloture on

four additional nominations, another circuit court judge, another district judge, a commissioner of the eeoc, and an epa assistant administrator. this sets up a busy rest of the week here on the senate floor. at the same time, mr. president, the senate will continue to move forward on the annual national defense authorization act, known as the ndaa. passing the ndaa is important for many reasons -- to strengthen our defense and keep our country safe, to outcompete the chinese government, and to give our troops well-deserved pay raises. the ndaa has routinely been a bipartisan effort, with both sides working in good faith, and that's been the case so far this year too. i want to thank chairman reed, ranking member wicker for moving the ndaa through committee quickly and with bipartisan cooperation. as we turn to the ndaa, i'm hopeful we can come together here in the senate on legislation related to our

ongoing competition with the chinese government on artificial intelligence and perhaps some other important issues. i hope we can see that bipartisanship continues here on the floor and that we can pass the bill quickly, without being dilatory. the house is having a whole lot of trouble moving on this much-needed legislation. something i believe we can and should avoid in the senate. finally, as americans' faith in the judiciary is at an all-time low, thanks to the maga majority supreme court, senate democrats will continue to move forward on legislation to restore trust in our court. supreme court justices should not be accepting lavish gifts and vacations from billionaire maga extremists who bankroll hard-right causes and taintd our judicial -- taint our jish -- judicial sim. the highest court in the land must be held to equally high

standards. i support the efforts of the judiciary committee to advance ethics reform in the committee. i hope we can move on such legislation in this chamber. finally, on sweden, any fear that nato is faltering or has given up completely was put to rest yesterday after the announcement that mr. erdogan dropped his objections to sweden's bid to join nato. this morning, hungary's foreign minister say they had too will support the bid. this is terrific niewls for the alliance -- news for the alliance. this will strengthen the alliance and expand our united front against putin's illegal and immoral aggression war in ukraine. putin thought he could divide us. he believed he could bully us into disunity, bus his hopes -- but his hopes backfired. today, the alliance is you're noted and stronger than ever. i comepped president biden and his administration for -- i commend president biden and his administration for supporting

sweden's accession to nato. i look forward to welcoming sweden to the alliance as soon as possible. i yield the floor. note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: resulting in multiple revisions. third, we have continued to

pursue independent investigations into the origin of the pandemic and published our results. fourth, additional research by other researchers support our early conclusions. today, i hope to share more about this important research with the goal of being better prepared for future pandemics. however, i must first address several allegations made about our work. the select subcommittee majority has alleged that our paper was orchestrated by dr. anthony fauci to cover up a lab origin as directed in the february 1, 2020 conference call. it has also been suggested that a grant of order to myself and colleagues some five different countries was a quid pro quo for changing our conclusions. these allegations are false. first, the claim that dr. fauci

prompted the drafting of proximal origin to disprove the lab leak is not true. in an e-mail to the journal nature i stated prompted by jeremy farah, tony fauci and francis collins, we have been working through much of the are merely genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypotheses around the origin of the virus. there was no prompting to disprove or dismiss a potential lab leak. in fact, when i outlined my initial hypothesis about a potentially engineered virus, dr. fauci told me, and i'm paraphrasing here, if you think this virus came from a lab, you should write a scientific paper about it. not only is this not a prompt to disprove the lab leak theory, it was specifically predicated on our initial hypothesis of the lab associated virus. the allegations of that dr. fauci prompted the drafting of proximal origin to disprove lab leak is quote my from an

email i wrote to participants of the the federal one conference call. the scientific method is based on two basic concepts of one formulating hypotheses, , and t, testing this hypotheses often by trying to disprove them. my initial hypothesis was a lab theory. when i stated that we were trying to disprove any type of lab theory, i was specifically referring to us testing our early hypothesis. this is textbook science in action. some have alleged i've received a federal grant in exchange for the conclusions made in in a proximal origin paper. there is no connection between the grant and the paper. funding decisions on the grant were made before the pandemic, once before the february 1 conference call. in closing, , we live in the wod in which the risk of devastating pandemics are real and is ever

increasing. we need more research and commitment to science, not less. however, scientists, including myself, who dedicate their professional lives to impactful research are being targeted and used as pawns in a political game. i hope this theory can be a starting point for more productive conversations and actions of working together to contribute to an increase in knowledge of pandemics. for our safety and the safety of future generations. thank you. >> thank you. i now recognize myself for questioning. dr. anderson, dr. garry, i want to again thank you for coming today and offering her scientific insights on the origins of covid-19. we appreciate your professional training and your experience as you outlined in your testimonies. your role and voice in the ongoing public discussion about

coverts origin is an important one. in your dash to coverts origin judgment in your letter to nature sites making you highlight that notable features of sars-cov-2 to note that include among other characteristics it's high affinity for human phase two d the presence of a poly basic cleavage site. both characteristics enable the virus to infect humans effectively and contributes to sars-cov-2 ability to cause illness or pathogenicity. your letter or opinion piece published in nature magazine in april 2020 also indicates that some coronaviruses exhibit strong similarity to sars-cov-2 in the receptor binding domain including all hout objection. mr. mcconnell: right now president biden and other nato

leaders are convening in lithuania. the way i see it, there are four key objectives for this important summit -- securing more western support for ukraine, improving nato's own military capabilities, strengthening collective resolve against the primary threats posed by china, russia, and terrorists, and welcoming sweden to the alliance. i'm encouraged by the progress nato is making towards each of these objectives, but there's more work to be done. as trans-atlantic leaders confer about how to help ukraine defeat

russian aggression, it is significant they're doing so in a baltic country, itself once a captive nation subjected to decades-long soviet occupation. the baltics throughout history of resistance drives their active contributions to nato and extensive contributions from their own arsenals to ukraine's fight. decades after the fall of the soviet union, brutal russian occupation has now found a new target, and the fate of ukraine's resistance continues to depend on western support. western allies should use this week's summit to commit even more critical capabilities to

tip the balance of forces in ukraine's favor. time is of the essence for allies to increase production of critical munitions and to send longer-range, more sophisticated, and more lethal systems to the front lines. in this regard, i welcome president biden's decision to provide ukraine cluster munitions to improve its defense against russian invaders. however, overdue, these munitions will improve ukraine's ability to strike russian forces and exens -- compensate for shortfalls lz falls in standard artillery rounds. despite vocal opposition from his own party, the president ultimately made the right call. the fact of the matter is russia has been using cluster munitions for months in ukraine.

american cluster munitions had a substantially lower failure rate than the russian munitions. and while the risk of unexploded ordinance is not zero, it is fantasy to believe that wars can be fought without risk. here's the bottom line -- it should be up to ukraine whether to employ these effective weapons on its own soil. plenty of liberals have criticized president biden for the decision. the quorum call town editorial -- the editorial board suggested the amounts they're using amounts to, quote, a clear escalation of the conflict. the senior senator from vermont suggested yesterday that the president should be concerned about what, quote, the rest of the world feels about these

weapons. never mind that providing these capabilities to ukraine will save lives by facilitating a counteroffensive design to stop russia's conscious effort to kill civilians. if liberals are truly concerned about civilian casualties in ukraine, they should support giving our friends the capabilities they need to end russia's brutal war. so, mr. president, the stakes are simply too high for leaders in washington to let their own naivete and virtue signaling get in the way of reality. ukraine's war will not be won with yard signs or hollow promises to hold putin accountable. it will be won with weapons. the same rules apply to future conflicts we hope to deter. unity is important, but hard power will be decisive.

on this front, nato is making progress toward rebuilding the hard power many allies allowed to atrophy. every member of the alliance now spends at least 20% of its defense budget on actual capabilities. our allies are making progress towards spending 2% of gdp on defense and more than half of the alliance should hit that goal by the end of next year. but we should agree that 2% is a floor, not a ceiling, for our commitments for collective defense. our allies should invest in critical capabilities and modern systems that add to nato's combat power, and they should revive defense industrial bases that have languished since the cold war. certainly another clear way to strengthen nato is to welcome sweden to the alliance.

like finland, sweden is a high-tech economy with a strong industrial base. its leaders are committed to contributing to the alliance or investing even more significantly in early -- in an already capable military. i'm encouraged by president erdogan and prim orbin agreed. i look forward to rapid access by the turkish parliament. it's time for america to consider the national defense authorization act. we have an october to ensure -- we have an obligation europe is capable of deterring and defeating enemy aggression. the senate will have an opportunity to lead our allies by example as soon as the democratic leader brings ndaa to the floor.

now, mr. president, on an entirely different matter, as i explained yesterday, an ideologically independent supreme court concluded its most recent term with a series of landmark rulings reaffirming fundamental constitutional principle. i'd like to speak briefly today about one such example, the court's 6-3 decision striking down race-based preference in higher education admissions. for decades colleges and universities discriminated against bright young applicants on the basis of the color of their skin. the practice is not just wrong, but wildly unpopular with a majority of americans. unfortunately a series of misguided and increasingly confused supreme court precedence have allowed universities to continue this indefensible practice. last month that all changed, as

the chief justice wrote for the majority, quote, our constitutional history does not tolerate the choice of race over merit. most americans already knew this to be true. more than half of our nation's history has been a steady march toward more fully ensuring the promises of the 14th amendment, equal protection under the law. along the way, millions of hardworking and ambitious students have hoped for a fair shake on their academic qualifications, not the color of their skin, so last month's ruling marked an overdue and historic step. racial discrimination has no place in college admissions. and thanks to the court's action, more bright young americans will get a shot at writing their american dreams.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: >> that we see from their scientific report produced in may of 2020. would you be willing to regroup and maybe take a look at evidence that is come out, or

maybe evidence that hasn't even been revealed to the public yet? >> as stated in my opening statement, if there therey evidence that were to be on earth russia on earth suggesting this could've potentially been a so-so with a lab, of course we will consider that their congressman weber, it's important to understand, too, that the kinds of independent investigations that we have done as scientific team are agnostic to the potential origin of the virus. we are simply looking at the virus itself. looking at are the cases, looking at positivity of the samples and those just happen to cluster around a particular market linked directly to the billion-dollar wildlife trade in china. that's an agnostic view of what does the evidence actually tell us. >> dr. garry, an answer to my question? [inaudible] >> your micro. >> of course we willing to look at a new evidence. >> i i appreciate that. i now recognize the ranking

member ruiz for five minutes of questions. or more. >> for more than five months under the guise of investigating the origins of the novel coronavirus, the select subcommittee has scrutinized the drafting and publication of the proximal origin paper. the select subcommittee has demanded thousands of pages of internal documents from researchers involved in the paper, conducted transcribed interviews with these researchers, subpoenaed the private communications, and now call two of them to testify at today's hearing. we have undertaking all of this work, but to what end? has targeting these researchers and probing the publication of

this paper meaningfully advanced our efforts to prevent and prepare for future pandemics? or has it been about fishing for evidence to prove their confirmation bias, their theories with a goal of advancing a predetermined partisan narrative targeting drr nation scientists and public health officials? dr. andersen, let me ask my first question to you. in your view as a leading virologist who studies emerging pathogens, has the select subcommittee examination of your paper done anything to prevent and prepare our nation for the merchants of future novel viruses? >> not to my knowledge, no.

>> okay. dr. garry, same question to you. has the select subcommittees examination of the proximal origin paper done anything to prevent and prepare our nation e emergence of future novel viruses? >> not to this date. >> okay. when i joined the select subcommittee as ranking member, i hoped that we could work together on the challenging but critically important mission of identifying forward-looking solutions to prevent and prepare for future pandemics. you know i'm an emergency medicine physician. i want actionable items to do something that will help relieve pain, suffering, and save lives. i take that doctors approach a work in congress, and a want to do meaningful work that will

help save lives, prevent a future pandemics, and prepare for the future pandemic. and this included taking a serious look at whether sars-cov-2 emerged from a natural zoonotic transfer, or from a research related incident so that we could propose substantive policies to prevent the emergence of the next deadly novel airborne virus. but instead of examining this question is seriously and objectively, the select subcommittee has so far only leveraged it to target our nation scientists and develop for our nation's public health officials. and in doing so the select subcommittee has undermined the critical mission of preventing and preparing for future pandemic. as a result of unproven

conspiratorial accusations without proof, like those suggesting dr. fauci and dr. collins covered up the origins of the covid-19 pandemic, trust insights in her nations public health and institution to suffer. the pew research center found that fewer than three in ten americans have a great deal of confidence in site is to act in the public's interest. so while manufacturing of distrust is largely happening along party lines, it will hurt us all in our public health in the long run whether you are republican, democrat, or independent. and we are already seeing the consequences. for example, threats against scientists and public health officials have surged in the wake of these accusations, which could have long-term impacts on our ability to cultivate a

strong and growing workforce to protect our public health, to work during the next pandemic. dr. andersen, you have been the subject of these threats. could you please describe the threats and harassment you have experienced since the publication of the proximal origin paper? >> i'll say the paper itself has not resulted in the threats. however, the misinformation and disinformation and conspiracy theories around the paper have resulted in significant harassment and threats, including everything from typical targets on social media to e-mails, telephone calls to my call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. thune: i would ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: the hysteria was

instant and predictable. disappointing and cruel, the senate democrat leader chastised one decision. unacceptable and indefensible, said another democrat senator. horrifying was another response from a democrat senator. and then there is the president of the united states who said, and i quote, this is not a normal court, end quote. not a normal court. never mind the fact that this court, like others before it, is composed of nine justices duly nominated and confirmed in accordance with the constitution sitting and interpreting the law. apparently the fact that this court has issued decisions democrats disagree with makes this not a normal court. well, mr. president, here is the

list much thoroughly -- of thoroughly unradical decisions that have so horrified members of the democrat party. the court ruled that universities cannot make admissions decisions based upon the color of someone's skin. the court ruled that the president does not have the right to create a massive student loan forgiveness program without clear authority from congress. and the court ruled that the first amendment does actually protect americans from being forced by the government to speak messages with which they disagree. these are the rulings that members of the democrat party consider cruel and indefensible. mr. president, continuing with the theme of democrat hysteria, the democrat leader sid on sunday that the supreme court had achieved dangerous and

regressive policies completely at odds with what the vast majority of americans want. now, i'm not sure he has that quite right. i know the recent decisions are at odds with what the democrat party wants, but the vast majority of americans do not seem to be at odds with the court's decisions. take the court decision in favor of the first amendment. turns out that more americans support that decision than oppose it. the same goes for the court's student loan decision. and public opinion is decidedly if favor of the court's decision ruling that the constitution does not allow universities to make admissions decisions on the basis of race. one poll found that 52% of the american people approve, approve of the courtst decision while just 32% disapprove. another poll found that 59% of americans approve of the court's

decision while just 27% disapprove. it seems that the court is a lot more in line with americans than the democrat party would like to think. mr. president, let me offer a few more statistics about this supposedly abnormal court. let's put things in context here for a moment. nearly half of the cases decided by the supreme court in this term were decided unanimously. almost half. that means that all those extreme republican-nominated justices and all of the court's democrat-nominated justices were in unanimous agreement almost half the time. and that's not all. at least one of the court's so-called liberal justices with as in the majority in more than 80% of cases. that means that more than 80% of

the time at least one liberal justice agreed with the court's conservatives. kind of makes the supreme court seem not very extreme, 80% of the decisions had justices from so-called both sides, conservative and liberal sides. yes, there have been a handful of decisions where all the liberal decisions have disagreed with the decision. there have been plenty of cases in previous years where most or all of the so-called conservative justices have disagreed with the majority opinion and i don't remember democrats having any problems with the legitimacy of those outcomes. mr. president, democrats' utter hysteria in the face of some mainstream supreme court decisions could almost be amusing, but it's not.

because democrats' rhetoric and proposed response to a supreme court that issues decisions they disagree with has crossed a line. i completely respect democrats' right to be upset at and disagree with supreme court decisions. i've disagreed with quite a few myself. but there's disagreement and then there's attempting to you know mine a branch of our government. and democrats are engaging in the latter. over and over, democrats' responses go beyond disagreement or outrage at the court's decisions and cross the line into attacking the court's legitimacy. a new mexico of democrats have gone even further, directly or indirectly calling for expanding the court or otherwise altering it to create a court that will rule in line with where democrats think it should be. mr. president, it's difficult to

overstate just how dangerous democrats' rhetoric is. democrats are not only fostering a sense of distrust about a court that is completely legitimate in every way, save for the fact the democrats don't like some of its decisions, that they are proposing so-called solutions that would permanently and completely destroy faith in the supreme court as an impartial interpreter of the law. the democrats seriously imagine that their proposals to, quote, restore faith in the courts would do anything but further divide the american public and encourage one half of the population to regard the court as an arm of the democrat party. the democrats seriously think they can pack the court with their preferred justices and not set off a permanent battle in which the party in the power adds or subtracts justices to

achieve awhat it decides to balance. if democrats have their way, we will look at a future where a supreme court nothing but an arm of the party in power in the other two branches with the number of justices conrestaurant stantly is changing to achieve the governing party's preferred outcomes. there are names for systems of government in which the party in power controls the outcome in the courts. there are names like dictatorship, despotism. mr. president, not getting your way at the supreme court is a pretty poor reason to undermine our system of government. but i'm starting to wonder just how well democrats understand our system of government, given their apparent belief that the outcome should always be in their favor. that is not the way it works. -- in our democratic republic.

in our system of government, you win sometimes and you lose sometimes. and when you lose, you fight hard to gain ground and persuade others of the rightness of your position. you cannot -- you do not, you do not attempt to rig the system so that the outcome will always be in your favor. and hopefully, hopefully you do not set out to undermine faith in the system by suggesting that any outcome that you don't like is not just incorrect but illegitimate. mr. president, it's deeply disturbing that so many democrats and democrat leaders are participating in this campaign to attack the legitimacy of the supreme court, and i hope -- i truly hope, mr. president, that cooler heads will prevail before they do permanent damage to our system of government. plop, i yield the floor.

-- mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: are we in a quorum call? mr. the presiding officer: we are not. mr. cornyn: thank you. mr. cornyn: mr. president, he like to talk about what's happening at the southern border. coming from texas, we have a 1,200 mile common border with mexico. most of the border has been in the midst of a humanitarian and public safety crisis for -- well, for many years, but nowhere -- at know time has it been worse than during the biden

administration. you recall title 42 was issued, which is a public health order, which allowed the border patrol to expel individuals coming across the border in certain categories. mainly adult males, family units, and children were handled differently under a -- under a court order. but title 42 went away this last spring, two months ago, and for three years prior it had allowed the border patrol to quickly expel migrants who had illegally crossed the southern border. with detention facilities and shelters bursting at the seams, title 42 was the only tool the biden administration was willing to use to prevent even more chaos from unfolding. in the weeks and months leading up to its end, last spring, there was widespread fear that a

post-title 42 border would look even worse than it did at the time, which was a historically bad time. with the newly set records for illegal immigration -- would these records be repliesed? would we see up to 18,000 migrants a day, as the department of homeland security officials once predicted? would more law enforcement officers be removed from the front lines in order to process and care for migrants under the flawed policies of the biden administration? the migration levels over the last two months haven't been as bad as some had expected, but they certainly have not been good either. last week "the new york times" reported that since may 12, the average number of illegal crossings has been around 3,360. well, that is an improvement from where we were a few months

ago, but hardly reason to pop a champagne cork and celebrate. for one, the drop is likely seasonal, temporary. officials in immigration -- and immigration experts believe many migrants are in a wait-and-see mode, they're paying close attention to the legal challenges of other migrants' journeys in order to determine their best course of action. that's also true of the criminal cartels that control the flow of migrants across the u.s.-mexican border. of this is a business proposition for them. they're getting rich, continue to get rich, moving people and drugs across the border, and they are taking a wait-and-see attitude to see, okay, what's public opinion going to look like? are we going to create a backlash and either a more dramatic response by the u.s. government or can we just sort of go slow and they won't notice as we gradually ramp up the number of migrants and drugs

coming across the border? it's also likely that many migrants are holding out for a highly sought after appointment with customs and border protection, through the cbp one app, an app for your phone. as that wait grows longer and frustration grows higher, the decision of many to wait and to use that app in order to schedule a time to meet with customs and border protection officials, that their decision to wait is likely to change. some areas indeed along the border have already seen an increase, including the tucson sector. during the week that ended june 2, agents apprehended roughly 4,300 migrants. four weeks later, they apprehended 7,000, an increase of nearly 65%. we can see the way this trend is

headed. we don't know what the coming weeks and months will bring, but we know more than 3300 migrants are apprehended at the border every day, which is still a very high and unacceptable number. back in 2019, secretary of homeland security, jeh johnson, who served under the obama administration, reflected on his time leading the department of homeland security. he said every morning he'd review the border apprehension numbers from the day before. he considered under 1,000 apprehensions a day to be a relatively good number. anything above 1,000 a relatively bad number. when the numbers were bad, he said, it would put him in a bad mood for the whole day. as former secretary johnson noted at the time, 1,000 migrants a day overwhelms the system. well, that's still true today.

fast forward and it's true. we don't have the personnel. we don't have the facilities or the resources to manage the sort of historic levels of illegal immigration that we're seeing in a fair or humane way. so, today, we're encountering more than three times as many migrants as cbp did on a bad day during the obama administration, and the biden administration is trying to celebrate, saying look at what we did. we brought it down to three times the unacceptable level of the obama administration, and unfortunately many in the mainstream media are eating it up. this spin, or narrative, of success. unfortunately, this number represents only a pouring of the migrants -- a portion of the migrants enter the united states each day. of course, there are what we've come to call the got-aways, migrants who were detected by

cameras, sensors and other forms of surveillance, but who are not arrested or processed by border patrol. you can only guess what they are up to, but clearly they do not want to encounter federal law enforcement agents at the border. my suspicion, and i think it's a reasonable suspicion, is that they are up to illegal activities, probably people who have criminal records, who know they won't be allowed to come across. probably includes a significant amount of drugs that contributed to the death of 108,000 americans last year alone. so, these individuals, these got-aways, could be drug traffickers, human smugglers, they could be terrorists. there have been a number of individuals on the terrorist watch list detained at the southern border. and of course, many known gang members, ms-13, some of the most violent gangs on the planet.

the truth is we really don't know, because they were able to slip into our country, then disappear into the great american heartland. since the biden administration began, customs and border protection has logged 1.5 million known got-aways. that's the people that were detected by sensors, cameras or others, but unable to be and rehended by the border patrol -- apprehended by the border patrol. 1.5 million. these are more people engaged in some sort of illegal or dangerous activity. that's in addition to the 5. million illegal -- 5.4 million illegal border crossings since the biden administration. you have to add the acknowledged number, 5.4, with the unacknowledged got-aways, and that's obviously almost seven million migrants. the post-title 42 drop in border

crossings doesn't just ignore those that snuck into the united states, but also those the biden administration simply waved through the turn style. now, this is another way of hiding the ball or cooking the books, to make it look like the situation at the border is vastly improved when it has not. earlier this year, the biden administration rolled out a new plan that allowed migrants from four nations -- cuba, haiti, nicaragua, and venezuela -- to remain in the united states for up to two years, and receive a work authorization. before this hat trick that the biden administration pefd, those individuals -- performed, those individuals were treated like every other migrant and subject to being removed under title 42 or subject to other immigration enforcement measures. now, because of the wave of the

wand, the magic wand, 360,000 individuals from cuba, haiti, nicaragua and venezuela have been subtracted from that top-line number, because what was illegal is now, due to this sleight of hand by the biden administration, is presumably legal. all they have to do is submit their information online before crossing the border and wait for the administration to give them the green light. instead of making the situation better, the biden administration has taken 360,000 individuals from cuba, haiti, nicaragua, and venezuela and wukd them with open arms. this isn't a small program limited to the most vulnerable individuals. it's open to 30,000 individuals a month. of course, the biden administration took this major step without consulting with

congress. it acted unilaterally to offer work status for up to 360,000 people a year. and we've talked about this before, but it's worth remembering, the border patrol says illegal immigration is a combination of push factors and pull factors. the push factors are things like poverty and violence, a desire for a better life, and we certainly all understand that. the pull factors for illegal immigration are incentives that are provided to the migrants to come to the united states, whether it's social welfare benefits or, in this case, work permits. instead of making things better by reducing the number of migrants, by enforcing the law, the biden administration is offering additional incentives for people to migrate from these four countries into the united

states because can, lo and behold, they'll get a work permit. of course, there's no suggestion of what happens to these individuals two years on. this is a two-year provision, and you can rest assured that if the biden administration were still to be in charge there would never, ever be any effort to try to return individuals who overstay after their two years is up. so these are individuals who likely will remain in the united states for the rest of their lives, under this new wave of the wand by the biden administration. this new policy lets the administration roll out the welcome mat. that's one of those pull factors, encouraging people to make the dangerous journey in the hands, in the custody of some of the most dangerous people on the planet, these criminal cartels. this policy lets the administration roll out the welcome mat for tens of thousands of migrants, while

making it seem like the numbers have gone down. they say look, the top line's down, but they don't tell you that they've taken people out of that category and welcomed 360,000 migrants a year from these four countries. that's cooking the books where i come from. when you look at the total number of migrants encountered at the border during any given month, these migrants are not included in the total. for example, in may, customs and border protection reported more than 204,000 border crossings. but they didn't include the 30,000 migrants admitted under the administration's new wave of the wand or the potentially tens of thousands of got-aways who were up to no good because they simply evaded border patrol and law enforcement. still, the biden administration has tried to claim victory when it comes to the border, when its

policies have been a demonstrable abject failure. three times more migrants currently being encountered at the border than jeh johnson, secretary of homeland security under the biden administration -- obama administration, said would be a real problem. more than three times more. and the trnd line shows -- the trend line shows that number going up and up and up. so, i just think account biden administration is not being honest with the american people, and i'm sure director mayorkas is patting himself on the back with some of the stories that are being printed, saying that, well, the problem has been resolved. title 42 went away, but the number didn't skyrocket even higher, and he's more than happy with only about 3,600 migrants a day coming across the border, together with the got-aways. under in magic trick, by which

people who previously would have been considered illegally entering in the country were then deemed legal by the biden administration. in may the department of homeland security said the drop in numbers is proof that, quote, the administration's plan is working as intended. i can tell you exactly what that plan is. it appears our democratic colleagues are using the same playbook president obama used to create the deferred action on childhood arrivals. those are the dreamers, the young people who came to the united states as children, who are then un unilaterally givea as we frequently call it. step one, the president acts outside of his legal authorities to extend status to a massive population of undocumented immigrants. he is applauded by the left for taking the action, even though

it's based on the shakiest of legal ground. which, by the way, has been held illegal by a federal district judge in the southern district of texas. taking from that same obama daca, or dreamers playbook, the biden administration, step two, watches more and more people take advantage of the program as lawsuits are brought against the government. don't will wind its way through the courts as tens or even hundreds of thousands of people put down roots in the united states. which is where we are now. step three will come later down the road. mr. president, i used to at one point think this was mere incompetence but now i think it is actually part of a plan because we've seen this play out before and we know where this will end. step three will come later down the road. at that point the individuals who came to the united states through this program will likely

have been here for many years. they'll have jobs, homes, probably even american citizen children. our democratic colleagues will then point to them and say it's unfair for them to live in a second-class status, so we need to provide an amnesty so that they can enjoy the benefits of full american citizenship. they'll say it will be cruel to force these individuals to return to their home countries after years of living and working in the united states, and they'll frame anyone who refuses to go along as just plain heartless. so we've seen this movie before, and i can guarantee you that migrants who enter the united states under this new made-up program of the biden administration will experience the same level of uncertainty and fear as the daca recipients currently are. their legal status is the result

of executive overreach, and as legal challenges are considered these individuals will be left to wonder whether they'll be able to remain here in the united states. for a party that talks so much about compassionate immigration, this is not compassionate. it's cruel and manipulative and dishonest. the biden administration is cooking the books in order to make the american people think the border crisis isn't so bad after all. it's deceiving migrants by offering legal status that the biden administration has no authority to offer. and it's unfair to the individuals who follow the law and who are naturalized as american citizens each year. i've said it before, i'll say it again, we should celebrate the fact that we are a nation of legal immigrants. it's what has made our country

so strong and resilient and prosperous. but what's happening at the border is not legal immigration. it is simply hiding the ball, pretending that things aren't so bad, and hoping that the press will move on to look at something else. and it's unfair to those migrants, to those immigrants, to those would-be american citizens to say, i'm sorry, we can't process your legal immigration application because we're too busy taking care of this flood of humanity coming across the border through these made-up programs like the biden administration is foisting on the american people. and of course finally, it's setting the table for another battle over how to handle massive population of immigrants with legally dubious immigration status. so, mr. president, it may

appear super official -- superf icially is making progress but it's deception, it's manipulation, it's dishonest, and it won't last forever. so the simple answer, mr. president, as the presiding officer knows, is at some point things are going to get so bad that we're actually going to have to do the hard work. after all, immigration law is congress' prerogative and bailiwick. but as long as the biden administration can take a crisis at the border with title 42 in place, once it expires and substitute essentially a green light for anybody and everybody who wants to come to the united states outside of a legal immigration process, they're going to say what problem, we

don't have a problem at the border. meanwhile, states like mine continue to experience a flood of humanity coming across overwhelming not only the capacity of border patrol to deal with it, but diverting those resources away from their primary job, which is to enforce the law, including our drug laws. again, i don't know what it's going to take. almost seven million migrants during the biden administration's tenure. that doesn't seem to bother them. what about the 108,000 americans who died last year due to drug overdoses, 71,000 of those from synthetic opioids like fentanyl. i've been in very emotional settings with parents who lost their children because they thought they were taking a percocet or a xanax or some

other morell tively innocuous pharmaceutical drug when in fact it was laced with fentanyl and they didn't wake up the next morning. these parents are distraught at losing their child that had so much potential and such a wonderful future, only to be killed because the administration is unwilling to do what it should do to be able to stop more of those drugs, including synthetic opioids from making their way across the border. but apparently that's not enough. seven million border encounters, 108,000 dead americans, we know where the drugs are coming from and we know how to do a better job of stopping it, but the biden administration looks the other way.

and now we'll talk more about this. facts are coming in to view with the 300,000 unaccompanied children who the biden administration has welcomed into the united states, and once they're placed with sponsors, people maybe not even their family members, they simply say we're done. we have no responsibility. "the new york times" and other established news organizations have reported these children are subject to labor exploitation, recruitment into gangs, being neglected or abused, and the biden administration said it's not our responsibility. once these children are placed with sponsors, 300,000 of

them, we have nothing left to do. as i said, we'll talk more about that later, but we do know in 85,000 of those cases, when health and human services, the office of refugee resettlement that's responsible for getting the sponsors, in 85,000 of those 300,000 cases, when the u.s. government official calls the sponsor to check in on that child, there's no answer. no answer at all. i think this constitutes abandonment of these children who are welcomed into the united states as unaccompanied children, placed with sponsors, then simply abandoned

by the u.s. government. unacceptable. if you were to do that with an american citizen child, you'd be in prison. you'd be charged and convicted of child endangerment or worse. but that's what the biden administration is doing almost on a daily basis, and it needs to be held to account. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for five minutes and that senator stabenow be permitted to speak for five minutes prior to the scheduled votes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, it's good to see you and it's good to see my colleague, john cornyn, here in the senate today, and all the pages and folks who have come back to go to work. there's a lot of work to do.

one of the first items of business before us is a critical nomination, a nomination for the department of agriculture and not just any job at the department of agriculture but the number two job, the deputy secretary of the department of of agriculture. the woman nominated currently serves as the under secretary at the department of agriculture and she's been nominated to be the deputy secretary for the department. and she has a hard name to pronounce. it's a name i've never seen before, but it sounds something like this, xochitl, like s-o-chill. you look at it on paper and say how would you prow nouns it. that's how you pronounce it. the rest of the name is torres small, somebody i've known for a brief period. you know who knows her really well? a guy who used to serve here,

the senator from new mexico, tom udall. i think she actually worked for tom udall when he was a united states senator. agriculture is a hugely important part of our economy in delaware. i see senator stabenow is going to speak after me. i know it's hugely important in michigan. she is the chairman of the ag committee. she knows that much better than i do. the department of agriculture, number-two job, this is a big deal. as it turns out, i think the administration has given us a terrific nominee. the department of agriculture plays a critical role in ensuring people from every corner of this country have something to eat, hopefully something nutritious to eat, and also help us with respect to farming and farming agriculture, farming economy, public health, broadband and a whole lot more. and the role of the deputy secretary of the department is a big deal, very big deal. it requires someone who is diligent, it requires someone who is sharp, it requires

someone who ultimately understands the department. it's a big department. it requires someone who is diligent. i know that the under secretary torres small possesses all those qualities and a lot more. in her current position as the under secretary of agriculture for rural development she's been involved with every function at the department including overseeing $2 billion for rural broadband that was secured in the bipartisan infrastructure law that we passed here by almost a unanimous vote more than a year ago. this month we saw states across our country receive this significant funding to expand broadband access for literally millions of people in many parts of our nation, rural parts of our nation, including delaware's own sussex county, one of the largest counties in the country. we only have three counties in the country. sussex is one of the top counties in the country for

growing corn and soybeans. it's one of the top counties in the country for growing chickens. the in delaware we have 200 chickens for every person. it's a big deal for us, a big deal for us. prior to serving at the department of agriculture, under secretary torres small was a united states representative for new mexico's second congressional district where she grew up as a granddaughter of farm workers. and as a representative, a u.s. representative, served as a member of the house agriculture committee, among other committees, and previously spent time on the ground in new mexico if, as i mentioned earlier, as a field rep for our old friend and cocolleague, senator tom udall, now the u.s. ambassador to new zealand. i spoke to him a few months ago and, senator stabenow, he this he has the best job on the planet.

xochitl is a practicing attorney, served as a former clerk in the u.s. district court for a fellow named judge robert c.brack. all these experiences help make her well-suited to take on the role of deputy secretary because i know she understands our nation, understands it on a human level as well. that was made especially clear during her nomination hearing. she spoke of her goalings to better communicate at the role of the department across our country. she also highlighted how she will work to support underserved producers and small farmers by raising awareness of the federal resources that they may be eligible for. in closing, before yielding to senator stabenow, i strongly urge our colleagues to confirm under secretary xochitl torres small as the deputy secretary of the department of agriculture. she will make us proud, she will make new mexico proud, she

will make our country proud. with that, i will just stop talking and yield the floor to senator stabenow. thank you very much. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. i appreciate so much senator carper's comments, but from the smallest state that claims agriculture to our distinguished presiding officer from the largest state is that has agriculture, to my state of michigan which has, is second only to california in the diversity of crops that we grow, i -- i think we all stand here committed to the importance of growing things in america, this economic engine supporting small towns, supporting rural developments and quality of life. i'm pleased to -- to note that we will be confirming xochitl

torres small as the deputy secretary of agriculture. her impressive and wide ranging resume makes her an ideal appointee to help lead the more than 100,000 public servants at the u.s. department of agriculture. and they're stationed in over 5,400 locations all across the country and all across the world. her predecessor in this role was instrumental in restoring one of the department's refunctions, serving our constituents on the ground in the communities in which they work, live, and farm. a trailblazer like xochitl torres small, she was the first woman of color to hold the deputy position at the usd and and we appreciated her

confidence and ms. xochitl torres small will lead with great skill and confidence. the granddaughter of farmers, she began her career working for senator tom udall, clerking for united states district court judge and practicing water and natural resource law. ms. xochitl torres small was the first woman and first woman of color to represent new mexico's second congressional district which is the fifth largest district in the country. she has served for the under secretary of rural development, a position to which she was confirmed unanimously by the senate two years ago. she proved herself to be a staunch advocate for rural communities. it was through her leadership that usda rural development secured $2 million to secure

rural broadband, making usda the first federal agency to invest these funds into infrastructure for internet. those were the first dollars out the door, mr. president, in terms ever taking dollars to small communities across the country for critically needed high-speed internet. by moving swiftly to make the funding available, the usda reduced energy costs for farmers and small businesses. congress made the largest investment in rural electric. usda has been a leader in delivering those benefits to our local communities. she worked tirelessly to increase world communities' access to program and improve customer services at regional offices across the country and importantly she championed usda's workforce, improving staff moral and building our

data and technology. had she enjoys broad support from over 80 stakeholders, including the american farm bureau federation, national farm, western growers, national association of department, the agriculture, rice association as well as the congressional hispanic caucus. i'm pleased that she enjoys broad support in this chamber and was advanced unanimously out of our committee. her role is not only critical to overseeing the department's efforts to improve its workforce, it also -- it also improves customer service, which i know she is focused on. the deputy secretary position is also vital to our work as we continue to draft a bipartisan farm bill.

her confirmation is a great opportunity for the senate to show that we can work together in a bipartisan manner. she has a proven track record as a strong leader with deep knowledge of farm, food and rural policy. she will serve the department and american people well in her new position and i urge my colleagues to support her confirmation. i yield the floor. under the previous order, the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 84, the nays are 8. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will now report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 56, rosemarie hidalgo of the district of columbia to be director of the violence against women office, department justice, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense

of the senate that debate on the nomination of rosemarie hidalgo of the district of columbia to be director of the violence against women office, department of justice, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 50, the sante fees are 31, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: rosemarie hildago of the district of columbia to be director of the violence against women office department of justice. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate

♪♪ since 1979 in partnership the cable industry sees him divided complete coverage of the halls of congress on the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings.

c-span gives a front row seat now issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruption and completely unfiltered. c-span, unfiltered view of government. >> order your copy of the 118 congressional directory available at c-spanshop.org. your access to the federal government with contact information for every house and senate member is important information on congressional committee. the president's cabinet, federal agency and state governors. scan the cod of the right to order your copy today or go to c-spanshop.org. 29.95 plus shipping and handling. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government provided by these television companies and

for including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we're just getting started. 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> 2024 nikki haley met with republican voters house party in new hampshire. during her remarks, s talked about her childhood and politics as well as the time survey of the u.s. ambassador to the un in part of a multi- day trip to new hampshire including rural country region.