addressed was concerns people might have if something should happen to me, did happen, well, they didn't. and i have nothing to add on that, i think he pretty well covered the subject. >> leader mcconnell, what do you say to those who are calling on you to step down. do you have any plans to retire anytime soon? >> i have no announcements to make on that subject. >> what do you say to those-- >> i am going to finish my term as leader and finish my senate term, thank you. >> and rand paul, sir-- (inaudible) >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, sponsored by these companies including

cox. >> the syndrome is extremely rare. >> hi. >> friends don't have to be. >> this is joe. when you're connected, you're not alone. cox supports c-span as a public service, along with thesether television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> and the senate's gavelling in now to consider more of president biden's executive nominations. confirmation votes are expected on a member to be the federal reserve board of governors and anna gomez to the federal communications commission. as we take you live now to the senate floor here on c-span2. d dr. barry black will open the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god be in our heads, eyes, mouths, hearts, and in our understanding.

god be in our looking, our thinking, and our speaking. god be with the members of this legislative body today. teach them and lead them into your truth. unite them with a common desire to do what is best for our nation and world. lord, give them grace to take judicious risks for the sake of truth and justice. enable them to experience a fresh regenerating touch of your power. in the decisions to be made in crucial days ahead, make them worthy

of these demanding times that call aloud for wisdom and character. we pray in your strong 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., september 7, 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 g. 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.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, yesterday appropriations chair patty murray, vice chair susan collins announced they're ready to move ahead with the first three appropriations bills here

on the senate floor. agriculture and transportation-hud. this is extremely good news for what already has been a fruitful bipartisan senate appropriations process. chair and vice chair murray and collins have done an outstanding job negotiating this difficult work. so i thank them as well as my other colleagues, particularly those on appropriations on both sides of the aisle. to keep the bipartisan momentum alive, i will file cloture on this package today with a plan to hold our first vote early next week. the senate appropriations process is a lesson in how governing should work. all 12 appropriations bills have been passed with bipartisan support through regular order. nine of them were either unanimous or just had one no vote. that doesn't mean parties have to agree on everything. we know that won't happen. but what it means is that our disagreements have not paralyzed

the process. that's the mark of good governance. of course, the work is far from over. when the house gavels back into session next week, time will be short for both parties in both chambers to unite around a plan to keep the government open beyond september 30. there is only one way, one way that this will happen. through bipartisanship. neither party can afford to go at it alone if we want to avoid a shutdown. we're going to have to work together, just as we have done in the senate without resorting to extremism and unseemly tactics. and that message is intended for the house. the house republicans and the house republican leadership in particular. when i last met with the speaker of the end of july, we had a good conversation on the matter. so i hope he sticks to his guns as this process begins in

earnest. both parties in both chambers must come together on passing emergency supplemental funding to help our fellow americans reeling from natural disasters to stand with our friends in ukraine fighting against putin, and to fight against the fentanyl crisis, among other priorities. later this morning, i'll attend a classified briefing on the state of the war in ukraine where i expect we'll see precisely why now more than ever our friends abroad need our help. we must continue to show putin and the forces of autocracy that the u.s. stands firmly behind ukraine. the worst thing we can do right now for our own national security and for our democratic values is to waiver or hesitate in our support. what is the point in cutting off support now whether we're at a turning point in the war? a flex yon point after we've invested a large amount of resources to get us to this flexible point.

it's a crucial point right now. one more time, let me implore my house colleagues. follow the senate's example when you learn next week and work with democrats in a bipartisan way so we can avoid a costly, pointless, and very harmful and unnecessary government shutdown. we do not need to go down that road. and we cannot follow the lead of mindless few who believe a shutdown is a good thing and who want it and who openly admit they want it. they're hurting the american people, plain and simple. we should not follow them. democrats, republicans in both the house and senate should not follow this small band of people who are at the extreme. instead let's keep our economic recovery going. let's keep our investments and infrastructure and manufacturing flowing. and let's make sure we help americans with disaster aid, help our friends in ukraine deal with fentanyl and fulfill our other needs, too.

the senate, as i said, is off to a very good start. i hope the house gets off to a good start next week as well by embracing bipartisanship. we'll know very soon whether they're ready or not to follow through on this very important responsibility they have to the american people. nobody nations. -- nominations. well, it's been a productive first week back here on the senate floor for nominations. yesterday i'm proud to say we confirmed gwynne wilcox to a second term on the nlrb, the national labor relations board. i'm happy she passed just as she did two years ago when she became the first black woman ever to be confirmed to the nlrb. confirming highly qualified nominees like ms. wilcox to the nlrb is a top priority for democrats and for all working americans, because it's one of the most important pro worker agencies in the country. under the biden administration, the nlrb has been hard at work

overturning trump-era rulings that harmed workers and unions. they've been at work expanding protections in the workplace and safeguarding the right to organize, all important to maintaining the middle class and growing the middle class. because after all, it was the union movement that really created the broad american middle class in the first place. and when unions were attacked, the middle class declined. during her first term on the nlrb, ms. wilcox was a fervent champion of the labor movement. so i'm pleased that she'll be back on the board again. now later this morning, we'll confirm adrian -- adriana kugler to be on the federal reserve board. i was proud to champion this historic nomination of ms. kugler. a columbian american economist who will make history as the first, the first latina in the fed board's 109-year history.

and i want to thank chairman menendez for championing this outstanding nominee. ms. kugler's historic confirmation will be a great moment for the fed and for america as we elevate fresh, diverse perspectives to our nation's central bank and continue our strong economic recovery. we also confirmed two other very impressive nominees to the federal reserve this week. philip jefferson and lisa cook, another historic nominee as ms. cook became the first black woman confirmed to a full term on the fed. both of them again passed with bipartisan support. and finally today we'll vote to confirm anna gomez as commissioner of the federal communications commission. ms. gomez is an exceptional nominee with considerable telecom experience and broad support from groups on both sides of the aisle.

and if confirmed, she'll be the first latina on the commission in over 20 years, another glass ceiling broken. and these are so important to getting a full, diverse view on important governing agencies like the fed, like the fcc. ms. gomez' confirmation will fill the fifth and final spot on the fcc so they can do the crucial work of expanding access to high-speed internet, administering programs for affordable internet access, and protecting consumers from junk fees and much more. so i think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation on these nominees, and i look forward to continuing this democratic senate's historic pace of confirming well qualified and diverse nominees. now finally on a.i. next week, mr. president, next week the senate will host one of the most important conversations of the year when the top minds in artificial intelligence convene for our first a.i.

insight forum. it will be a meeting unlike any other that we have seen in the senate in a very long time. perhaps ever. a coming together of top voices in business, civil rights, defense, research, labor, the arts, all together in one room having a much needed discussion, conversation about how congress can tackle a.i. both parties recognize that a.i. is something we can't ignore, but we need a lot of people understanding the best way forward. different countries are taking such different aproasms to a.i., and some -- different approaches to a.i., and some are more successful than others. we have to learned from their mistakes and learn from this panel, illustrious as it is. we need to find an approach that balances both innovation and safety. that means both creative innovation to develop new applications, new technologies, new breakthroughs so we can advance in science and in medicine and in education and in

health, and so many other areas, communications. but we also need innovation on guardrails so we can find creative and new ways to protect our kids, our privacy, prevent racial bias, prevent doomsday scenarios. innovation must apply to both sides of the equation, innovating so we can move the advantages of a.i. forward, but innovating so we can deal with the problems that a.i. might create and lessen them as much as we can. it will not be easy, not easy at all. in fact, it will be one of the hardest things we undertake in congress. hardest things probably we've ever undertaken. that's why next week's conversation will be so important, because it will be the first of a series of forums that will give our committees the knowledge base and thought insights to draft the right kind of policies. already, our committees have done some outstanding work on this topic, holding no less than

eight years on a.i., on matters related to national security, intellectual property, human rights, and more. in fact, as we speak, the energy and national resources committee is holding a hearing on a.i. and the department departmente in preserving competition and new technologies. one thing i want to underscore before i finish my speech here, my little talk on a.i., we're doing this in a bipartisan way. senator rounds, senator young, senator heinrich and myself are sort of steering this effort. we are having this be done in a bipartisan way, and we expect the committees to work bipartisan, because if this becomes a partisan issue nothing will happen and that could create real problems in our society. so, the senate is ready and engaging on this most important issue. i want to thank my colleagues for their work. i want to thank senators rounds, young, and heinrich for helping organize these forums.

and i look forward to our conversation, our very important conversation, next week where we hope senators will come, senators and their staffs will come, listen, learn, and then act. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: last week, the biden administration rolled out the first targets of a scheme it's been working on for years -- prescription drug socialism. ironically enough, washington democrats' pran to fix prices in the -- plan to fix prices in the market for world-leading medical noichtions is baked into -- innovations is baked into legislation they produced after their own runaway spending sent

consumer prices through the roof. as we know, the inflation reduction act did nothing to reduce inflation. and by one estimate, the government price controls it created may well cost the american economy 676,000 jobs. but mr. president, before democrats ram the ira through on party lines, average net prices for drugs were actually stable or falling. but that didn't stop the biden administration from storming ahead with the drug-by-drug federal power grab. so, let's be clear about what this means. companies that don't comply with the administration's scheme will be forced to pay an unprecedented and excessive fine

or withdraw their products from medicare coverage, leaving american seniors with fewer options for lifesaving treatments. meanwhile, researchers will have less certainty to dedicate jeers to creating -- years to creating the high-quality consumer-friendly affordable medications american industry is known for. research from the university of chicago estimates that prescription drug socialism will result in 135 fewer new drugs. 135 fewer new drugs. 188 fewer new treatments. and a $663 billion drop in innovative research and development.

it will impact 60% of cancer medications on the market today. and inevitably will freeze innovations on future treatments. to make matters worse, limits on price increases will force manufacturers to launch new drugs at much higher prices to cover future rising costs. and leave many low-income and elderly americans simply out of luck. price fixing is not some bright, new idea cooked up on a liberal college campus. it's the sort of decrepit socialism that's been tried with disastrous results in places like china, cuba, venezuela, and the former soviet union. we cannot afford for americans' world-leading medical innovators to be next on the left wing chopping block, and the millions

of americans living with rare and aggressive diseases can afford it least of all. on another matter, the loudest critics of american assistance to ukraine tend to rest their case on three dubious claims. first, that somehow our support for ukraine is a distraction, a distraction from china, when in fact there are many reasons to believe exactly the opposite. second, if there's no accountability of lethal u.s. assistance, when in fact, in fact we have unprecedented visibility into how the weapons and vehicles we're providing ukraine are being utilized. and third, that somehow this whole thing is a zero-sum proposition, that support for ukraine or european security comes at the expense of american

prosperity and security. that we're spending too much. i'll discuss each of those faulty arguments in detail in the coming days, but today i'd like to discuss this last one in particular. set aside the fact recognized by the previous administration's national security strategy that, quote, a strong and vital europe is of vital importance to the united states. standing with our allies against putin is directly and measurably strengthening the u.s. military. growing the u.s. industrial base and supporting thousands of good-paying american jobs, the overwhelming majority of the money we have appropriated is being spent here in america, right here in this country. this is especially true for the

security assistance we've appropriated for ukraine. this assistance falls into two basic buckets. the first, smaller portion is for the ukraine security assistance initiative, usai for short. usai predates the biden administration. it was used by the previous administration to enhance ukraine's military capabilities. the second, larger portion isn't even for ukraine. it is referred to as backfill or replenishment money, and did is used to purchase new versions of weapons and vehicles to replace the old. sometimes very old versions that have been

transferred to ukraine. now the biden administration often announced tranches of assistance as though it's new direct aid to ukraine. in fact it is previously authorized on appropriated assistance. it is only too slowly actually be dispersed. but in both cases the money we're talking about doesn't go to ukraine. it goes to defense manufacturing facilities across america and supports tens of thousands of american jobs. expanding our defense industrial capacity to better compete with china, replenishings america's arsenal with america's weapons built by american workers. don't take my word for it. look at where some of these resources are going. nearly $1.4 billion is buying the u.s. military new javelin

antitank missiles. these weapons are manufactured at facilities in troy, alabama; ocala, florida; farmington, new mexico; in tucson, arizona, to employ hundreds of thousands of americans. another $3 billion is producing new precision rockets and patriot missiles for our military. that work is under way at a plant in camden, arkansas, that employs nea dozensof facilities across the u.s. are doing work to support these weapons. hundreds of millions of dollars in new air-to-air weapon systems are rolling off production lines across the country, from a

massachusetts facility that employs 400 people to one in arizona that employs 14,000, and this work is made possible by suppliers all across america, including in iowa, missouri, texas, florida, alabama, utah, and my home state of kentucky. tens of billions of dollars directly invested in american military strength directly supporting thousands of american jobs and expanding our defense industry's capability to produce weapons needed to deter adversaries like russia and china. our support to ukraine is grind being down one of -- is grinding down one of america's biggest strategic adversaries and showing the other one the strength of our resolve.

and it's providing western forces from nato to taiwan with valuable operational lessons to apply to their own defense. the value of that to american interests can hardly be measured simply in dollars or jobs. but critics of this investment cannot ignore its returns. american industry and workers are stronger for it. our war fighters are stronger for it. and our nation is stronger for it. the presiding officer: 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, federal reserve system, adriana debora kugler of maryland to be a member of the board of governors. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, my timing couldn't have been better, to arrive on the floor of the senate after the republican leader, senator mcconnell, has given a speech on the cost of drugs in america. i have the rest of the story, the other side of the story that he has just delivered. he spoke about prescription drug socialism. i want to talk about the unfairness of pharmaceutical pricing to americans, to families and across the board. people have talked about the cost of prescription drugs being too high for as long as i can remember, but last week president joe biden and democrats in congress marked a milestone in fulfilling a

commitment to start bringing down the outrageous price of prescription drugs. for years americans have paid the highest prices in the world -- in the world -- for medications. we pay an average of four times more than other western countries for exactly the same drugs made by the same companies. but last year, thanks to the inflation reduction act, which senator mcconnell calls prescription drug socialism, democrats finally delivered for america's patients, granting medicare the power to negotiate fair prices for medications used by seniors. he made the point -- i want to make it again. not a single republican senator voted in favor of bringing down prescription drug prices in the flakes reduction act, not one. not one republican senator would join us. thank goodness we in enough

votes to pass it and president joe biden signed it into law. last week the president announced the first ten drugs that would see reductions from negotiations. the negotiations that cost the medicare program and american taxpayers more than $50 billion last year. and in 2022 seniors across america spent more than $3 billion on co-pays at the drugstores for these ten drugs. for example, 132,000 seniors in illinois each spent an average of $500 out of pocket on eliquis, a blood thinner. the inflation reduction act capped the price of insulin for seniorsality $35 a -- for seniors at $35 a month. no senior will have to pay more than $2,000 in a year out of

pocket for costs of prescription drugs. the law established new penalties for drug manufacturers that raised prices unreasonably and many vaccines are now free for seniors, like the shingles vaccine that this a list price of nearly $400. this is what senator mcconnell and republicans call socialism. to me, it is simple fairness. once again, not a single republican voted to support this measure, not one. in fact, the republicans have called this socialist price controls. socialism. it's all socialism, bringing down the cost of prescription drugs to republicans, it just has to be too much government, soilism. how do they -- socialism. how do they ignore the fact that for years the veterans administration already uses negotiations to bring down prices for veterans and the v.a. to provide for some of the best

serving the u.s. in history. bargaining for fair prices allows the v.a. to pay an reasonably of one half different -- to pay an average of one half of what medicare pays for drugs. the veterans administration say to the pharmaceutical companies, our veterans need your drug but a we're going to negotiate with you to get a pair price. of the that means the veterans are paycheck one e. -- are paying one half of what other americans are paying. now we're going to say that others can thattette have that savings, too. i think if it's good enough for america's veterans, i think it's good enough for seniors, too. let's crystal clearment. big pharma has been untouchable in politics for way too long. first off i imagine when the

president announced this list, america said, well, i know those names and those drugs. why are we so familiar with these odd names? because they are among the most heavily advertised drugs on television in america today. you know how many ads you see for drugs on television each day? average of nine per day, and those shows that look like they're geared toward senior audiences, even more. how many countries in the world allow drug companies to h. advertise on television? two -- one of course is the united states. the other one, new zealand. only two countries do. boy filling the airwaves with these ads, big pharma is inflating the demand for the drugs. some manufacturers spend over $100 million a year to make sure you can spell xarelto and then go ask your doctor for it.

they never tell you what the price of the drug is, do they? of all the things they say on tv in that garbled message they have with rapid fire at the end of the never mention the price. don't you think it's worth knowing that xarelto costs $500 a month when a generic or lower-priced alternative may be just as effective? republican senator chuck grassley and i have a commonsense bipartisan bill. met me give you the idea behind the bill. some may call it radical, socialerrism. we would require big pharma to end the secrecy about the drugsment. disclose the price up front. incidentally you in 2020 xarelto's manufacturer johnson & johnson spent $22 million on marketing xarelto. how much did they spend on research for drugs in the new year? $12 billion.

$22 billion versus $12 billion. similarly, bristol-myers squibb and pfizer spent more than $1 billion on ads for eliquis. and troubled the price to $529 -- and doubled the price to $529. here is a lot of information on this chart. there are several things i'll point out just to make clear what we're up against. xarelto, medicare spent $6 billion. the average estimated expenditure for ads, $107 million a year for six years. the cost -- the overall revenue for xarelto was $7.4 billion. medicare paid $6 billion of it. we are the biggest consumers of

these drugs that are being advertised on television whose prices are going up and up and up. bristol-myers squibb and pfizer earned more than $18 billion from eliquis last year. one drug not on the list is ozempic. it could be subject to price negotiations next year. most americans are now aware of there blockbuster diabetes medicine and can probably sing the jingle on command. its manufacturer, know vow nraties, has plastered the airwaves. as a result, ozempic charged medicare $3 billion in 2021. people are going to argue -- and you heard it from the senator from kentucky -- that you know, who is going to pay for this?

this is private industry simply coming up with a good product that's needed and charging for a profit. what they don't tell you is that virtually all of the 156 drugs approved by the food and drug administration between 20010 sand 2019 were developed with research from the national institutes of health u. what's the national institutes of health? it's the taxpayer-funded basic research agency that does the groundbreaking research that leads to these drugs. so the taxpayers are in on the cost of the drugs from the start. the manufacturers are gaming the patent system to keep lower-priced competitors off the market. now the typical patent lasts for 20 years. here is a what this bill boils down to. when you discover a chemical formula that you think has potential to have some drug value, you file a patent.

and you are protected from 20 years developing that chemical compound and selling it to the public. so it's virtual monopoly control over the price of that drug during the patent period. the idea is that at the end of the patent, the formula becomes available to the public and generic drug manufacturers can step in and make the same thing that you originally made at a fraction of the cost. so the consumer finally at the end of the patent gets a break and gets the cost reduced. however, some very well paid lawyers for the pharmaceutical companies find ways to street the patent on and on for years. as i said the typical patent lasts for 20 years from the discovery of the chemical compound. it's usually filed at that time, early in the drug development. but these ten drugs that the president noted have been loaded up with secondary patents bs, extending that period of monopoly sales for years and

years. it's a scheme by big pharma to block competition which brings prices down for consumers and for medicare and medicaid. take a look at -- i'm going to see if i can pronounce this drug's name. a cancer medication, right here, cancer medication from johnson & johnson. it's received 17 patents since its original fda approval, tending its protection to 2035, another 12 exreers from now -- years from now. on this list here, medicare spent $3.3 billion a year on this drug, spent $77 million a year advertising it on television. how much did they have as global revenue in 2022? $4.4 billion.

$3.3 billion came out -- it's received 37 patents since its fda approval, extending its protection to 2035. this added 15 patents after its approval sheeding the drug for competition -- from competition for 16 years. by maintaining extensive monopoly periods, the manufacturers have been able to charge medicare patients as much as they want. doesn't have to be this way. while jarreddian's retails for more than $700 in the united states, the exact same drug sells for $150 in canada. $700 in the united states, 115 in canada. it costs $608 to $700 in u.s. yet costs $608 in the u.s. and $110 in the united kingdom.

how can you explain that difference? why are the american consumers being taken to the cleaners? here's the bottom line. for too long big pharma as abused the drug pricing system in america driving up costs and profits off the backs of patients who can no longer afford these medications. last week's announcement is a breakthrough, a political breakthrough thanks to the inflation reduction act passioned here in the senate and the house signed by president biden without a single republican senator voting in favor of it. not one. what a claim it is that big pharma has filed lawsuit after lawsuit to block the savings for patients and what a shame it has become so darn partisan. i can't tell you how many families have brought this issue up to me. whether they have a sick child or an aging parent, they need help in the cost of medications. this should be bipartisan for goodness sakes. we can have a healthy, productive pharmaceutical industry and have pricing that's

affordable. we can bring canadian prices home to america once we shame these pharmaceutical companies into admitting that they're taking advantage of american consumers. one of the arguments made by senator mcconnell was to reference a study at the university of chicago. he said that if we go ahead with this so-called prescription drug socialism, we're going to deny the discovery and marketing of 130 new drugs. of course that would be a very great concern. the congressional budget office looked at that study which was done long before this bill was passed and said in fact we stand to lose 13 new drugs over the next 30 years if we bring down the profit taking by these pharmaceutical companies. 13 over 30 years. if a drug is not affordable, it's not accessible. so a drug that you can't afford, even if it's on the market is of no help to you and your family.

is this important beyond the cost at the drugstore? yes, it is. one of the leading health insurers in this country, blue cross, blue shield told me in chicago that the number one driver of health insurance premiums people are paying at work is the cost of prescription drugs. this advertising that creates this appetite for all these new drugs leads to requests by patients of doctors to prescribe them. some doctors instead of taking the time to question whether or not a patient needs the drug or whether a generic could be satisfactory, just right out a script and the cost of health care goes up day in and day out. even with copays they're finding it difficult to have their prescriptions filled. it doesn't have to be this way. if the pharmaceutical companies of the united states of america would just treat us like their canadian customers, that's all i might ask for, or european customers, we'd be in much better condition.

finally we have a president and administration that stopped talking about it and is doing something. what the president has said is that we are going to negotiate for american consumers and for medicare the prices of these top ten drugs, eliquis, jardiance, xarelto, januvia, farxiga, entresto, enbrel, imbruvica, stelara and fiasp. all of these are going to be negotiated by the president to bring down the prices by authority created by congress and a bill that passed with no republican support. if the price of prescription drugs is important to you, understand that the battle is now joined. the president has announced we're going after these overchurching pharmaceutical companies. finally the american consumer is going to have a champion and have a break here in the cost of prescription drugs. it's long overdue. i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call: mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, today i want to talk about something that has been going really right

here in the united states senate. and that is the use of regular order to consider the annual appropriations bills. what do i mean by regular order? for starters regular order refers to allowing bills to go through the committee process, including hearings and a markup, where hebes -- members of the committee have a chance to amend and improve the bill before being referred by the committee to the senate as a whole for additional debate and deliberation. the regular order process is key, mr. president. it provides the time and pace for real deliberation. it allows for input from a broad array of members and promotes collaboration and compromise. and it is a transparent process, one that ensures that both senators and the american people can see how the legislation in question is made and have ample time to di just it -- digest it. not to mention the fact that by ensuring the input of more senators, the regular order process helps ensure that a broader swath of the american people is represented in any final legislation.

mr. president, one of congress' most basic responsibilities is funding the government. and for all the reasons i just listed, the way we should be doing that is through regular order. but we haven't been doing the greatest job of that lately here in the senate. but this year for the first time in five years, the senate appropriations committee has processed all 12 appropriations bills through the committee. and a huge amount of credit goes to senator collins and to her democrat counterpart senator murray for making this happen. i hope that this will not be a one off but the start of a new habit for the senate, a habit of giving each of the appropriations bills the time to debate and serious consideration they deserve. mr. president, there their press release following passage of all 12 appropriations bills out of the committee, senators collins and murray noted that the bills passed the committee by

overwhelming margins. it's not surprising. when you give members time to debate and amendment legislation and make their concerns and the concerns of their constituents heard, you're a lot more likely to get bipartisan buy-in in the final product. mr. president, today we expect the democrat leader to file cloture on what we call a mini bus of three appropriation bills, agriculture, transparency and housing and urban development of what we -- or what we call thud and military and veterans affairs. i hope the hearings they got in committee will be matched by a similarly deliberative process on the floor including ample time for consideration of amendments. debate and amendment on the floor is another key element of the regular order process and one that also helps promote a bipartisan final bill. the debate on the national defense authorization act in jill was a good example of this.

members had the opportunity to file and offer amendments when the bill came to the floor resulting in consideration of 131 amendments. including 33 amendment votes which helped the bill pass the full senate by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. i'm looking forward to next week's debate on the mini bus and i'm very please thad among many very good provisions, the milcon appropriations bill will continue funding the building out the necessary infrastructure of the b-21 long range strike bomber in south dakota. the b-21 will rev liewrgs ietz the air force's long-range strike capabilities and is an important step forward in ensuring that our military is prepared to meet and defeat 21st century threats. and i've been working to ensure that the air force and ellsworth, the main operating base for the first b-21's has everything it needs for the b-21 mission. as i said, mr. president, i'm

looking forward to debate on the agriculture, thud, and milcon v.a. appropriations bills and i trust that we will continue working through appropriations bills in the coming weeks with full debates on the senate floor. i expect we'll need to pass a short-term continuing resolution to enable these debates and to allow for time to reconcile the house and senate versions of these bills and get final versions to the president's desk. mr. president, before i close, i do want to mention one troubling thing among the good news about the regular order process. and that is the democrat leader's decision in his words to invent a new process to deal with the thorn jury question of regulating a.i. or artificial intelligence because the committee process, quote, won't suffice. won't suffice. i'm not too sure what the majority leader hopes to gain by taking responsibility for oversight and examination of this subject away from the relevant committees of

jurisdiction who consider issues like this day in and day out and are well versed in developing solutions. and i'm definitely worried that this new process will restrict senators' input into the final product leading to legislation created by the leader exclusively without collaboration with other members orel vanity committees. -- or relevant committees. it is a disappointing move, mr. president, especially considering the progress we've made on returning to regular order with appropriations bills. and i would like to see the leader show a little more faith in the committee process and in his committee chairs. but again, i'm very pleased that at least on the appropriations front, we are back where we should be and that is processing appropriation bills in committee and on the senate floor. and i'm looking forward to next week's ag, t-hud and milcon

appropriations debate. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: the flat earth society is chomping at the bit to bring back masks, even though the cochran analysis has looked at 78 randomized controlled studies and shown that masks didn't stop transmission, didn't stop hospitalization, and didn't lessen deaths. in other words, the masks on a population level had no influence over the spread of covid. and yet the flat earth society cannot listen and absorb these

facts. they want the masks to come back. in addition, the flat earth society also wants to mandate three covid vaccines for kids despite no evidence that covid vaccines reduce transmission, hospitalization, or death for adolescents. and yet to this very day senate pages are required to get three vaccines in order to participate in the program. i rise today out of a desire to protect the health of the young men and women who serve as senate pages. i think we can all agree the senate wouldn't function very well without the pages. the very first page was a 9-year-old boy named grafton hansen. he was appointed by daniel webster back in 1829. in those days, the pages will to refill the ink wells and clean out the spitoons.

things have changed a little around here since then. the work isn't quite as messy anymore. it's still a high pressure job for a high school student. from day one, our country's response to the pandemic made the comfortable more comfortable, while the working class had to keep on working. and now, in the halls of congress, a privileged class can choose whether to get vaccinated, while an underclass must abide by covid dictates. think about it. the antequarians of the senate are not required to be vaccinated, but the young healthy people at zero risk for death from covid are forced to be vaccinated three times. to become a senate page, you misget a covid-19 booster shot. but study after study demonstrates that for young and healthy people, the risks posed by the vaccine are greater than the risk from covid. let me be clear that. this is for young, healthy

adolescents. the facts are different if you're elderly, infirm or have other risk factors. the risk of the disease outweigh the risk of the vaccine. for young, healthy people, none of them will die from covid. almost all of them have either had a vaccine, had the disease or both. but we're mandating they have three silicon valleys? -- three vaccines. study after study shows it makes no sense to mandate covid vaccinations for teenagers who are healthy, and that such a mandate actually may be dangerous to adolescents. a study published last year in the journal of american medical association cardiology examined 23 million people ages 12 and up across denmark, finland, norway, and sweden. it found after two doses of mrna vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher within 28 days of

vaccination. so they had a risk of developing a heart inflammation within 28 days of the vaccination, compared with the group unvaccinated. and that the risk increased with each successive dote. so there's a risk particularly for the ages between 16 and 24 of an inflammation of the heart, and it increases with each successive dose. if you are going to mandate three vaccines on a group of kids who have zero risk of dying, and the vaccine doesn't protect anyone, all you're doing is adding risk to their relt. in a free -- to their health. in a free country, can't we let them make air own medical decisions? this is why european countries, including germany, france, finland, sweden, denmark, and norway restrict the use of mrna vaccines for covid.

there are rules for young people. yet the policy for the senate pages blindly commands three vaccines for young, healthy people. a study published in december in the journal of medical ethics found that per million third doses, booster doses of covid vaccine, up to 147 cases of myocarditis may be caused in males ages 18 to 29. up to 80% of those diagnosed with vaccine-induced myo myocs or perocarditis struggle with inflammation more than three months after a second dose. yet, remember, this is a group of people who have zero deaths. zero deaths. there are no deaths from young, healthy people from covid, and we're mandating that they take three vaccines. we're supposed to be the leaders in this country. what science are we looking at?

what science are we obeying? we are reacting in an emotional way. we're promoting hysteria and leading with the wrong example. recently interest, two doctors published a review in the european journal of clinical investigation that examined 29 studies across three continents. six of the 29 studies showed that after two doses of mr dmrch a vacks -- mrna vaccine, more than one in 10,000 mails ages 12 to 24 experience myocarditis. to be a page up here, you send a perfectly healthy young man or woman up here, then give them the risk of a serious heart inflammation over a disease that is evolving every three or four months, such as the vaccine is good for about three or tbowr months, until it is no longer good, for a disease that was never deadly for children. initially, the argument was we've got to stop the children

from transmitting it to the old people. it doesn't work that way. the only thing even the proponents of the vaccine argue is that the individual vaccinated may have a reduction of hospitalization and death. but those statistics only hold for at-risk populations. the elderly, the immunocompromised, the ill. for young, healthy people, there is no health advantage to being vaccinated, and there's actually a health disadvantage the more vaccines you give them. it is actually medical malpractice to continue to mandate three vaccines, whether in the senate or in a university. unfortunately, the example being set here in the senate is being followed in other universities around the country, of mandating three vaccines. a study pub hished recently in the annals of internal medicine found that, regardless of sex,

those ages 5 to 39, myocarditis or perry carditis occurred in one in every 50,000 after a first booster. with statistics like that, why do we think it's a good idea to insist on boosters for our young, healthy pages in their early teenage years? we're taking the rights of the individual, their parents, and their physicians to make a decision based on their risk factors and their individual parameters and we're making a blanket rule that says they need to get vaccinated. yet, study after study is showing that the risk of the vaccine exceed the risks of the disease for this particular age group. it is the hype of -- the height of malpractice to subject young people to the greater risk of vaccination simply to satisfy mandates designed to protect bureaucrats from accountability. i'm told that the democrats will object to this today. the democrats will stand up and

say they know better than your parents. the democrats will say they know better than these kids' doctors. by golly, you want to be on the senate floor, you have to have three vaccines. guess what, i've got zero. i'm standing right here, zero vaccines. i had covid in the first month of the disease. i likely would have gotten vaccinated, but i got the disease early on. then all the evidence pointed towards immunity being gauged from having the disease, so -- being gained from having the disease. we recommended our elderly in-laws get the vaccine. the thing is, we made that choice. here i sit without a vaccine, i won't wear a mask because they don't work either, yet then we're telling them -- in a month, are we putting them back in masks? the democrats want everybody in masks. they want the hysteria to return. why? they don't think any of us are smart enough to make our own decisions. they want to make the decision for us. the common man be damned, the working class be damned, meshes

be -- americans be damned. the democrats will tell you to wear a mask and how many vaccines to get. the vaccine goes outs of style, the virus evolves away from the vaccine within a couple of months. how many mandates are there going to be? why not six? why not 12? why not mandate the newest booster that may have more effect than the last booster? which one are we mandating? they have to get three vaccines. but it goes against the science. let's say you even grant the democrat that there might be some science on the other side of it. good. let the individual make the decision. what ever happened to the idea of individual choice? what ever happened to the idea of choice with regard to your body and your medical decisions? the hypocrisy is astounding. recently, the doctors shed light on some of the science

surrounding this, on some of the efforts to manufacture studies that artificially bolster the case for mandates. in a letter published this july in the "new england journal of medicine," dr. persad and his team questioned the work done to justify forcing people to take boosters. this study they said shows a 90% reduction in death if you take the covid booster vaccine. they kind of scratched their heads and said, well, almost nobody is dying anymore because the virus has become less dangerous as it has evolved. more people have immunity. either natural or vaccine immunity. to have a 90% reduction in a death rate that is already very tiny? just seemed a little bit unbelievable. they looked at the data from this study. what they found was that actually there was a 90% reduction in the booster category for all diseases --

cancer, a variety of, you know, diabetic, heart attacks, you name it. people died 90% less of the time if you're boosted. it's like wow, this kills heart disease, diabetes, cancer. no, it turned out the study was flawed and the group boosted died 90% less of the time just because you got selected out for a group very healthy versus a group less healthy. it took scientists with the courage to stand up to the ""new england journal"" to say look at the data. the original authors released it, said whoops, we made a big mistake here. study doesn't prove what we said it proved. when the fda approved boosters for kids, did they show it reduced transmission? no. when they approved vaccines for adolescents, did they show it reduced hoppization?

no. -- reduced hospitalization? no. did it show it reduced deaths? no, because no kids are dying from covid. you can't be less than zero death. how did they approve the vaccine at all forked adolescents? how did they approve the booster? they said if we give them a booster, they make antibodies. i confronted anthony fauci, i said, well, i can give you 100 vaccines, every individual i give it to will make antibodies. that doesn't prove you need it. you need to prove it does something. if you give them three vaccines, will they transmit the disease less? no evidence of it. will they be hospitalized less? no evidence of it. will they die less often? no evidence. there is no evidence, other than laboratory testing, that they make antibodies, but no evidence they need to make more antibodies. if you're a young person and had covid recently, even the cdc admits if, if you had covid

within three months and you take a vaccine, you have a profound risk of getting an overly exuberant response and having the myo myocarditis because yd at vaccine in the middle of the immune response you're making against the disease. do you recall anyone at one of these pharmacies that are all handing out the vaccine and push it, have you had any example of them saying well, have you had covid recently? maybe you should wait three months. no, nobody is paying any attention to natural immunity or to the natural course of this disease, and nobody is really paying attention to the danger of the vaccine to young people. this is not a benign situation. this is a wation -- this is a situation where the democrats are in favor of mandating a vaccine that puts their health at risk. we're telling kids all across america you cannot come up here unless you get what the democrats tell you is the best thing for your health, and even

though there are some scientists who say that it actually may impair your health, you don't get a choice, and you can't be part of the nationwide senate program, part of this elite group, unless you submit, bend a knee to the democrat and say my body belongs to the democrat party, my body will be injected with whatever the democrats tell me i need to do, because i don't have control over my medical decisions, the democrat party does. this is obscene. the democrat majority should be embarrassed that they are here today telling us that american parents and american families representative smart enough to make their own decisions. in the letter, dr. persad and colleagues wrote that the underlying health plays a substantial role in covid-related mortality and inclusion of mortality not related to covid-19 in observational studies would provide important context. in other words, it looks like the studies that may have shown any indication that boosters

might help were incorrectly performed. but the vast majority of the studies have shown no effect on transmission, hoppization -- hospitalization or death. they do not exist, and i would love for the democrats, when they stand up to talk about forcing kids to do this, if they would present the studies that show why or show that the booster vaccine aids in reduction of transmission, hospitalization or death of adolescents. even from within the government, though, some have resisted the ever-expanding booster mandates. in 2021, the director and deputy director of the fda's obviously of vaccine research and review, not someone opposed to vaccines, someone who's been involved with the development and promotion of vaccines his entire career, resigned. two of these guys resigned. citing white house pressure to approve third doses to all adults, writing damning op-eds

about the decision to do so. one of these op-eds ran in "the washington post" and was coauthored by dr. paul offitt, not an opponent of the covid vaccine seen, a direct at the children's hospital. a longtime advocate who's been involved in the pro-vaccine community objected. as a member of the fda's vaccine advisory committee, dr. offit did not support widespread boosting. he and two former fda officials wrote that healthy young persons with two mrna vaccine doses is extremely unlikely to be hospitalized with covid, so the case for risking any side effects such as myocarditis diminishes substantially. dr. offit even advised his own son not to get a booster because he was already well protected

against severe disease. here we have advocates of the vaccine, mainstream scientists who work in the vaccine community, who've been promoting vaccines for the health of the community, these are not people opposed to vaccines, say they would not give a third vaccine because the risks of the third vaccine outweigh the risk of the disease. youtube health care is about you. you are eight not a statistic -- if you're not statistic. the democrats feel you are a cog in their wheel. you are avenue just supposed to do what everybody says. but really your health care decisions are based on your risks of getting covid, dying or being hospitalized or transmitting it. it's about you. that's why you make the decision. instead, they want a blanket mandate and by doing it to the pages here and forcing them to submit to this, what they are doing is setting a terrible example for the country.

one editorial put it in way. if become boosts becomes a prerequisite for participating in normal life, the vaccine's diminishing efficacy means the vaccine campaign will never end. the vaccine is evolving. it is changing every three or four months. the vaccine becomes outdated in three or four months. we're not even mandating the updated vaccine. we're mandating a booster and often a booster that's a year or two old and has no effect at all on the vaccine. but we need to let the individual, kids and their parents, make this decision. dr. marti mccarrie is a professor at johns hopkins school of medicine. he wrote in "the wall street journal" that at u.s. government is pushing covid-19 vaccine boosters for 16- and 17-year-olds without supporting

clinical data. a large israeli population study showed that the risk of death was zero. so there is no size behind this. a large study of the entire country of israel which keeps great records on this found if a kids who have been vaccinated twice had zero deaths. germany showed the same thing. not just a few, not a small number. zero deaths among kids can age five to 17. there is no scientific rationale for mandating three covid vaccines for healthy kids. even the world health organization chief scientist, dr. suma swaminathan said there's no evidence right now that suggests that healthy children and adolescents need booster shots. even the w.h.o., one of the most pro-vaccine mandate groups you can find in the world, has said

they don't recommend booster shots. dr. martin culdorf of harvard says that mandating people who have already had covid still get vaccinated makes zero sense. zero sense from a scientific point of view and it makes zero sense from a public health point of view. a study in the lan sit supports this view stating that the current evidence does not appear to show a need for boosting in the general population. in which efficacy against severe disease remains high. what does is that mean? why do they have he have calfcy, why can they fight it? because they're young and healthy and the disease seems to have a predilection for the elderly. they have immunity and many of them have all been vaccinated. but we aren't demanding even just basic vaccination. we're demanding three vaccines and what we know is that with each individual vaccines, the

risk for heart inflammation goes up. it is less if they have one, it is less if they have two. it is even more if you get to a third. when we consider the rules for the pages, we ought to ask, will these policies be specked to continue indefinitely? covid is is us forever. covid is now the new flu. fortunately had it's become less deadly over time. it was quite deadly in 2020. & each successive he have louisiana has made it -- successive evolution has maded it less deadly. even at its peak, it was three times as deadly as the regular flu. it's now lessened in severity. are they going to continue to tell us how to make our health care decisions forever? are democrats so insist extent that they know better than everyone else that we will be beholden to bending the knee and asking their permission to live?

are we going to ask permission whether or not -- they will come to us and say, to participate in life, you have to be vaccinated three times. there is no science to back this up. when it comes to vaccines, although they can benefit the vaccinated person if that person is in a risk category, in denmark vaccines were not shown to have any impact on household viral transmission or secondary attack rate. even the proponents of the mandates will admit, ifers forced to admit, the vaccines don't stop transmission. the only thing they can hang their hat on is there's reduced hospitalization but that only decision pisses in you are in a category of increased risk. over a certain age, chauffeur a certain weight, have some diseases, immune know compromised, there is evidence of reduced.

ment it really has accounted for the natural immunity that people get from the having the disease, which still needs to be studied. multiple scientific studies have shown, though, that there is a heightened risk of myocarditis, mart inflammation for children and deanagers after taking mrna covid vaccine. that's why multiple countries began restricting it for certain age groups. germany, france, denmark, finland and sweden all restricted moderna's vaccine for young people. norway, south america and the u.k. all chose to recommend only one dose of pfizer due to the risk of cardiovascular side effects. what we're going to find out today is the democratic party doesn't care about the science, doesn't care about choice with regard to your medical decisions, can't even allow a debate whether with you get one,

two, or three vaccines, but is going to be part of the u.s. capitol, u.s. senate page program, you must bend the knee to the democratic party and do what they say about the vaccines or you can't be a participant. why is the u.s. senate choosing to ignore risks other countries acknowledge when mandating these vaccines for young people who are in peak physical condition? public health measures should be backed up with the proof that the benefits outweigh the burdens. there is no evidence of that when it comes to vaccination and booster mandates, especially for teenagers, who has a group are less vulnerable to this virus than any senator. that is why i ask unanimous consent that the senate pass my resolution to end all covid-related mandates for pages who serve in this chamber. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to senate

resolution 332, which is at the desk. further, that the resolution be agreed to,, the preamble be agreed to, that the motions to reconsider bewards made and laid upon the table the. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: reserving the right to object, mr. president, i have major concerns about this unanimous consent request. met me start first with the process. whether we should be legislationing a policy in regards to the health of our pages. despite what the senator from kentucky has said, the policies concerning our pages' health is not set son a partisan basis. it is set based upon the recommendations of our health professionals. they're not politicians. they're not making partisan decisions. they're making their recommendations based upon what they believe is in the best interests of the health of the people that work in this

institution, including our senate pages. so i'm concerned about the unanimous consent request because it would legislate areas that should be left to the administration based upon the recommendations of our health professionals. secondly, as i look at the legislation that the unanimous consent would adopt, it goes well beyond covid-19 vaccines. it goes to wearing a mask, having a legislative prohibition about requiring a page to wear a mask. that's pretty broad. we don't know what's coming. we don't know what our requirements are going to be and needs to deal with public health in this institution. and, again, that should be left to the health professionals. we shouldn't be micromanaging what the health professionals tell us is in the best interests of the people that work in this institution. let me just point out that covid-19 cases are rising all

over. we know that. we don't know what are going to be the best countermeasures to deal with that. but we do know that vaccinations and masking are effective counter-makers. i recognize that senator paul has put into his comments studies that he's quoted. the overwhelming evidence that has been presented by the health professionals globally, including mere in the united states, is that vaccinations, testing, and masking are effective. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that i could put into the record the listing of those types of studies that would counter what senator paul has said. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: schools throughout the nation implement public health requirements to keep students, teachers, and their communities safe. let me remind my colleagues, the pages are in a page school.

they should be treated no differently, as far as the protection of their health, than other students around the nation. and those responsible for their safe keeping e we need -- safe keeping. we need to follow science. we need to follow what science tells us we should do t we shouldn't respond to the political whim -- or the political pressures. we should let science make the judgments that keep our people safe, particularly our senate pages. there is no credible evidence that supports a prohibition on requiring covid-19 vaccinations, testing, our mask ago. and contrast to evidence indicates that technician tools in dealing with these issues t i know we're going to get to the debate on the floor soon about the spending programs for our

country anded how we're dealing with the costs. well, there's a lot of health care costs that we would like to get contained. every time we don't deal with the spread of an illness or disease, it adds to the costs to the taxpayers of this country. the senate has a duty of care with respect to the pages, their well-being is shower responsibility -- is our responsibility. for those reasons, mr. president, i do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: the argument has been made that we should leave these decisions up to a doctor. well, the thing is that in america we don't appoint like a doctor as dictator. we don't appoint one doctor. you get a choice. you get to choose your doctor. if you don't like your doctor's advice, you think your doctor's advice is invalid, such as it is in this case, us go to another -- you go to another doctor. in a free country, the decisions are made by an individual.

each individual will assess their risk. the argument that be made that there's overwhelming evidence on the record. that's just frankly untrue. ness no evidence -- and i don't say that lightly. there are zero studies in any. scientific literature that show that a booster for adolescents reduces transmission, hospitalization you or death. zero. they only approved the booster to allow you to make the choice of using it by saying that you make antibodies. making antibodies proves that vaccines work, which no one disputes. vaccines work to induce the production of antibodies. do you need three vaccines if you're a 15-year-old kid. the answer in all the literature is you don't need that vaccine. what we've found today, he says this isn't partisan.

it certainly is partisan. do you see any republicans over here objecting? the republicans unanimously support getting rid of this mandate. the democrats are objecting because the democrats don't think that individual americans are smart enough to make their own decisions. the democrats don't think that is kids and their parents and their doctors can make their decision. they don't believe in choice when it comes to medical decision-making. thebles they know better. but in this case it isn't just a matter of taking something that's ineffective. it's mandating a vaccine that threatens the health and well-being of these kids. not just a vaccine. mandating three vaccines. no mention of even whether the kids have already had covid, which is essentially another inoculation. this is a disappointing day, but this is consistent with what we've seen time and again, whether it's having a nationwide emergency, mandating that you

wear masks in school, masks on planes, vaccines here, vaccines there. this is a desire by the majority party to control your life, to control your medical decision-making, because they know better. they want to beg off and say this is about the science. i recited 15 different studies for them. they didn't recite one study because no study exists saying that three vaccines for kids reduces hospitalization, transmission, or death. there is no science. large nationwide studies of this problem have gotten a dozen countries to say we shouldn't be giving three vaccines to kids. half of europe won't allow you to do it. they won't allow the mandates. the argument is made we have to do what everybody is doing, the schools. even the colleges, 90% of the colleges aren't requiring this.

this was a bad mandate from the beginning. most of the colleges have woken up and understand now, one, this is america and you ought to be able to make your own medical decisions. two, the science points towards booster or vaccine mandates being a threat to the health or or well-being of adolescents. i'm very disappointed but i think this illustrates where we are in america, where one party thinks they're smarter than every american, smarter than every individual, and they will make your medical decisions for you. i rest my case. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, tomorrow marks one month since the devastating fires that destroyed the historic town of lahaina on maui and damaged several of maui's upcountry

communities. these devastating fires and the events that followed have been harrowing for all those who call maui home and the many more who have visited these communities over the years. it is suggested the fire destroyed nearly 3,000 structures in lahaina, almost 90% of which were residential. it also leveled roughly 700 businesses on and around lahaina's historic front street. and tragically the fires have claimed 115 lives to date with some 385 people still unaccounted for. these numbers are devastating and reflect the pain and anguish hawaii is feeling. but, mr. president, this disaster did not simply impact a collection of numbers or statistics. it impacted a community of people, tight-knit and proud.

business owners who served as stewards of family-owned shops and restaurants passed down through the generations. immigrants who came to maui in search of a better life for themselves and their families. frights -- firefighters who raced into toxic conditions to try to save the town they loved even as many of their own homes burned to the ground mere miles away. and so many more who call lahaina home. as the onetime capital of the kingdom of hawaii, lahaina holds great culture radical and historic significance for the native hawaiian community. for some families the roots of lahaina date back more than a century with homes passed down from generation to generation. others came from elsewhere captivated by lahaina's beauty and charm. and before the fires, lahaina was a bustling sea side town that welcomed thousands of

visitors every month. but in mere moments all of that was destroyed as 80 miles-per-hour winds fueled by a hurricane 500 miles away propelled a fire through the town with unimaginable speed and fury. the devastation is difficult to put into words. as is the trauma this community is experiencing. front street was vibrant with the sounds of music and revelers in the air is now eerily quiet. the only sound to be heard is often the clanging of twisted metal in the wind. all the hotels where survivors -- at the hotel where survivors are staying and there are parents afraid to send their children to school not wanting them out of their sight. i met a woman who escaped the fire with just a backpack of belongings, a backpack she now takes everywhere with her,

refusing to take it off her back. and i met hotel workers and others, especially a health worker who said that weeks after the fires, some residents and workers were so traumatized they didn't even want to come out of their rooms. at the same time, mr. president, at a time of grief and loss, residents have been subjected to disinformation on social media likely coordinated by foreign government entities to discourage residents from reaching out to fema for disaster assistance and disinformation that sow distrust in the federal government. it is an all-hands-on-deck effort to combat this information and make sure survivors can access federal support. as we work to ensure the survivors of this disaster have the support they need, we're also working to understand the

full cost of the devastation. according to initial estimates, the damage to property alone from these fires is upwards of $5 billion. estimates for rebuilding lahaina are more than double that. rebuilding will take time, resources, and a continuity of effort. and that's why i'm so grateful for the strong response of the full family of federal agencies, more than 25 of which are on the ground on maui with over 1,000 personnel. from fema and sba to hhs, hud, dod, and so many others, the federal family responded with speed to meet the immediate needs of those impacted. within days of the fire starting, fema, working with the governor, mayor, and local entities, was able to get thousands of survivors into hotel rooms, air bnb's and

other short-term shelters. to date, more than 50 million in federal assistance to individuals has already been approved. but we know that this is just the beginning. federal personnel have also been critical to the search and rescue efforts coxgget from around the country to help search through the rubble and identify the remains of those lost. when president biden visited last month, he made a commitment that the federal government will be there for as long as it takes to help lahaina recover and rebuild as the community, as the community envisions. the $4 billion in additional fema funding the president requested late last week is an important down payment on that promise. this funding will help ensure fema has the resources it needs to continue its critical disaster relief work not just on maui, but on other communities

impacted by disasters all across our country. i hope that it will pass with strong bipartisan support that has long been the case for disaster wreefl -- relief funding. but we know, as i said before, this is just the beginning. in the decades since hurricane sandy wreaked havoc on new york and new jersey, fema has spent more than $18 billion assisting impacted communities. fema's long-term costs for its response to hurricane katrina in 2005 exceeded $60 billion. like those communities, lahaina's rebuilding will take time, and i said before a continuity of effort. these fires took so much from so many, but the spirit of aloha, of love, kindness, and care for one another continues.

it is that aloha that brought our community together after this crisis, and i have faith that it will continue to see us through. i will be here along with my colleagues from hawaii. my senator, my other senator, brian schatz is here. part of our delegation to fight for everything hawaii and maui needs to recover and rebuild, guided by the voices and values of those who call lahaina home. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that prior to the scheduled votes, i be permitted to speak for six minutes, senator lujan for five minutes

and senator cantwell for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, every so often this chamber is granted an opportunity to alter the course of american history. these rare opportunities allow us to pick up the torch, hoisted high like those who came before and carry it forward as we strive to create a more perfect union. today, madam president, we have such an opportunity. in a few minutes, this body will consider the nomination of a preeminent economist, dr. adriana debora kugler to serve on the board of governors of the federal reserve. already she has broken barriers and blazed new trails. the first hispanic american every nominated to serve in that critical role. but for my colleagues who will soon cast their votes on her nomination, i'd just like to highlight what this means for the 62 million latinos who call america home. simply put, we see ourselves

reflected in her story and her nomination. dr. kugler is a first-generation american, the daughter of immigrants from colombia. to hear her tell sthoir is to listen to the american dream come to life. from her grandparents who overcame tremendous obstacles, whether fleeing religious persecution, being orphaned at the age of 3 or dropping out of high school to help a widowed mother raise five siblings, dr.n her the importance of grit and resilience alongside an unwavering work ethic. as a result her life's work has been to help others similarly rise above their station. for more than 25 years as an economist, she has conducted essential research on labor markets, worker mobility, firm productivity, three areas that are essential to the federal reserve's mandate. she currently serves as u.s. executive director at the world bank after previously serving as

chief economist at the department of labor, bringing a domestic and international perspective at a time when global economies have never been more connected. and because of this work, because of her sterling credentials and outstanding reputation, dr. kugler's nomination has earned the endorsement of 33 peer economists from across the political spectrum. in a joint letter, they called her, quote, a brilliant, objective economist who takes an evidence-based approach to decision-making and is an expert in policy evaluation. close quote. make no mistake, dr. kugler is eminently qualified for the role she's been nominated for. at her confirmation hearing, she reaffirmed a fundamental commitment to the federal reserve dual mandate, pledging to continue its efforts to bring down high inflation that is hurting workers and businesses alike. in addition to her qualifications and balanced

approach to decision-making, dr. kugler has demonstrated time and time again that she will uphold the federal reserve's long legacy of independent decision making. it is precisely because those decisions affect every community in our country that i'm especially proud that dr. kugler will finally bring the lived experience of being latino in the united states to the federal reserve's leadership. that's right. in the nearly 110-year history of the federal reserve, there has never ever been a latino serve on its board of governors. not -- not once. it's an affront to those hispanic merns who -- americans who contribute to our economy, and it violates the idea that the hopes and dream of latinos are essential to the promise of america. so, madam president, it is time

for latinos to serve at the highest levels of the federal reserve, it is time latinos be taken seriously as part of the economy and it is time for us to confirm adriana debora kugler, as a meaning full step toward that goal. never again should a latino have to wonder if they can rise from humble beginnings to rise to high seats of power. it is about changing the course of leadership so that our institutions, these bodies we entrust with the future wealth and prosperity of our country can fully reflect the nation they serve. dr. kugler is a remarkable economist and fantastic nominee to serve as the first latino on the board of governance of the federal reserve -- governors on the federal reserve. it is time to turn this

nomination into an historic confirmation. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. lujan: madam president, communicationings and technology at -- communications protect consumers to establishing competitive and open markets to using spectrum and fiber to close the digital divide. the federal communications commission is the expert agency is establish recommendationses to congress. before us it today is a genuine and passionate public servant, anna gomez is a prominent leader in technology and communications and i urge my colleagues to support her confirmation. ms. gomez is more than ready to serve in her next role in public service as the fcc commissioner.

folks know the difference between fast internet, slow internet and no internet. i rise today before my colleagues to voice my support for a deeply qualified person who knows the difference between fast internet, slow internet, and no internet. she has the experience to bridge those divides. today one in five families in new mexico are living without a reliable connection to the internet. ms. gomez has worked on bringing more reliable and affordable ways to connect americans to the internet almost as long as the term digital devise has been around. i was a strong advocate for the president to nominate anna and her reception here in the senate is proof that she is the right choice. anna's professional record is impeccable and her path is an inspiration. during her confirmation hearing, ms. gomez shared her story of scraping, borrowing and working

her way through college and law school. beyond law school, ms. gomez has experience in the white house, the state department, the united states senate, the national telecommunications and information, and the fcc shows us all that she is not afraid to roll up her sleeves and get to work. i've confident with her issue-oriented experience at every level of the congressionally mandated responsibility of the fcc, she will be ready on day one. advancing universal service for broadband and broadcast services is a passion for ms. gomez. anna's voice as the first latino to serve on the commission since gloria estrani is very welcomed. i know the sense of fear one can have when your constituents are in the midst of danger from

wildfire or hurricane or a flood and no way to reach them. having reliable access to broadband connectivity during an emergency can mean the difference between someone coming home or not. anna gomez has worked on securing reliable communication for our first responders all across the country as we continue to encounter more and more climate disasters, these efforts made by ms. gomez will continue to play a critical role. moreover, the federal communications commission has never been more important in our nation's history. these technologies have proven their value and demonstrated huge potential. however, the flexties of these -- complexities of this is complex. americans need the force of a fully appointed federal communications commission to protect consumers, to guarantee competition and foster

innovation. the mission and work of the fcc has never been more important to the future of our nation. anna gomez will play a pivotal role in setting the course of our country into the next digital generation. i urge my colleagues to work together to bridge these digital divides and today i urge you to vote yes on the confirmation of anna gomez to be a commissioner of the federal communications commission. thank you, and i yield back.

the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote. clerk: ms. baldwin, mr. barasso, mr. bennet, mrs. blackburn, mr. blumenthal, mr. booker, mr. boozman, mr. braun,

mrs. britt, mr. brown, mr. budd, ms. cantwell, mrs. capito, mr. cardin, mr. carper, mr. casey, mr. cassidy, ms. collins, mr. coons, mr. cornyn, ms. cortez masto,

mr. cotton, mr. cramer, mr. crapo, the clerk: mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. mr. duckworth. mr. durbin.

ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper.

ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan.

ms. lummis. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. mr. mullin.

ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds.

mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester.

mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker.

mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- bennett, cantwell, durbin, hassan, hickenlooper, hirono, kelly, lujan, menendez, merkley, murray, padilla, peters, reed, rosen, schatz, schumer, sinema, tester, warnock, warren, and welch. ms. klobuchar aye. mr. warner, aye. mr. blumenthal, aye.

mr. ossoff, aye. senators voting in the negative -- barrasso, capito, cassidy, cotton, graham, hagerty, johnson, kennedy, lankford, marshall, and rubio. ms. collins, no. mr. mullin, no. ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. coons, aye. mr. vance, no. mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mr. romney, no.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye. the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. mr. cornyn, no. the clerk: ms. baldwin, aye. mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye. mr. tillis, no.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mr. sanders, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye. mr. daines, no. the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. crapo, no.

the clerk: mr. gafl, no -- mr. mr. grassley, no. the clerk: mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye. the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. the clerk: mr. paul, no.

mr. thune, no. the clerk: mr. wicker, no. mr. cardin, aye. mrs. fischer, no.

mr. markey, aye. the clerk: mr. lummis, no.

the clerk: mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye. mr. looseman, -- j the clerk: mr. boozman, no. vote:

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no.

the clerk: mr. budd, no. mrs. feinstein, aye. mr. sullivan, no. ms. ernst, no. mr. young, no. mr. hawley, no. mr. braun, no.

ms. smith, aye. ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no. mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. van holen, aye.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no.

the clerk: mr. lee, no. the clerk: mr. cramer, no.

the presiding officer: the ayes are 53. the nays are 45. 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 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 253, anna m. gomez of virginia to be a member of the federal communications commission 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 anna m. gomez of virginia to be a member of the federal communications commission shall be brought to a

close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn.

ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven.

mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed.

mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner.

mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. vote: the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative, blumenthal, coons, durbin, hassan,

hickenlooper, hirono, kaine, king, klobuchar, manchin, smith, stabenow, tester, and whitehouse. senators voting in the negative, boozman, cramer, johnson, mullin, and wicker. ms. baldwin, aye. mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye. mr. crapo, no. mr. schmitt, no.

mr. marshall, no. the clerk: ms. warren, aye.

mr. paul, no. mr. lee, no. ms. cortez-masto, aye. mr. young, aye. the clerk: mr. reed, aye. mr. lankford, no.

ms. lummis, no. the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye. the clerk: mr. lujan, aye. mrs. feinstein, aye.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, no.

the clerk: mr. sanders, aye. mr. barrasso, no.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye. mr. padilla, aye. the clerk: ms. collins, aye.

mrs. capito, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, no. mr. romney, no. mr. hagerty, no. mr. fetterman, aye.

mr. mcconnell, no. mr. daines, no. mr. schatz, aye. mr. kelly, aye. mr. tillis, no. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

mr. grassley, no. mr. welch, aye. mr. hoeven, no. mrs. gillibrand, aye. ms. ernst, no. mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. cot cotton, no.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye. mr. kennedy, no.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. mr. braun, no.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. the clerk: mr. rubio, no.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye. mr. murphy, aye. the clerk: mr. ricketts, no.

mr. cassidy, no. mrs. britt, no. the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mr. thune, no. the clerk: mr. budd, no. mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. graham, no. mr. vance, no.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, no. mr. scott of florida, no. the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. the clerk: ms. sinema, aye.

the clerk: mr. menendez, aye. the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. the presiding officer: the yeas are 55, the nays are 43, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, federal communications commission. anna m. gomez of virginia to be a member.

a senator: thank you, mr. president. all of us have lived through the failed experiment of -- i'm new at this, mr. president, so it takes a little time. all of us have gone through the experiment of mandatory masking. today i want to make sure we do not subject the people to the tyranny for the sake of nothing. we've seen an uptick of covid cases across the country. this is not something to worry about. i don't like the fact but covid is here to stay.

seasonal upticks in a respiratory virus are expected. they shouldn't cause panic from our leadership, our country, or shouldn't cause us to reimpose a policy that failed e. mr. vance: being are calling to bring back mask mandates and regulate social gatherings. i've heard friends on the opposite side of the aisle saying no one is trying to do this but let's recapture and summarize the last couple of weeks in august. lion's gate studio asked employees to wear masks at their filming facility. last week kaiser reimposed the requirement for staff and visitors to wear masks at its california facility. schools such as morris brown college in atlanta and local schools in the d.c. area imposed mask mandates. it's not just that masks according to randomized studies do no good. it's they can do harm. we know schoolchildren have suffered significant speech and developmental disabilities because this country panicked instead of using its brain and force toddlers and small

children to wear masks. we cannot return to the failed policies of the covid pandemic. i'm not mad that we screwed up. i made mistakes. many people in this body made mistakes. what i do think that we should avoid is repeating the mistakes in 2023. let's learn from the mistakes that we made instead of just doubling down on them. this policy does not set anything for an unlimited period of time. it says that for the next 15 months the government can't force you to wear a mask on planes, on public transit or in public schools. taxpayer dollars cannot be used to force and enforce a mandate against our people. it's not setting a policy that we cannot deal with pandemics in the future. if something else comes, god forbid, then let this body deal with it at this time. but now let's learn the -- let's he'd the message from the american people and learn the message of the past couple of years. mandatory masking was a failure.

it had costs for very little by the ways and -- lifl benefits. as if in legislative se i ask unanimous consent for the freedom to breathe act. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. markey: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: this bill would undermine the ability of states, to make decisions about what's best for their communities. it would silence and hamstring public health experts who guided our nation out of the darkest days of a pandemic that has killed -- 1,000,139,000 people

in our country in three years. let me repeat that. this disease killed one million 139,000 people already. and experts are saying that covid is coming back. it's on the rise once again. this provision would violate a long-held belief in the republican party that states that localities should not be told what to do by a federal government removed from the realities that they're seeing on the ground in their neighborhoods. this bill is little more than an attempt by republicans to dismantle a public health infrastructure that had to be built in order to deal with this greatest of pandemics since 1918. what public health experts and

the medical professionals is talking about is an upcoming covid and flu and rsc season and preparing for it. these health care professionals are the ones who risk their lives to save lives and we should protect that right for them to make decisions on the health of their patients, on their communities, and that's what locally focused health care is all about. here's what we do know. last year the combined forces of this triple-demic of flu, rsv and covid strained health care providers. health care providers tried to keep up as emergency departments overflowed with sick children and seniors many people are still getting sick. this year health care providers, health centers, transportation workers and school districts are

once again preparing to protect students and seniors and others. millions of americans will do what we can to protect ourselves and our loved ones and our communities must be able to take steps to save lives and keep people from getting sick or getting sicker, including the tools of vaccines and masks. the only thing that the republicans seem willing to mask is their antipathy for making health care affordable and acceptable for millions of americans. republicans already fought this year to throw people off of medicaid and their health coverage. not a single republican vowed to make insulin -- voted to make insulin more affordable to seniors. republicans blocked legislation for individuals to make health care decisions with their doctors. it makes no sense to put limits on how communities and individuals can protect

themselves. this bill is a red herring. it is a false debate. we should have an aquarium in the well of the senate to capture all the red herrings being introduced into this public health debate. it's a distraction, it's misleading, and it is meant to deflect of what the gop stands for now, gimmicks over people. republicans have to understand that we have to provide the options for our health care heroes to save lives. they will make us less safe because they will be tying the hands health care professionals in order to implement policies that protect against an addition to 1.139 million people who have already died. you argue that this bill is about freedom, but it's not. freedom is parents and students knowing their school can take

every step possible to keep them from getting sick or taking home an illness that could hurt their siblings, parents, or grand pairmts. freedom -- grandparents. freedom is knowing that the plane, train, or classroom is safe. freedom is nothing that when you travel to work or to visit families over the holidays, they'll know that every safety measure is available to them to keep them and their families safe. we must keep the -- protect the freedom for communities to have every public health tool available if it's needed in the opinion of the public health officials in that community, in that state. they should be the ones making the decision at the local level, looking at the dangers to their population. again, these numbers are historic. 1,000,139,000 people have

already died, and there's more coming. and if in the opinion of public health officials strategies can be adopted using masks that reduce the likelihood that more will die, we should give them that freedom to make those decisions. with that, i object, mr. president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. vance: mr. president, let me offer a couple of thoughts. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. vance: i know we're on a short time line. i want to offer a couple of points in response and i will let this body go on with its business. senator markey mentioned how over one million lost their lives to covid. it is a tragedy and i wish we hadn't lost them, but we lost them in spite of some of the most guessive -- most aggressive masking policies. the second point is that this legislation doesn't prevent any

of our citizens from wearing mask. if you would like to wear a mask, you have right to do so. the senator talked about freedom. what which would like is for a freedom of a school child to not be thrown out of a classroom because he doesn't want to wear a mask. i would like the freedom of an airline passenger go to visit their families and not thrown off the plane to wear their mask. respecting that, accepting it and not using government mandates to force our fellow citizens to do exactly what they want to do, but to figure it out together. i heard some pretty alarming rhetoric from my friend on the other side of the aisle. we are about to have some serious respiratory problems, we always do in the fall and maybe it will be worse than before. but i think what our children most of all need, and i'm the father of three kids under 7, they need us not to be chicken

little about every single respiratory problem that faces this country. we will have people get sick from viruses, it has always been th us, and the way to respond is with calmless and strategic thinking -- calmness and strategic thinking. we cannot repeat the anxiety, the stress, and the -- and the nonstop panic of the last couple of years, that's what this mandate is about. let's get back to common sense. mr. president, i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i come to support senator vance's freedom to breathe act. it is a step in preserving individual rights and states' rights. we have a number of republican senators on the floor standing with senator vance in support of this legislation.

i see senators cruz, ted britt, katie -- katie britt, and i support all of them to stand with senator vance on this important piece of legislation. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator in texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that joe quito be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak up to seven minutes and senator markey for five minutes before the roll call vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: i rise to speak about

anna gomez. if confirmed, she would give the democrats a majority at the fcc that would enable them to impose a radical left-wing agenda, including investment killing and job killing so-called net neutrality rules, otherwise known as obamacare for the internet. i strongly oppose her nomination and encourage my nominees to do the same. the fcc exercises vast power over how americans communicate. it has a history of vague statutory provisions to pursue partisan policy goals. the fcc could go down ar dark path of censoring speech and engaging in regulatory overreach. under current rosen worcehl's leadership that is not hypothetical.

the fcc has engaged in unprecedented abuses of power, such as the multibillion-dollar techni transaction, attempting to expand the service fund spending in defiance of clear statutory limits and holding valuable giga hertz licenses hostage. even more alarming, the fcc is retaining requests by radical left-wing groups to revoke a broadcast station's license for alleged, quote, misinformation and turning a routine fcc license renewal proceeding into a truth commission, an alarming assault on the first amendment. and that's without a democrat majority on the fcc. with a majority, there's no telling what regulatory excesses the chairwoman could inflict,

from forcing antiquated telephone monopoly rules, to regulating rates in terms of service, to crippling new legal risks on companies. make no mistake, a vote for anna gomez is a vote for regulating the internet as a public utility. ms. goamentz has public publicly supported the reinstatement of the heavy-handed obama era net neutrality rules that would make the internet more expensive and slower for american households, despite privately confessing that democrats engaged in wild hyperbole of net neutrality. rather than giving statements of the net neutrality rules, she

claims she wants robust authority over the internet. in other words, the power to regulate companies' pricing and terms of service and to collect billions of dollars in new taxes from them and from you, the consumer, all at the expense of investments and innovation, and consumer choice. she has also refused to disavow the ongoing efforts to oppose desperate imliability on american broadband companies and she has given noncommit yaal answers to my -- noncommittal answers for my requests for accountability at the fcc. she has a history of failing to protect taxpayer interests. in the obama administration, she had a senior leadership role in implementing a wasteful 4 billion-dollar grant program funding from a $1 million

project in colorado was used to build a third fiber connection to a single school of 11 students. but by far most concerning in ms. gomez's history is her tweets concerning the use of government power to police so-called misinformation. for instance, she retweeted a claim made by democrat congresswoman cori bush, a rad -- a member of the radical left-wing squad in the house, that trump engaged in targeted misinformation campaign to black voters for the purpose of voter suppression. she tweeted enthusiastically in support of darpa and the federal government to crack down on so-called disinformation. at this point, it is sadly well

known that the biden administration has repeatedly trampled on the first amendment to silence opposing views. the white house press secretary publicly bragged that they were, quote, in regular touch, and, quote, flagging problematic posts for social media companies and threatening new legislation if those companies did not heed the censors and the biden dhs tried its own public ministry of truth. amid the first amendment assaults, as well as recent efforts at the fcc to deplatform a fox baft station, it was critical -- broadcast association, it was critical to get clarity on free speech. she gave vague answers and did not assure the commerce committee that she

would actively oppose censorship at the fcc. confirming ms. gomez would harm taxpayers, broadband investment, innovation, and most importantly our first amendment freedoms. i strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose her nomination. mr. markey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, i rise today in support of anna gomez, president joe biden's nominee to serve on the federal communications commission. the fcc is one of the premier expert agencies in the federal government responsible for overseeing the wires and the radio waves that have become the backbone of our economy and our communities. but since the beginning of the biden administration, nearly 1,000 days ago, the agency has been hamstrung in implementing critical communications priorities due to the absence of a fifth commissioner. with ms. gomez as a

commissioner, that will finally change. the federal communications commission will have the power to take on the big dollar interest, seek to block consumer protections at every turn. i support ms. gomez' nomination because i know she is ready for these fights. she knows that today broadband is not a luxury, like running water or heat,s broadband is -- heat, broadband is an essential utility. without high quality affordable broadband, students cannot learn. small businesses cannot reach new customers. entrepreneurs cannot innovate. and seniors cannot access telemedicine. the fcc's authority must reflect the essential nature of the internet in american life. and that is exactly what ms. gomez will provide. with three democratic commissioners, the fcc can act swiftly to restore net neutrality and protect a free and open internet.

my republican colleagues will say that congress should act ole net neutrality owe "on net neutrality instead of the federal communications commission. but their big cable and big tech industry allies will be in the air with crocodile tear arguments about an out-of-control agency usurping the will of congress. well, if republicans really want to take on this problem through legislation and not administrative action, then they should be prepared to join me when i are he introduce my net neutrality legislation in the coming weeks. they can be on record supporting the internet freedom or siding with the broadband hoe homists. it's been nearly six years since the trump fcc repealed net neutrality. we cannot wait any longer for republicans to come to their senses. we must confirm ms. gomez so that the fcc can act without delay. we must confirm ms. gomez because the fcc must address other critical communications issues, including technology accessibility for people with disabilities, protecting local

community media, and closing the homework gap. i am particularly concerned about the future of the seven -- $7 billion emergency connectivity fund which i passed during the pandemic. over the past for years, thanks to the commission's hard work, the emergency connectivity fund has provided laptops and tablets and internet fs ises to more than -- internet services to more than 17 million students and teachers, and those resources are particularly critical for black, brown, immigrant and low-income populations who often lack the access to the internet at home. unfortunately this program will soon be out of money, potentially disconnecting millions of students and driving a deeper wedge into the digital divide. we cannot let that happen. i stand ready to work with my colleagues to extend this essential funding and i no he that ms. gomez -- and i know ms. gomez like the chairwoman will be a fierce advocate for

students at the commission so that we can keep closing the homework gap and provide every child with access through the 21st century tools they will need. the we stand at a critical moment to ensure a just broadband future for everyone. we need anna gomez on the federal communications commission. she has the knowledge, the values, the judgment that the commission needs. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination. i yield back, mr. president. 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 clerk: ms. baldwin.

the clerk: mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun.

mrs. britt. the clerk: mr. brown. the clerk: mr. brown. mr. budd.

ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. le mr. coons. -- mr. coons. the clerk: mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth.

mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy.

mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin.

ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio.

mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune.

mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.