on this bipartisan cr. now they're still much more work to do. now that we are on the bill will irrequire consent and cooperatin to move it swiftly through the chamber. we cannot have members trying last-minute delay tactics and risk a shutdown. the cr agreement the synth has released is a good sensible and bipartisan, let me emphasize bipartisan, bill. it's a bridge towards greater cooperation between the chambers and away from the paralyzing extremism we had seen in the house. and a reckless shutdown will serve no purpose, except for hard right partisans whose only goal is to grind figures of government down and promote extremism. it will cause great harm for communities acrossmm the countr. a reckless shutdown will cause great harm to our border. it will affect our military by withholding of their pay. it will everything from food safety inspection to tsa

operations to small business loans. this is a problem with maga extremism. it's not serious about governing chaos is the only word in their playbook. conflict seems to be the natural state of being and some of them seem to exalt in shutting down the government. and if maga republicans get their way, the danger for this country will be great. extremism will be dominant. the ultra rich will be empowered. working families -- >> here on c-span2 we are going to break away now for live coverage of the u.s. senate. deg to shut down the federal government. the fringe element of extremist house republicans has pushed congress to the brink of another costly, wasteful shutdown. the government shutdown of any duration would harm hardworking americans and our economy.

shutdowns cost taxpayers billions of dollars per week. they cause businesses money. they could even cause a downgrade to the nation's credit rating. and they force an unnecessary disruption of many vital services. federal workers in all 50 states who perform essential work, like food inspectors, tsa agents, or park rangers, would stop getting paychecks. a federal shutdown could halt projects and cause federal lending to cease. clinical trials and research at the nih could be forced to stop. effective programs like the women, infants and children nutrition program would be left in a vulnerable state. and as for national defense, a government shutdown would be extremely damaging. and in the midst of the blockade of key military promotions, it would be another republican-inflicted wound. a shutdown could halt our munitions product lines as it

did in the 2013 shutdown. this would be a very shortsighted, very shortsighted at a time when we are focused on ramping up munitions production for ukraine and with an eye on the future needs in the indo-pacific. there are several other areas where a shutdown would be harmful. i urge my colleagues to consider the impacts of a shutdown on our military men and women, their families, and our defense. hundreds of thousands of troops could see delays in their paychecks and many civilians could lose their contracts. if a shutdown extends, the defense department will have to reduce its recruiting, training, and family movement activities. a shutdown would also include delaying needed investments in military infrastructure, including barracks and child care centers. dozens of new projects would not go forward. this would prevent the defense department from effectively

investing in new programs and there could be no new starts in acquisition programs or military construction projects. hundreds of new start efforts in procurement and r & d could be prohibited during a government shutdown. as such the department could be forced into funding legacy systems that are outdated and inefficient. that is simply congressionally mandated waste. as general brown, the incoming chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said about a shutdown, all the money in the world cannot buy more time. time is irrecoverable. and when you are working to keep pace against well resourced and focused competitors, time matters. we could easily avoid this outcome by passing a short-term patch while we continue working toward a broader funding agreement. i commend the leaders of the senate appropriations committee,

senator murray, senator collins, who hammered out the bipartisan continuing resolution before us. and also the leadership on both sides of the aisles. they have successfully reported out all 12 funding bills, senator collins and senator murray, by a wide -- by wide, bipartisan votes. our appropriation process is working on a bipartisan basis and working in a reasonable and responsible basis. several were voted out unanimously. they're well crafted and free from policy poison pills. they fit within the bipartisan agreement among the chair, the vice chair, and the leaders on overall funding levels. more importantly those bills meet the funding level that speaker mccarthy demands as a price of preventing the default of the u.s. government just this summer. we should pass these bills and

we could pass them, but for the objections of some republican senators who are working in concert with the house to obstruct the appropriations process from moving forward on a bipartisan basis. their wanton nihilism is damaging our country before we have made progress, we have a continuing resolution or c.r. which barring any dilatory tactics would clear the senate by a wide margin. i want to emphasize that this c.r. is nothing more than a patch. for a few more weeks it keeps the government open, keeps the aviation system operational and funded, keeps the insurance program authorized and ensures we'll continue to take care of disaster victims throughout the country. and it will ensure that the ukrainian people have the resources they need to win their fight for freedom. this is not extraffic advance.

-- extravigance. it's the bare minimum. the question is what will the house republicans do. after creating a default crisis that brought the entire economy to the brink of disaster in june, they've accomplished virtually nothing. for months house republicans have only been able to pass a single funding bill. the rest of their highly partisan bills have been bottled flup committee or blocked from passing on the floor by republicans themselves. in the midst of their intrigue, they seem to be trying to one up each other with one irresponsible and drastic cut after the other. it seems to be a competition over whose unworkable proposal can inflict more pain. perhaps they mistakenly believe that their extreme ideas are popular or will somehow hurt the president. but who -- title 1 funding is cut by 80%?

who is harmed when 1.3 million low-income individuals are kicked out of the snap program and when food assistance for seniors and kids is cut by 14%? how do we address the lack of affordable housing when the home investment partnership is slashed by $1 billion? how does ukraine win whether congress withholds -- when congress with 408ds critical funding -- withholds critical funding. let me underscore the significance of funding for ukraine. the assistance package the president is seeking for ukraine will provide much needed military assistance as well as aid to displace ukrainians whose citizens and towns continue to face indiscriminate bombardment by putin's forces. we know if putin is successful in seizing ukraine, he will not stop there. unless the united states and the international community continue to stand with ukraine, putin will continue to look for opportunities to inflict violence and violate the sovereignty and security of our allies and partners around the

world. and if putin succeeds because we have failed to help our other adversaries and competitors will be emboldened, too. indeed if putin succeeds, he will not stop at the ukraine. he will threaten nato countries. so the bottom line, frankly, is the probability that american military personnel are engaged in combat goes up and frankly one of our major missions should be to ensure through our efforts that that probability constantly goes down. we do not want to sacrifice american military personnel needlessly. congress should send a strong message to putin that we stand with the ukrainians as they bravely fight for their homeland. madam president, this is the second manufactured crisis that the house republicans have

created this year. first, they threatened to default on our nation's debt so president biden sat down with the speaker and negotiated an agreement that set spending levels for this year. now house republicans are walking away from that agreement and threatening to shutdown the government. it won't work. the american people can see the charade and if there's a shutdown, they will know who is responsible. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. reed: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call:

to get all the appropriation bills done and they can work on nothing else until that happens. this is set up to put the pressure and the punishment on not on the public. we need to pass the present government shutdowns act. we need to do it now. that's the way to prevent government shutdowns permanently. >> harvest is in full swing back home in iowa and on monday as i was driving up to the airport i

go through all of these wonderful communities lined with soybean fields, cornfields and some of the fondest memories that i have as a little girl in southwest iowa was always writing in the tractor, the combine with my dad or my uncle or my grandpa. and you you know i went on g really, really hard and it's such a different position than what we see here in washington, d.c. where yet once again congress as a body is not able to get its work done. and i think folks here in washington could really learn a lot from our hard-working iowans. and so this last friday i tried something new, and i brought a lot of these washington, d.c. agencies out to iowa for my first ever entrepreneur expo will be connected small businesses and individuals from the great state of iowa with those in government agencies to

learn about contracting opportunities. we really want to develop our small businesses in iowa. and again give them the shot at providing government, our federal government, with their next best idea. >> well, we saw the startling numbers i think from the august immigration to i talked about that last, illegal immigration i talked about that last week here at this week we i also realized as a way to see what's called the martin -- in martinsburg, west virginia, where it's an all hands on deck preventative initiative to fight addiction and the addiction crisis. the numbers that were released 111,000 americans lost their lives to fentanyl overdoses last year. my state of west virginia per population unfortunately leads that statistics and our statistics went up 4.5% in terms

of the number of lives that we lost. so as a look at this potential for a government shutdown, if we look at the alarming numbers at the border, what we are faced with is what the leader says. we are faced with asking our border patrol agents who are totally overrun, we are asking him to do now but now, now we could be asking them what he could be asked to work and not receive a paycheck. and so what happens? what happens to all these fentanyl deaths in the fentanyl coming over when we have a workforce that's overstretched and has to stop 224,000 illegals coming through, the drugs flood through and kill our americans and our young people and our sons and daughters. and it's just, it's a human crisis that we have here. so we got to keep the government running. we've got to pay and figure out a way to enforce the border. i think would be a great place to put on scr to have more

border protection. i mouse and before that but at this point right now, 77% of the american people do not believe we should shut the government down and i mean that 77%. and it think it will have great impacts not only on the border but also on those who are suffering from addiction and having issues with the flow of the nobody coming across our border. thank you. >> joe biden is a record breaking president. record high inflation, record high gas prices, record high illegal border crossings objection. mr. lankford: madam president, i've come to this floor several times over the past many years, and several times even recently to talk about a bill that senator hassan and very together that we've worked on very hard, to end government shutdown threats forever. this whole conversation that's happening right now in

washington, d.c. about a government shutdown is not something that's always happened in our republic. this conversation of a government shutdown has only really been since the mid-1980's to the present. before that there were no government shutdowns. even when appropriations lapsed and we had multiple times that appropriations lapsed in the past, we didn't have government shutdowns at that time, but it wasn't until there was actually an executive opinion back in the 1970's that it created this moment that we said we'll end up with a government shutdown if appropriations lapsed. we're in this moment again. this is a distinctly modern issue in american history that we need to bring to a close of this chapter. there is a way to do it. in conversations that we've had for years of how do we actually stop government shutdowns, there's been very partisan bills on both sides. senator hassan and i sat down and said, let's have a dialogue. how can we stop government shutdowns without having a partisan bill at the end of it?

what would be a way to fix this that both sides of the aisle would be able to say, that's a good way end to it? end government shutdowns, do appropriations bills. that shouldn't be a radical concept. that should be a head nod from everybody, quite frankly, from everybody in this room to say, sure, we can agree to end government shutdowns and do appropriations bills on time. our simple idea was this -- if you don't finish your work during class, you have to stay after class to finish your work. it's just not that hard. it's something all of us experienced growing up in school. if i can make it even simpler, when my older brother and i would get into an argument, my mom would put the two of us in a room and say, you two guys have got to go in this room. once you solve everything, they can you can come out. that's the genesis of this simple bill. it says, if we don't have our appropriations work done, we're still arguing about appropriations, the government continues to function as it has in the past year, exact same

budget line. everything continues as normal. the american people are held harmless. federal workers, federal contractors, all of them still continue as they have. but we experience the shutdown here in washington, d.c., not the rest of the country. we would be in session seven days a week. we could not move to bills other than the appropriations bills, so we are locked in a box to say, if you haven't finished your appropriations bills, you have to stay overtime to finish those appropriations bills, and you can't move to something different than appropriations bills. you've got to be able to do those. but again, the american people wouldn't feel it. federal workers wouldn't feel it. federal contractors wouldn't feel it. we would. if we didn't get our work done, why are the border patrol agents along the border, why are they being punished for us not getting our work done? because the border patrol

agents, if we don't get this done, next week they don't get a paycheck when they've been working overtime hours managing 11,000 people a day coming across the border and chaos that is currently on our border. those folks have been working as hard as they can, but because we haven't got our work done on the budgeting, now they don't get paid. oh, but we're still asking them to go on the line and to risk their life for their country anyway. that doesn't make sense to me. so our simple bill is, if the problem is up here, then the problem should remain up here and we should get this resolved but not actually put the consequences on those folks that are serving us all around the nation. as i came through tsa flying back to d.c., as probably most of my colleagues did coming back this week, tsa agents that i

passed by every week -- and we have great conversations as i pass by them in the airport every week, and as my bag is being checked and i'm going through the scanner like anyone else, the tsa agents are smiling at me and saying, am i going to get a paycheck next week? all they want to know is, i'm here defending the nation. am i still going to get paid? listen, right now on the border, right now, they're being absolutely overrun with people coming across the border. big numbers, huge overwhelming numbers used to be 1,000 people day. that was an overwhelming number. yesterday there were 11,000 people that crossed our southern border. they were literally just checked inasmuch as could be done to be able to manage them and to be able to put them through.

but if we have a shutdown, they're going to lose some of their support help, and we're going to have even more people just come across the border. here's what's happening -- beginning of any time that the border patrol actually come in, check in, they're trying to manage the number of people coming between the borders. with the numbers that are coming across, those border patrol agents that should be in the field, that should actually be monitoring what's happening with the illegal crossing across our border, illegal weapons across our border, all of the elements that are there moving across our border between ports of entry, they're not having the opportunity to chase those down because they're processing individuals. the majority of border patrol agents are in the station, not on the line. that only gets worse when we have a shutdown and they lose part of their help. during a shutdown, nonessential

is also declared the recruiting folks, which means we're not out there actively recruiting more antiquities to be able to join them -- agents to be able to join them and there's more administrative duties being done by border patrol that we desperately need on the line, and we are grateful for them on the line. last week i got notification that rail traffic had stopped in eagle pass, texas. now, most folks don't even know about the train traffic that happens around the country. they just know they go to the grocery store, they buy groceries. they go to the store and buy clothes and furniture. they just know it's there. but that's being moved by a truck driver, that's being moved by a rail very often. last week in eagle pass, texas, dhs shut down all rail traffic there because a thousand

migrants were riding the mexican rail coming up through mexico. they had climbed onto freight trains, and they were riding it all the way to the north, a thousand. but the response from dhs was just to shut the station down entirely. then they took the cbp folks that were at that station and normally handing legal traffic coming -- handle legal traffic coming out of mexico to the united states and from the united states to the mexico, they took those cbp agents and took them to process. there were-- we have so many pe, they literally shut 2 down. what was the effect of that? we had an american train traffic going south into mexico that was backed up from eagle pass all

the way to nebraska before it was said and done. i was on the phone with secretary mayorkas saying we need to get that station back open again. do we have people illegally crossing the border, riding the rails? his answer was no. but those agents were needed to be able to move migrants that were illegally crossing in other areas. the migration that's happening right now is not only affecting our national security because of the 11,000 people a day that are crossing our border, those individuals by and large are not being checked, they're not being vetted. we're checking to see if they're on the terror watch list. many of them we don't have a name or an i.d. or a reliable country of origin other than the one they just tell us is their name or tell us is there country of origin. -- is their country of origin. we have no idea. they're being quickly paroled into the country awaiting a hearing that is often eight to ten years in the future.

eight to ten years before they even get to hearing to determine if they're even eligible to be able to ask for asylum. this is insanity. but it doesn't get better if border patrol loses all of its help during the government shutdown. it gets worse. so we've got to be able to do a couple things at once -- we have to be -- we have to deal with the real fiscal problems that we have. we have over $2 trillion. we have to deal with the immigration crisis and call it what it is. when 11,000 people a day illegally enter your country, and members of this body just look the other way, that's a problem. and when there's a national security crisis based on it and we have governors and mayors across the nation crying out to

this body and saying, make it stop, they're knot even and democrat -- they're not republican and democrat governors. they're just governors trying to manage their towns and states. and they're saying, why isn't the federal government doing its job? the federal government has the responsibility for managing the border. do it. and we've got to deal with the issue of government shutdowns. they hurt us more than help us. it spends more money than it saves. and it dramatically affects a lot of federal workers around the country who just want to be able to serve their neighbors or to be able to do law enforcement and actually get paid for it. and i hear some of my colleagues and others say, they'll eventually get paid. you know what? that might be simple senator some members in this body that they're not worried about paycheck to paycheck. but there are an awful lot of

folks that live paycheck to paycheck. missing a couple paychecks is is a really big deal and all those federal contractors, they don't get back pay. they just don't get paid at all. we can't say they'll all get paid later. they won't. federal workers will eventually get back pay. but federal contractors never do. and it really hurts for them. and this shutdown is not their fault, it's ours. so maggie hassan and i have a simple idea -- let's keep working on the problems. but let's not have a shutdown at the same time. let's actually work out our problems in here and not hurt people all over the country who have no way of affecting what our debate is here. they're just trying to serve their neighbors. that's what i'm looking for.

>> it's obvious the house cannot accommodate this bill. should you guys continue down that path? >> look, the bottom line is if they put our bill on the floor it will pass. it would pass. and so we just hope that senator mikulski understands, lawrence

from the same example that you can't do this in a partisan way. we are waiting for a bipartisan approach to come from speaker mccarthy, if he doesn't come with a bipartisan approach. if he continues the partisanship he's going to cost a shutdown. he knows that. yes? >> are you willing to negotiate -- [inaudible] >> look, i'm not going to speculate on any specific amendment. all i can say is everything to keep this going is a good way. it's been done. everything has to be done bipartisan. everything. yes. [inaudible question] >> i talked to leader jeffries to a three times a day and we figure out the best strategy to get the house to behave in a bipartisan manner. last question. last question. [inaudible question] he ought to be focusing on the

cr and not shutting down the government. instead of just playing complete obedience to the hard right and a part as a way to a shutdown.

:

>> good afternoon, everyone. you are all familiar with the choice we have before us with the shutdown of the government, or keep the government open, open until november 17. that would give us a chance to continue to resolve a a numbef the appropriation issues. it's important to remember that if we shut down the government those of us who are concerned about the border and want it to be improved, the border patrol and ice agents have to continue to work for nothing. so i don't think even those of us who are deeply concerned about the border, i don't think that's likely, more likely to happen in a shutdown then if the government opened.

so the senate and house are quite different as you know, and i think in the senate we're going to continue to try to reach an agreement, pass it on a bipartisan basis and hopefully keep the government open. >> last year during consideration of inflation reduction act, there was a discussion about whether or not there would be increased audits of people making less than $400,000. because you all recall, the democrats appropriate or funded $80 billion for new irs agents, 87,000 new irs agents, and at the time republicans offered amendment led by senator crapo that would've forced the irs not to decrease audits on people making less than $400,000 per year. every single democrat voted

against that amendment. and now we find out to the irs watchdog that the irs is likely to be able to adhere to the pledge that they made to ensure that people making under $400,000 a year are not subject to increase audits under the guise of agility. they need agility in order to reach their funding goals for the irs. this is exactly what we suggested was going to happen. ultimately all that money all those new irs agents were going to start auditing people making less than $400,000 a year. and it's another byproduct of bidenomics. what if we got with bidenomics? we get increase audits, higher interest rates, crippling inflation, lower buying power and depleted savings accounts. that's what we get with bidenomics. that's what inflation reduction act ultimately is yielding returns of an outcome in results which many of us predicted. the work before it's obvious he this week as a leader pointed

out is to try and make sure we get the government funded so we get a normal appropriations process going where we can have the big policy and funding debate that we should be having through normal appropriation bills debates. we are not just members of the appropriations committee but also of our entire caucus have an opportunity to do them in the process voices heard. >> the government is on the verge of a shot at and the government is currently being operated using the bloated budget of pelosi and schumer and biden from last year with lots of wasteful washington spending. the american people deserve better, they deserve a government that is open and works for them. they deserve a government that is open and a border that is closed, which is why republicans will be working on an immense on what we're dealing with on the floor now that will stop the flow of illegal immigrants come into this country and stop the flow of illegal drugs that is

doing so much damage to the people of this country. what the public deserves a congress that provides a check on this out-of-control administration and the agenda coming out of the biden administration. the way to do that is to pass 12 appropriation bills. we have a responsibility to do that. that's why i'm such a proponent of the present government shutdowns act. i have continually cosponsored this every time over the last three congresses. simply speaking, this holds the public harmless and it holds washington here, republicans, democrats come house and senate here washington to get all the appropriation bills are done and they can work on nothing else until that happens. this is setup to put the pressure and the punishment on the politicians, not on the public. we need to pass the preventive shutdowns act. we need need to do it now.

that's the way to prevent government shutdowns permanently. >> harvest is in full swing back home in iowa, and on monday as i was driving up to the airport, i go through all of these wonderful communities language soybean fields, cornfields, and some of the fondest memories that i have as a little girl in southwest iowa was always writing in the tractor, the combine with my dad or my uncle and my grandpa. and, you know, iowans are working, working really, really, really hard, and it's such a different position than what we see here in washington, d.c. where yet once again congress as a body is not able to get its work done. and i think folks here in washington could really learn a lot from her hard-working iowans. and so this last friday i tried

something new, and i brought a lot of these washington, d.c. agencies out to iowa for my first ever entrepreneur expo where we connected small businesses and individuals from the great state of iowa with those in government agencies to learn about contracting opportunities. we really want to develop our small businesses in iowa, and again give them the shot at providing government, our federal government, with the next best idea. >> well, we saw the startling numbers i think from the august immigration. i talked about that last illegal immigration i talked about that last week. but this week i also realize as a way to see what's called the martinsburg initiative in martinsburg, west virginia, where it's an all hands on deck preventative initiative to fight

addiction in the addiction crisis. the numbers of release, 111,000 americans lost their lives to fentanyl overdoses last year. my state of west virginia per population unfortunately leads that statistic, and our statistics went up 4.5% in terms of the number of lives that we lost. so as a look at this potential for a government shutdown, if we look at the alarming numbers at the border, what we are faced with is what the leader says we are faced with asking our border patrol agents for totally overrun, we are asking them to do more now but now we could be asking them or they could be asked to work and not receive a paycheck. and so what happens? what happens to all the sentinel deaths and the fentanyl coming over when we have a workforce that's overstretched and has to stop 224,000 illegals coming through, the drugs flood through and kill our americans and our

young people and our sons and daughters. it's just, it's just a human crisis that we have here so we got to keep the government running. we've got to pay and figure out a way to enforce the border because he would be a great place to put it on ser took more border protection. i'm absolutely for that but at this point right now 77% of the american people do not believe we should shut the government out and i'm in that 77%. and i think it will have great impacts not only on the border but also on those who are suffering from addiction and having issues with the flow a of fentanyl that are coming across our border. thank you. ..

this administration who, quote, brought back transparency, conveniently disclosed the august border numbers in a friday evening news dump when they thought nobody was paying attention. i can see why they wanted the american people to miss of this. new numbers showing resident biden's southern border crisis just keeps breaking records. it is getting worse and worse. august alone saw a record at nearly 1/4 million illegal crossings. since biden took office there has been a record nearly 8 million crossings. that equivalent to adding three chicagos of illegal immigrants to the country and less than three years. it is out of control since day one. biden and the construction of the border control, into the remain in mexico policy and then ended title 42. and we as the american people are paying the price ever since,

fentanyl, crime, every state is a border state. we had more than 100,000 drug overdose deaths in 2022. another record. another record was set as well. record low approval rating is for president biden just came out on his handling of the southern border. it is time for president biden to stop breaking records, start securing the southern border. shut down the border, don't shut down the government. >> disagreement with speaker mccarthy on the senate bill, should this not have been much resistance on the outside of the building? >> for over 200 years the senate and the house have been very different. what we are focusing on is to

keep the government open, continue to pay the people who are central to our security like air traffic controllers, border patrol, capital police, because the constitution requires that we continue to be paid during shutdown. it is completely unfair to the american people. i don't want to give the speaker any advice how to run the house particularly through you and we are going to concentrate. a ga

crowd of concertgoers. in just ten minutes, ten minutes, 58 innocent people were struck down, hundreds of others were injured by gunfire, and hundreds more were hurt in the chaos that # followed. in the years since, we have lost more individuals as a result of this tragedy. the deadliest mass shooting in american history. so just think about what that means, madam president. it means families will forever have an empty chair at their

kitchen table. families will relive this horrific night each and every year. families who didn't get to celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, holidays and families who never got to say good-bye to their loved ones. that night also changed the lives of everyone here. people who were attending or working at the festival and first responders, well, they ran toward the danger. the full extent of the damage caused by this brutal attack, it can never truly be measured. but in this dark moment, we saw our community go above and beyond to help others. las vegas, actually our entire state, we rallied together, not just in the immediate aftermath, but in the days, weeks, months, and even years after. in the chaos and confusion of that night, our heroic first

responders, police officers, paramedics, they ran into the scene to help. and their efforts that night saved lives. and in the following days we saw lines of people -- lines of people around entire blocks willing to donate blood -- wanting to donate blood. and one story really sticks out to me. i remember speaking to a woman waiting to give blood in line, and when i went up to talk to her, she lifted up her arms like this to me, sheen had tears in her -- and she had tears in her eyes and said i don't have much but i have my blood to give. this is what i can give. i remember her face to this day. it stays with me. and this kind selflessness, this really embodies the incredible spirit of our community and that

woman's donation and the stories that she'll tell and me meeting her has left an indelible imprint on me. and so we come together to mourn those we lost and to support those who survived. this horrible moment showed the country why we're vegas strong. and i'm here today to honor the memories of those who were impacted by that terrible night. so as we remember and reflect on this event, we must also commit ourselves to action, and in the years since, we have made some progress. after decades of inaction, democrats and republicans in congress came together to pass the most significant gun safety legislation in almost 30 years. this bipartisan law is making a difference, but we can and we must do more to stop mass

shootings. no community -- no community should ever have to experience the same pain and suffering that we went through in las vegas. so we can take common sense bipartisan steps like permanently banning bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. these things allowed the shooter to fire so many round and cause so much carnage. doing nothing, it is not an option. we owe it to those who have experienced the pain of gun violence to do more, and we owe it to future generations to do more. and at the end of the day, what this really is about, it's about keeping people and communities safe. it's about people and communities, keeping them safe, keeping us safe. and we must keep working to

prevent these tragedies. and, madam president, as we approach the six-year mark since this horrific shooting, i ask all of my colleagues in this chamber to remember and honor the victims of october 1, their lives, their legacy, and their families. thank you, madam president.

>> thank you for coming and

special thanks to senator murray for joining us here today, thank you. as you know, yesterday afternoon, thanks to the hard work of so many, especially chairman murray, we reached a bipartisan agreement on a cr that will keep the government open through november 17th, maintain our commitment to ukraine, ensure those affected by natural disasters get the resources they need and continue funding at last year's level. the bill doesn't have everything either side wants, it's a bridge cr. that is what we call a bridge to getting the things we do want in november. and that is really important. last night, the agreement past. it was a great vote, attributed to the senate, attributed not only to patty and me but to susan collins and mitch

mcconnell and the other republicans as well. that strong bipartisan vote says the senate will now move forward, a motion to proceed tomorrow absent an agreement to do it sooner and keep the government open. unfortunately, that is not happening in the house. republicans appear to be taking the opposite path, a path headed to shut down. the truth is every approach house republicans are pushing are partisan. every cr has been aimed at the extreme hard right. every path they have pursued to date will inevitably lead to a shut down. speaker mccarthy wants to move a partisan cr that has no chance of becoming law. why? is he trying to help the country or is he simply trying to appease the 30 most extreme members of his caucus?

the same amaga republicans the speaker seeks to satisfy, the same members who seem happy to shut down the government have already rejected his plan to avoid one. this is not an impossible puzzle to solve. the solution remains clear. speaker mccarthy needs to stop letting the amaga radicals hold is decisions and do the obvious and responsible plan. past the bipartisan cr to prevent this reckless shutdown. we hope he will come to his senses and emulate what we do. bipartisan, bipartisan, bipartisan. it is the only way, the only way to avoid a shut down. if amaga republicans get their way, the dangers to this country will be great. extremism will dominate. the ultra-wealthy will be empowered, working families will suffer, women's healthcare will be more curtailed. we in the senate don't want to

go down that troubling road. the speaker should resist the 30 or so republicans who want to drag us in that direction. he can do it by giving bipartisanship a chance just as we are doing in the senate. senator murray. >> thank you. i have been working around the clock with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and my leader to put together a serious, straightforward and bipartisan continuing resolution because as i have been saying, there's absolutely no reason for a shut down. and we showed that yesterday by voting overwhelmingly last night to move forward with this legislation. this is bipartisan bill that we wrote to make sure it could pass the senate, past the house, as long as it was brought up for a vote. we wrote if so we could begin to address the urgent issues facing

our country and avoid a reckless government shutdown while we work to pass our 12 bipartisan appropriations bills in the senate. this package addresses major bipartisan priorities of congress. continued support for disaster relief efforts and for our allies in ukraine. it will prevent a pay cut for our heroic wildland fire fighters. it will avoid chaos and furloughs for air traffic controllers and community health centers and more. this is a meticulously negotiated bipartisan bill that can be signed into law as soon it it is passed. if any senator or extremist in the house wants to force a shut down, make no mistake, working americans will pay the price. by the way, a shut down will be far more costly than simply keeping the government open. not only would a shut down be devastating for our economy and

jeopardize our credit, it will also cut out paychecks for our military, for our border officials who are stopping fentanyl, our firefighters and so many other public servants who are counting on that paycheck that they earned to make ends meets not to mention the millions of contractors who work with government agencies as well. the needless shutdown would cut off parents and kids from childcare they rely on from head start, patients from nih trials and community health centers, small businesses, farmers, loans they need to get by and that's just the tip of the iceberg so let's be clear. the most expensive outcome here is a government shutdown. a few senators don't care for what is in this bill, you can never make anyone happy but there is no reason for any senator to weapon eyes senate

procedures and force a totally unnecessary shut down. there is no reason for the house to not take up this bill either. if you don't like the bill, vote no. every one of us has been in the position before but do not force the entire country into a shut down that will cost billions of dollars, undermine our economy, undermine our national security and hurt families just because you disagree with the vast majority of your colleagues. that's not a serious way to govern. it is not responsible. you know who is rooting for the united states government shutdown right now? putin and the chinese commonest party. it is time for every member of congress to step up and show some leadership. there is no reason we should not be able to pass this bill and avert a government shutdown. none. let's get it done. thank you very much.

>> i want to say a word about the men and does indictment before i take questions. like you, i was deeply disappointed, disturbed, when i read the indictment. i have known senator menendez a long time and was truly upset, but we all know that senators, for senators there's a much higher standard and clearly senator menendez fell below that standard. tomorrow, he will address the democratic caucus and we will see what happens after that. >> it he resigned? >> as i said, tomorrow he will address our caucus and we will see what happens after that. >> you got 77 votes.

>> would have been 80 with everyone there. >> i hope so. that said. to accommodate this bill. should you guys continue down that path? >> the bottom line, they put our bill on the floor, it would pass. we just hope that senator mccarthy understands, learns from the senate example that you can't do this in a partisan way. we are waiting for a bipartisan approach to come from speaker mccarthy. if he doesn't come with a bipartisan approach, if he continues the partisanship, he will cause a shut down. he knows that. >> are you willing to have language on that? >> i won't speculate on any specific amendments.

everything to keep this going in the good way it has been done. everything has to be done bipartisan. i have talked to leader jeffries two or three times a day and we are figuring out the best strategy to get the house to behave in a bipartisan manner. last question. it [inaudible question] >> he ought to be focusing on the cr and not shutting down the government instead of complete -- complete obeisance to the hard right in the partisan way. >> out of the question? [inaudible conversations]

mr. padilla: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from california. mr. padilla: madam president, there are moments in history that shock our national conscience, news so heartbreaking that we'll always remember exactly where we were

when we heard the news. one of those moments is the day that the el motti garment workers were found enslaved in california. as recently as august 2, 1995, there were 72 thai women and men discovered, held against their will, in the city of el motti, california, just outside los angeles. it was there, in a series of apartments turned sweatshops, packed in between sewing machines, forced to work 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and hidden behind barbed wire fences with armed guards, that some of them believed help would never come. they were lured by recruiters

with the promise of their own american dream. 72 thai women and men arrived in the united states, only to find a nightmare. when they were liberated by federal agents on that day, that nightmare wasn't over. instead, they were placed into holding cells where they feared they'd be deported after the horrific experience. it wasn't until a 26-year-old staff attorney for the asian pacific american legal center, by the name of julie su, among others -- julie su, among others who took on their pay for back pay and dignity in this country that they had once only dreamt about. now, in the -- when the 72 thai nationals were finally, truly freed, they actually owed nothing to this country.

and yet, they stood up and fought to protect others from going through the hell that they had endured. their advocacy led to meaningful protections in america, including the landmark federal victims of trafficking and violence prevention act, which created a new class of visas for victims of crimes like forced labor and trafficking and strengthened the penalties for trafficking crimes. now, just last week now-acting labor secretary julie su, yes, the same julie su, had the opportunity to induct the el monte thai garment workers into the department of labor's hall of honor, honoring the courage they've shown and the progress they've made to protect other workers. now, i also had the privilege of getting to meet them in

washington last week, and i was proud to join senators duckworth and feinstein in introducing a resolution to honor them by the united states senate. but if each and every one of them has shown us the best way to respond to the atrocities they went through, the best way to honor them is through our action, by keeping up the fight to end human trafficking, by working to end wage theft that exploits far too many workers in the garment industry, and passing the fabric act, and by, in my opinion, finally confirming a champion for workers and worker rights, like julie su to be secretary of labor. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: madam president, are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: no. the majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 370 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 370, to constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the 118th congress, or until their successors are chosen. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor.

mr. padilla: madam president. i'm back. i rise today, a week after the senate confirmed judge rita lin to serve on the u.s. district court for the northern district of california. i take a moment to celebrate her confirmation and share with the people of california a bit more about the outstanding public servant and jurist they've gained on the federal bench. judge lin earned her degree from harvard. after clerking on the first circuit court of appeals for judge sandra lynch, they starptsed out her legal career as an associate and later became partner at the firm morris forster in san francisco. but in 2014 she left private practice to pursue a career in public service joining the u.s.

attorney's office for the northern district of california. four years later governor brown appointed judge lin to the san francisco county superior court where she presided over both felony and misdemeanor trials. at every step judge lin's career has been guided by her dedication to public service. whether by maintaining an extensive probono practice in the early years of her career or by leaving behind the promise of a very lucrative career in private practice to serve in the northern district u.s. attorney's office. judge lin has proven she has the heart and mind worthy of a federal district judge. and as someone who has lived her entire life with a hearing disability, she also brings a unique perspective from a community not often representative in our nation's federal judiciary.

the state of california is now lucky to have a federal district court judge not only with the judicial qualifications of judge lin but with the voice, the personal experience, and the passion for public service she brings each and every day. i'm going to thank my colleagues for confirming her nomination. i want to congratulate judge lin once again on her confirmation. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, calendar number 266, tara k. mcgrath, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action

and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from ohio. a senator: thank you, madam president. reserving the right to object. i will continue my hold on unanimous consent for just department nominations so long as i feel the department of justice is being used for politics instead of justice. my arguments on this point have already been made but i will repeat them for the benefit of anybody who hasn't heard me before. from a caght lick pro-life father of seven who was arrested in france of his children like a common criminal for exercising his first amendment rights to parents investigated by the fbi for exercising their first amendment right of protest at school board meetings to the leader of the opposition and the likely challenger to president joe biden, former president comfort. we have a department of justice that has run amok with a focus on politics instead of on justice. mr. vance: my colleagues make

some good points. i agree with my colleagues that u.s. attorneys play an important role. i agree we need a department of justice that is fully staffed to do its job. but i don't think the solution to the politicization of the department of justice is to let these guys through on a glide path. i think it's to provide proper consent, proper advisement and proper scrutiny of each one of these nominees which we can't let them dough if we allow them to sail through unanimous consent. i'll continue this hold but let me make one final point before i allow my colleague to respond. i'm a new guy and i recognize that i'm a little naive whether it comes to matters of the procedure of the united states senate. but i've had a lot of jobs in my life. yesterday we cast one vote and today we have cast zero votes. the time that we have spent debating whether we should have unanimous consent over these nominations we could actually use to vote on these nominations and in this charade and call it out for what -- end this charade and call it out for what it is. if we believe these nominees

should go forward, let us have a vote on them, allow me to security niz it and vote up or down. that's a total reasonable thing to ask of this chamber and its leadership and because of that, madam president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. padilla: madam president, it's been two months since i first came to the floor to call for the confirmation of tara mcgrath, president biden's nominee to serve as u.s. attorney for the southern district of california. that day in july, my republican colleague from ohio chose as he's done today to play political -- put political gamemansship over the safety of the american people and to hold her nomination hostage to leverage completely unrelated issues. two months later clearly nothing's changed. and as a result since early august, the southern district of california has gone without a

confirmed u.s. attorney. and that's despite the fact that a highly qualified candidate was approved by the senate judiciary committee after a confirmation hearing, after the proper vetting and review, and is awaiting a full vote on the senate floor. yet because my republican colleague has chosen to politicize our justice department and the confirmation process and hinder the work of multiple law enforcement offices as they await confirmation ever their leadership, law enforcement -- of their leadership, law enforcement is now forced to work harder than necessary to keep our communities safe. that includes the senator's own home state of ohio where the northern district is currently without a senate-confirmed u.s. attorney for the longest stretch in that office's history.

and now in my home state, the southern district of california has become tangled in this political mess. make no mistake, these delays damage the effectiveness of u.s. attorney offices across the country. like the confirmation of hundreds of our military leaders, these crucial law enforcement nominations are being treated like pawns in their political game. if you truly care about public safety in our communities, if you truly care about enforcing the law, and if you truly care about cracking down on fentanyl and saving american lives, a claim i hear constantly from my colleagues, then confirm tara mcgrath in the southern district and allow for the swift confirmation of a host of u.s. attorneys that are still being held up. the people of california and the

people of the united states deserve better than this. so i call on my colleagues to stop weaponizing the senate procedures, to confirm ms. mcgrath, and all the qualified nominees before us and take seriously the job that americans have sent us here to do. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, i rise today to speak about the critical role that u.s. attorneys play in keeping america safe from the scourge of drugs, like opioids, fentanyl, gun violence and violent crime. why are we on the floor? we're on the floor because one senator has decided to stop the appointment of the united states attorneys for the department of justice across the united states. he's picked four states, one is a pretty red state, mississippi, california, ohio, his own home state, and my state of illinois, to stop the u.s. attorneys from

being approved by the united states senate. this is a pattern. the senator from alabama, senator tuberville, has stopped 300 military officers, career officers, from getting a promotion for more than six months. many of these career officers, women and men who fought in combat, we salute them every memorial day. we say that we love our veterans and i certainly do. i'm sure the senator from ohio does, too, and yet they're being treated so shabbily here in the united states senate that the leading veterans organization in the united states of america has protested what this alabama senator is doing. he's stopping 300 of the best highest ranked individuals who will lead our military in the world from being approved in the united states senate for six months. more than six months. does he have a specific complaint about any one of them? no. just categorically this is his

political approach. let's stop all the military from a promotion. is that fair to them and their families? i don't think so. now let's take a look at this situation. the senator from ohio has decided he's upset with the department of justice. how upset is he? here's what he said. i will hold all department of justice nominations. listen to this. we will grind the justice department to a halt. grind the justice department to a halt, he says. well, let's see. the people at the department of justice and u.s. attorneys, did they do anything important? do we really need them? well, how about starting with the issue of narcotics. 180,000 americans died from narcotics last year, 180,000. you might know some from your community, your church, your business. 70,000 from fentanyl. let's talk about fentanyl for a minute. what is this narcotic?

well, it's the new and deadliest narcotic on the streets. let me tell you a story that breaks my heart because i know this couple. they had a daughter graduated from college. she went to a party in chicago. marijuana is legal in illinois. she decides to smoke a joint at the party. it's been laced with fentanyl and she drops dead on the spot. 22 years of age. fentanyl is a deadly narcotic. where does it come from? it comes from mexico. mainly from mexico. two drug cartels that are sweeping the united states and into europe with the sale of fentanyl that is killing people right and left. last year 70,000 americans. who is trying to fight the scourge of fentanyl? the department of justice, the same agency that this senator wants to grind to a halt. are we going to declare on time out, call the mexican cartels and say don't be selling your fentanyl for a while because we're going to make sure you don't have leadership that you need in your department.

how can we do something that irresponsible? don't stand up and say you're for law and order, you're for law enforcement and then turn around and stop the appointment of u.s. attorneys who prosecute the criminals who are responsible for the narcotic sales. i came to the floor last week and asked unanimous consent for the senate to take up and confirm these combinations. their nominations are todd gee, u.s. attorney for the southern district of mississippi. if you think this is partisan, let me tell you the whole story. todd is from mississippi with two republican senators. both republican senators approved his appointment as u.s. attorney. is this political? both republican senators are supporting the nominee being held by another republican senator. it doesn't make sense. tara mcgrath, the request was made by the senator from california just a few moments ago. she wants to be the united states attorney for the southern district of california. eminently qualified, no

controversy with her nomination. rebecca lutzko. this is interesting. u.s. attorney for the northern district of ohio. the same state as the senator who is now objecting to her. he approved her. she went through the committee. she came out and was reported to the floor and now she's being head up. well let's take a look here. does ohio have a narcotics problem? i'm going to make sure i get this right. oh, my. in the last year ohio had 5,1455 drug over-- 5,155 drug overdose deaths, fourth highest in america. the u.s. attorney who would be fighting these narcotics with appropriate task force of law enforcement is being held up by which senator? the same state. the senator from ohio is holding up his own u.s. attorney to

prosecute narcotics criminals. and it's not just drugs. in cleveland, the largest city in the northern district of ohio, the number of homicides is up 30% compared to last year. nearly 90% of all overall homicides in cleveland this year have involved a firearm. the city has seen a 99% increase in vehicle grand theft, a federal crime. so far in 2023. so to deal with the crime in the streets, to deal with the homicides, the firearm violations and the increase in vehicle grand theft you count on one major prosecutor. who is it? the u.s. attorney. so you have a vacancy in the u.s. attorney's office. the senator from ohio approves the person to fill the vacancy and then stops her nomination on the floor of the united states senate. i can't follow his logic unless you're determined to grind the department of justice to a halt, even at the expense of the people you represent, the people

you were sent here to protect. don't tell me you're for law and order in your own neighborhood when you stop the nomination of a u.s. attorney with no controversy. it makes no sense. u.s. attorneys are an integral part of our justice system. overseeing important operations that help protect our communities. they're empowered to prosecute all federal criminal offenses. they play a critical role in enforcing the law. in the northern district of ohio, for example, the u.s. attorney's office led the response to a surge in fatal doses from fentanyl. it brought together doctors, state and local law enforcement and created the u.s. attorneys heroin and opioid task force. this is in the northern district of ohio. this u.s. attorney is to fill the spot to lead that, but she's being held up on the calendar by whom? the senator from ohio.

u.s. attorney's office for the northern district of illinois also recently secured the conviction of a drug trafficker who attempted to traffic one kilogram of fentanyl pills made to look like oxycodone into the state. in addition, the office coordinated with the atf on a three hnl month violent crime reduction initiative in cleveland that resulted in the arrest of 59 individuals charged with firearms trafficking, narcotics, conspiracy and other firearms offenses. are these important? they would be important in chicago. they would be important in los angeles. they're important, i'm sure, in cleveland and other cities as well. these convictions are trying to keep people safe in their homes and communities and reduce violent crime. the lead federal prosecutor is a u.s. attorney. it's a vacant position we're trying to fill with a person demonstrated competence to take it over. who is holding it up? the senator from ohio. i don't understand it. when he ran for office senator

vance argued that he would, quote, fight the criminals and not the cops. well, take a look at what's happening here. in this situation the people we need to fight these criminals, the prosecutors, are being held up by the senator before they can be voted on on the floor. he has pledged to be, quote, tough on crime and support our brave law enforcement officers. in fact, just this may he introduced a resolution in the senate saying, quote, he supported law enforcement officers of the united states. his resolution said the senate highly respects and values law enforcement officers of the united states and greatly appreciates all they do to protect and serve. the senator's resolution calls on, quote, all levels of government to ensure that law enforcement officers receive the support and resources needed to keep our communities safe. support and resources are great, but give them the job. the job is still vacant because the senator is withholding approval for them to move forward. i say to my colleagues, re-read

the resolution he introduced last may and take your own advice. give these u.s. attorney's offices the leadership they need to keep their community safe. now i'd like to engage the senator, if he doesn't mind, in a question. i listened carefully who what you -- to what you said earlier in objecting to the u.s. attorney for the southern district of california. what is your position if you don't mind stating it in terms of a vote on that nomination? mr. vance: my position is we should have a full senate vote on each one of these judicial nominations, of these justice department nominations. my position is that we shouldn't let them sail through unanimous consent. mr. durbin: you want a record vote for each u.s. attorney? mr. vance: i'd like it a record vote for all nominations moving forward, yes. durbin --. mr. durbin: do you understand

before president biden was elected that was all that was necessary? mr. vance: i don't know that but i believe my colleague from illinois compared to how it worked. what is different now is we have a justice department weaponized against plim opponents. i understand much of what you said, senator durbin and i appreciate your passion for this issue and my heart goes out to your friends who lost someone to fentanyl. i too know someone who lost someone to a fentanyl overdose. what will facilitate effect justice in this country is for the american people to see the department of justice focused on justice instead of politics. that is what this is fundamentally about. do we have a department of justice that has the trust of the american people? senator durbin, i don't think any of my democratic colleagues could look at public polling and not admit that the department of justice has lost a substantial amount of public confidence just in the last year. how can we have effective administration of justice if we

fill the department of justice with people who are perceived rightfully or not as political actors by the people who receive that justice? mr. durbin: is the senator auburn -- i'm not going to ask the question. i'll just state generally. people who were involved in the prosecution of former president trump were attorneys appointed to that position by president trump. and special counsel, separate and apart from the department of justice, independently making those decisions. your decision to stop u.s. attorneys from taking these jobs means that they will not be even able in a position to be able to prosecute individuals of either political party who are guilty of criminal wrongdoing. do you understand that? vance i have two re -- mr. vance: i have two responses to that. first of all, you appreciate as well as i do that we've had zero votes today. i don't control how many people we vote on.

i believe you do under senate procedures and senate rules. if it's so important to confirm these folks bring them to the floor for a vote. mr. durbin: i'm going to make a unanimous consent request consistent with that statement you just made. i listened to it carefully. i don't know if you've been given a copy but i want to make sure you understand it. mr. vance: as the senator from illinois i assume knows well i'm not the only person holding nominations. i'm happy to grant consent on the ones where i'm the only hold. where i have other colleagues i can't release the hold with respect to other colleagues. mr. durbin: you're not expected to. if individuals have objections, it's their responsibility to be present fizically. you can't mail it in. mr. vance: i'm representing other colleagues. they object. i'm not going to release a hold on their behalf. mr. durbin: even if you got a

roll call vote you're not going to allow us to hold a vote? mr. vance: you know the procedures better than i do and you can bring these up for a vote later today and all of us will have to vote for them. why don't you do that? mr. durbin: that's what i'm going to do now. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar number 129, 314, 315, 266, that there be two minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form on each nomination. that upon the use or yielding back of the time the senate will proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. mr. vance: madam president.

the presiding officer: the junior senator from ohio. mr. vance: as the senator knows well, my colleagues have been given no notice. they have no sense that this is being done. and i'm not going to release their objection on their behalf, as the senator from illinois knows well. hiem happy to release my own objection but i'm not going to release theirs. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: i gave him what he asked for and he said it wasn't enough. he has to have every other senator come to the floor and greap to this. let me say this is a unanimous consent request for four u.s. attorneys who have gone through the senate judiciary committee, they went through that bipartisan committee and have been reported to the floor. this is customary, ordinary, there is nothing controversial about these individuals. but still in all, not good enough. he's objected to even having a vote later in the day on the very nominations that he asked a vote for earlier. he can't have it both ways. if you're going to vote no

against these nomes under any -- nominees, make it clear. to say you want any other senator, they can be here on the floor if they want to object personally. to my knowledge, the junior senator from ohio is the only one objecting and it's a shame he has because these u.s. attorneys are neapedded desperately in -- are needed desperately. to think of what we're going through to the point where a congressman who is chairman of the house judiciary committee came to chicago to hold a hearing this week to outline how much trouble we have with violent crime, we do have problems with violent crime. we certainly need a u.s. attorney, which is one of the persons up for this nomination, to do her best to make sure that we have a safe he were community in chicago -- safer community in chicago. how can she do it if she can't clear the senate floor? i hope the senator will get it straight what he's trying to chief here. if he wants a roll call vote i

just offered it to him. i'm going to return to the floor to make this unanimous consent request. sadly, crime will continue to be committed in ohio, mississippi, california, and in many instances could have been avoided if the senator with regular dispatch approach decided to move these nominations forward as they have been traditionally. to say that you want the department of justice to grind to a halt in the united states of america, come on. that's the kind of statement you make in a speech and come back later and say i didn't mean that exactly. certainly no one means that exactly. we don't want the department of justice to stop its fight against narcotics and fentanyl in the united states that is claiming thousands of lives and slowing down that process here on the senate floor is just unacceptable. i yield the floor. mr. vance: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from california. mr. padilla: i recognize that my colleague from ohio will not speak on behalf of other

republican members, but i would respectfully ask if he would lift his hold on the nomination of tara mcgrath to be u.s. attorney for the southern district of california. mr. padilla: the senator from ohio to respond to my question. i respectfully ask if my colleague from ohio would lift his hold on the nomination of tara mcgrath to be u.s. attorney for the southern district of california. yes or no. mr. vance: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from ohio. mr. vance: senator padilla, i'm happy to do that. i'm the only person holding 266.

i want these nominations to hold a vote to be scriewt -- scrutinized by the entire senator. i'm happy to not release the hold but bring it to the senate for a full vote. mr. padilla: thank you.

test.

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, calendar number 129 and 266, two minutes of debate equally divided for each nomination, upon the use of yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote on the nominees in the order listed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no sint veeng action or debate, nor further motions be in order, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president, for those who were following this

debate, we had four nominations that were being held. two were just approved many we will keep working to make sure that all four are approved. the four remaining are in the states of illinois and ohio. we feel just as intensely as those vacancies as all the order, with we will have a roll call vote on two that have been approved on both sides. i yield the floor.

mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska.

mr. sullivan: mr. president, thank you. i'm going to speak about a really important bill that i'm hoping we're going to pass right here on the senate floor. it's passed, by the way, previously. it's called the pay our military act. and, mr. president, it's pretty simple. in the event of a shutdown, and right now we're all working hard to make sure we avoid it, we need to make sure that the men and women who protect us get paid. that's it. simple. really, really simple. now, i know back home in the great state of alaska there's a lot of frustration with our government. it seems every day the biden administration has another order to shut down alaska, lock up our lands, put people out of work, skyrocketing prices and everything from gas to food, interest rates at 40-year highs, illegal immigration, which is just flooding across the

southern border, a literal invasion happening right now. a lot of people are frustrated with what's happening. and the potential of a government shutdowns is not going to -- government shutdown is not going to help any of that in my view. but, mr. president, this is something that every member of the senate should agree on. if there is a shutdown, a lot of us are working hard to avoid that, we need an insurance policy for our military personnel, the brave men and women who are serving on the front lines right now at home, abroad, dangerous work, keep us safe. they need nothing less than the unwavering support of the united states senate, the men and women who protect us often at great personal sacrifice. the least we can do as their representatives is to make sure they receive their hard-earned pay regardless of the political

circumstances that may unfold. my pay our military act is not about partisan politics, ttion not about ideological -- partisan -- it's about fulfilling our solemn obligation to our troops and their families, and it's about providing them the stability and peace of mind that they need to do their jobs. regardless of what happens here, they will continue to serve, to deploy, to train. we've seen in the last couple of weeks, training can also be very dangerous, had some marines recently killed down in australia in an osprey accident. the last thing these men and women need to worry about is whether or not they're going to get a paycheck next week, whether or not they're going to be able to support their families next week in the event

there's a government shutdown. i want to emphasize again that i hope this bill is unnecessary -- unnecessary, but the fact remains that this certainly could happen, a government shutdown, and if it does, we need to pay our military. right now. now, mr. president, there's precedent, very strong precedent on this very bill, this commonsense bill that historically received the strong support from both sides of the aisle and in both houses. let me be specific. facing an imminent government shutdown in 2013, which ended up lasting 16 days, this bill, pay our military act, was passed unanimously by the u.s. senate and unanimously by the u.s.

house. and signed by the president. congress recognized then the importance of uninterrupted military pay for our military members and their families. and the political makeup was actually the same. you had a democrat in the white house, you had a democrat-controlled senate, and a republican-controlled house. so simple. while i urge my colleagues to put aside their differences and come together in the spirit of unity, to support this bill, i am a little concerned. my colleague and friend senator cruz and i came down to the floor last week to pass another related bill. this would have guaranteed coast guard members got paid in a government shutdown. we did that because in 2019, the only branch of the military services that didn't get paid when there was a government shutdown was the coast guard.

everybody else got paid, the coast guard didn't. senator cruz and i came down here last week and said, hey, in the event of a shutdown, we've got to make sure that the coast guard gets paid. it was blocked. it was blocked. i still don't know what my colleague from washington state was talking about when she blocked it. something about the authority of the appropriations committee. what? nobody cares about that. do you support our troops or not? so this bill is even more simple. our bill, pay our military, covers all branches, including the coast guard and civilians at the department of defense secretary and homeland secretary believe are necessary also to pay. now, mr. president, again, i hope like in 2013, this is going to pass unanimously and, as i mentioned last week, my colleague from washington state objected to the pay our coast guard bill. it was confounding, particularly

because she was a cosponsor of the exact same bill in 2019. as a matter of fact, here's what she wrote in 2019 when there was a government shutdown and we were trying to pay the coast guard. it's absolutely unacceptable, this is it the senator from washington state, that our coast guard families went without their paychecks during the shutdown. we need to make sure president trump doesn't put them through this again. whoa. that was the senator from washington state during the last shutdown. wish she would have said that last week. so i'm very hopeful that what happened in 2013, the senate, house unanimously came together when there was an imminent shutdown and said, hey, we might not be able to figure out how to keep the government open, but here's one darn thing we're going to do, we're going to pay our military. mr. president, i hope we can dpo

that again -- do that again and i hope that people who want to use the military as political pawns during a government shutdown will not be objected to this bipartisan, much-needed bill that ten years ago had the support of everybody. i yield to my colleague from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today in support of my friend from alaska in a plea to sanity and common sense in this body. we are three days away from an impending government shutdown. now, i believe a shutdown is likely because i believe president biden and senator schumer want a shutdown. i think they believe it benefits them politically to force a shutdown. whether i'm right or wrong in that, everyone acknowledges there is a very significant risk of a shutdown 72 hours from now.

as it stands right now, if we have that government shutdown 72 hours from now, our service men and women will still go to work, our military will still show up. even with a shutdown, the military has to do its job and keep this nation safe, but what will happen is their paychecks will go away. now, last week senator sullivan and i both came to the senate floor seeking to pass my legislation, the pay our coast guards act. that legislation is bipartisan. i'm the ranking member on the senate commerce committee. it was authored by me and cosponsored by maria cantwell, the chairman of the senate commerce committee and it was also cosponsored by senator sullivan and senator tammy baldwin, the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. rlt last time we had -- the last time we had a shutdown in 2019,

the schumer shutdown, the government was shut down for 34 days and soldiers and airmen and marines were paid because the department of appropriations bill had been passed but coast guardmen were not, they're not under dod, they're under the department of homeland security. for 30 days, our heroic coast guard were there when people needed them in times of disaster, and yet they didn't get a paycheck. that was wrong and in 2019, senator sullivan and i came to the floor to pay our coast guard in the middle of the schumer shutdown and democrats objected. democrat leadership said, no, we will not pay our coast guard men. last week we tried to get bipartisan legislation. let's do it right. let's not hurt brave young men and women protecting this country.

unfortunately democrat leadership stood up and uttered two words, i object. and in fact the senator from washington had an argument that i found thoroughly curious. she said well, this bill, the cruz--- that cruz and sullivan are trying to pass, it wouldn't technically mandate that coast guardsmen be paid because what the bill provided is they should be paid if soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines -- we should treat them fairly and evenly. that's the reason i'm objecting because it doesn't mandate that it:has. you know what? what the senator from washington asked for is what we are right here now doing. this bill does what she said last week was the reason she was objecting, that's what this bill does. ten years ago this bill passed the senate 100-0. you and i were both in the senate. that means you voted for it.

i voted for t. it means the senator from washington voted for it. it means the house passed it unanimously. but in the decade that has passed, i guess common sense has gone out the window. so i want to say something right now. to every soldier, every sailor, every airman, every marine, every coast guardsman, every member of the space force, you're a 19 year-old private or corporal, stationed at fort bliss right now, next week there's a very good chance your paycheck is going away. we're going to find out in just a few moments whether or not your paycheck is going away. and just listen very carefully. for two words. if we hear two words from the senator from washington, the words i object, those two words uttered on behalf of democrat

leadership will kill this bill. and when your paycheck goes away next week, understand you would have been paid except for the fact that democrat leadership decided it's in their political interest to hold that 19-year-old private hostage, never mind that you can't pay for groceries, for your wife and kid that week. never mind that you can't pay your rent, you can't pay your bills. never mind a marine who's stationed in harm's way that your paycheck is going to go away. why? because partisanship is so rife in this town that the democrat leadership believe they could hold these young fighting men and women hostage and pay no political price. i hope the senator from washington listens to what i've said and what the senator from alaska has said and decides, you know, it's not right to hold these brave men and women

hostage. we're not going to do t. i hope democrat leadership -- do it. i hope democrat leadership puts principle above partisan politics but we're about to find out. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appropriations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2835 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i share my colleagues' concern about making sure that our servicemembers don't miss a paycheck because of a potential government shutdown. in fact, i don't want any of our

federal workers to miss a paycheck or any of the programs families rely on to be undermined by a completely unnecessary shutdown, which is why i am working around the clock to make sure that we pass a bipartisan, the bipartisan c.r. package which we released yesterday. because that's the only serious issue and solution here. that's the only way we make sure that everyone is able to keep doing the work that the american people count on and getting the paycheck they deserve. let's be real. there are a lot of programs i care about, a lot of programs we all care about that would be hurt by a shutdown. so we are not going to solve this problem one by one, bit by bit, carve-out by carve-out. you do not stop a flood one drop at a time. you build a dam. we do have a straightforward, bipartisan c.r. package to avoid a shutdown and keep our military

paid. we should do our jobs, get that done, and get it passed. that is principle, mr. president, not politics. do our job. pass this bill so we don't have a shutdown. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. sullivan: mr. president, what you just saw -- the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as my colleague senator cruz just mentioned, every member of the military just heard i object. and the senator from washington state just said let's be real. let's be real. there's nothing more real than putting your life on the line for the country you love. and nothing more important than defending those who defend us. let's be real.

i'm having a hard time with let's be real. what she just mentioned had nothing to do with the bill of the gren ten years ago when there was an imminent shutdown, just like there is today which i certainly don't want, the senate and house and white house came together and said, all right, we know there's a risk, but there are some special people who serve in our government, in my view very special people who deserve to be taken care of. it's the men and women and their families who are serving right now overseas, all over the country protecting americans. it is an outrage. it is an outrage to utter those two words, i object.

it is an outrage. and if it happens next week, as senator cruz mentioned, that there are young men and women around the world protecting us without getting paid and having for worry -- to worry how they're going to buy groceries, i hope they remember the senator from washington state's two words -- i object. that was good old fashion hostage taking. making a marine lance corporal all of a sudden subject to the political whims of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. didn't happen in 2013. i have no idea truthfully, no idea why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would not support this pay our military bill. i'm going to keep coming down here all week to get this passed

and hopefully they'll have a change of heart. i yield the floor. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i am very frequently in complete agreement with my friend from alaska. i do disagree with two words. he said this is good old fashion hostage taking. there is nothing old fashion about this. this is brand new. even the democrats as partisan as they've been, they haven't done this before. ten years ago, every democrat, even the most left-wing democrat agreed we should pay our service men and women. this hostage taking is brand new. you want to see the face of vicious partisanship in washington, you just did. now i'll point out also two things that are brazenly obvious. number one, last week when the senator from washington objected to my legislation to pay our coast guard, to treat our coast guardsmen the same as other active duty military, she stood up and gave a speech in which she said she supported that

goal, but the bill that i introduced didn't mandate that it happen. it only said they had to be treated with parity and that's why she objected. so senator sullivan and i came and introduced the bill she asked for that mandated that all of the military be paid. she didn't explain or change her position. but what she did implicitly is say every word she said last week was not true, that the reason she gave for can't oning to my bill -- for objecting to my bill was apparently not the reason she was objecting to the bill because she just objected right here. and i've got to say, listen, every member of this body, every democrat, when you go home to your state, when you meet with active duty military, when you meet with veterans, i guarantee you every member of this body says i support the troops.

well, as long as democrat leadership keeps doing what they just did, it ain't true that you support the troops. and i want to point out right now there are some democrats who might try to hide behind the skirts of their leadership and say we didn't object. there are no democrats on this floor. nobody is here with us. the senator from washington didn't even bother to stay and participate in the debate. that's how little she's interested in the merits of this issue. what she said -- and i want you to hear the argument she gave. she said now, the new reason she's objecting is she says she wants everyone to be paid. and if everyone can't be paid, then nobody will be paid. understand she is telling the young marine stationed just a mile from north korea, facing

machine guns, that it is the position of senate democrats that they care more about paying irs agents and epa regulators and bureaucrats than they do about that young marine. right now there's a sailor in a nuclear submarine a mile under water who may not even know it but her paycheck is likely to disappear in three days. and senate democrats have said there's no difference. you know what? the military is often referred to as the 1%. there is a difference. the men and women who put on the union form and take the oath and defend this nation. and my hope is that somewhere in the democrat party saner voices will prevail. i get there's an attraction to

-- we've got to partisan fight. i get the democrats want to try to stick it to republicans, but don't scapegoat the military in the process. i want to speak for the moment to the press. part of the reasons the democrats are objecting is they are confident cnn will not report on this. they are confident msnbc will not say a word about this. they're confident if you turn on the nightly news, abc, nbc, cbs will not say a word. and they believe that come monday when that young soldier, sailor, airman, marine, his or her paycheck disappears, they believe that they'll never know it was the democrats who blocked their paycheck, who objected to it. well, it's up to the media to decide if they're actually journalists, are they going to

report on what happened. if we end up having a shutdown. i can promise you, senator sullivan and i will be back. we will be on this floor. and we'll see just how many times the democrats want to object to paying our active duty military. mind you, they got to work. they will show up at work regardless. but maybe it's the position of today's democrat party that you can show up and work and defend this nation and keep us safe but democrats aren't going to pay you. that's really sad. it's unfortunate. i see my friend, the senator from virginia, has come in on another matter. i hope voices like his will say to his leadership this is dumb. don't hold our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines and coast guardsmen hostage over a political fight in washington. if politicians can't get their act together by september 30,

don't punish the active duty military. i know the senator from virginia cares about those active duty military. it's right now his parties' blocking their paycheck -- his party that is blocking their paychecks. so my hope is that saner voices prevail in the democrat party. i hope we can come back here, do this exact same thing with one minor alteration, that next time we eliminate those two orders "-- two words i object. once the democrats decide no longer to say the words i object, this bill will pass. the house will pass it and our fighting men and women will get the paychecks they have earned, they've earned with courage and blood. we owe it to them. this body needs to do the right thing. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i appear in a very timely way to make clear that our military will be paid if the house republicans do not shut our government down. but in the off chance that they do, because of democrats, in the last shutdown we had, we got a bill passed that guaranteed that all of them will at least receive back pay. in earlier shutdowns, that was never a guarantee. so people were forced to come to work not knowing if they would be paid. but during the last shutdown in early 2019, i afforded a bill to the floor. i use add -- i used add procedural objection to recessing at the end of the

week. we were able to get a guarantee in place that all federal employees, including members of the military, will not be punished when when ne'er-do-wels make it so partisan. it's because only the gop ever threatens to shut government down. only the government threatens the default on the national debt. we in the national, with a little cooperation from our republican colleagues, we will pass an overwhelmingly bipartisan continuing resolution within the next couple of days, and if the house will only do their job and agree to be as bipartisan as the senate is, nobody needs to worry about losing a paycheck, but at least we have put a guarantee -- but at least we have put a guarantee in place that nobody serving our nation, whether in uniform or otherwise, will be at risk of losing pay because of an

unnecessary shutdown. just a few months ago, the speaker and the president negotiated a deal to avoid a default, and they set the stage to fund government spending bills. since then, bipartisan colleagues in the senate appropriations committee have worked in an impressive way. mr. president, you're part of that time, working impressively in a bipartisan manner to pass 12 appropriations bills out of committee. but now members of the house are backtracking on the agreement that we just made four months ago. we made an agreement on spending limits, and the senate appropriations committee has written their bills to those numbers, and yet the house is using federal shutdown as a bargaining chip to undo the deal they just voted for and try to get more draconian cuts and unnecessary policies in this year-end deal. i'm a senator from virginia, some of the hardest effects of shutdown will be even in my

state. and they're already starting, even before we get to midnight on saturday, september 30. my office has been flooded with more than 600 constituent comments expressing their concerns about government shutdown, and what i'd like to do, mr. president, is just share some of the stories that i'm hearing from virginians. april from orange county writes, quote, my husband is a member of the army reserves, and he's preparing for deployment to africa next year. his training has been delayed due to funding with the close of the fiscal year, and shutdown will certainly delay the training even further. so what does that mean? do you deploy without adequate training or is the deployment date changed, families have planned around this, employers have planned around this. a government shutdown affects april and her family. jennifer from norfolk writes, my husband is a u.s. marine veteran who utilizes the v.a.

a government shutdown places an undue emotional and financial burden on my family. kelsey from harrisonburg wrote, my parents along with my two friends, are on a two-week postretirement trip to celebrate celebrate. the park closure would significantly is affect this trip. katie from fredericksburg wrote, i work directly with families through the head start program in stafford county. a shutdown to include so many important social services will be devastating to so many families i see and serve every day. it's interesting that katie, whose own husband is a federal employee, does not write about her own family but writes about other families relying on head start services. mary lives in virginia but whose husband is overseas in the foreign service, writes, it's a huge problem for my family to go

without pay for an unknown period of time. i have a son with a chronic illness whose medications are very expensive. this could impact our ability to purchase his medications. as a foreign service family, we spend every day representing our nation and making sacrifices on behalf of our nation. we hope that congress will do the same and work hard to resolve the issue before the deadline later this week. lauren from glenn allen where i live in richmond wrote in and shared that government shutdowns are the reason she's lost faith in the system. in a letter to my office she wrote, my family and i purchased plane tickets to visit utah about six months ago. our entire itinerary is to visit national parks. and it's heartbreaking to realize now that on the cusp of our trip they're supposed to leave on september 30, we may not get to visit the locations and hike the trails that we've been looking forward to for many months now. this may seem shrike a trivial

-- this may seem like a trivial matter to you, but we saved money for over a year and we managed our own household budget in order to acto reasonable -- o afford this trip. now congress son the verge of ruining it. another letter, we recently pcs, a shutdown could not only cost my husband's paycheck, we face missing payments on the credit card we use to pay for our move and my husband's student loan taken out so he could pursue a degree he needed for a promotion. not to mention that he will continue to work doing the job of many more that will be furloughed until a resolution is disagreed upon. we're a family that has served this country for generations. we're still serving but i'm hesitant to encourage my son that dreams of enlisting to pursue the dreams of a country

so quick to ignore the needs of its military families. my husband's business would be affected as he has several government contracts. he will be required to pay his employees whether he receives government funding or not. i also have several friends who will be required to keep working without pay, just as they did last time and the time before that. they have families to feed. tracy from virginia beach who recently relocated to virginia from california is worried about how a shutdown will impact relocation and ability to pay bills. she wrote, my family has experienced government shutdowns previously. my husband has been a federal employee since 2005, it always creates stress and worry and having to figure out how to pay basic expenses while he has to work without pay. laurie from falls church writes, as an active duty military family whose income depends on a government job, a shutdown will have a real and lasting impact effect on our family. the government shutdown affects our ability to pay mortgage,

groceries, medical expenses, the having you the is very real. we've -- the struggle is very real. we've had some extra expenses for an illness my son has that tricare won't cover. this is too much pressure on active duty families. yesterday i met with the director of the shenandoah national park. he told me that there are many couples who have weddings planned for this weekend and the following weeks during the most beautiful month of the year in the shenandoah national park. and they're wringing the phone off the hook at the shenandoah national park if the parks close and the weddings can't go forward. this might seem minor compared to people who have medical bills, this is supposed to be the happiest day of your life. it's supposed to be the happiest day of your life, and because the house wants to backtrack on

a spending bill that they just reached a few month months ago d they're unwilling to work in a bipartisan manner, these couples who are going to pledge themselves to each other for the rest of their life now don't know whether their weddings will go forward. some politicians out thereto are saying shutdowns aren't that bad. i can assure you, these 600 people -- and they're writing in more every day. it'll only get more intense. what they're telling you, is don't believe those telling you that shutdowns are not a problem. while i'm proud of the fact that we worked together to get this back pay guarantee, in an extended shutdown, a back pay guarantee doesn't pay the grocery bills, the medical bills, the medical bills. you may get a landlord to cut you a break, but an extended shutdown, a back pay, though, okay, is not the same as getting

your paycheck. a shutdown affects us in so many ways. the sba has to stop approving or modifying small business loans. the fda delays food inspections. that's not a good thing. air traffic controllers and tsa eths are working without pay, which in the past has contributed to significant flight delays haul across the country. nutrition benefits are at risk in an extended shutdown. programs that help food-insecure virginians, kids, put food on the table. in obligate i mentioned my -- in october, is mentioned my shenandoah national park example. it is the busiest time of the year. these small communities that surround these beautiful natural assets have reoriented their economies around tourism. and october is the peak season, especially in the shenandoah.

so this is not just the park itself and weddings that would take place in the park. this is the outdoor outfitters and the hotels and the b&b's and the restaurants and diners that are in these small communities that surround these national parks. this is their busy season. they count on this month of october as the way they will have a successful year or an unsuccessful year. if you shut down, because we saw this in october 2013. we've seen this movie before. if you shut down right at the -- at this time of year, they'll lose business they'll never get back. because the people that want to go to have a vacation with their family when the park reopens maybe in a couple of weeks or a month, they're not going to say, well, okay, the leaves are all brown in november, but let's do it. no, they're not going to do it. they don't recoup the revenue they've lost in their busiest time of the year.

so people stressing about medical bills or others, this affects every zip code, every last crossroads in this country and it affects hundreds of thousands of americans who are living abroad, serving this nation in other countries whether they be serving? the military or in a -- whether they be serving in the military or in a civilian capacity. the president and the speaker came to a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. it was voted positively in the house. it was voted positively here. the only reason we're here is that a small but loud minority of house gop members who didn't like the deal that we reached, who voted against it, are now trying to use the leverage of shutting down the government of the greatest nation on earth to try to get their way. mr. president, i don't know if you noticed, one thing they did earlier today, the members who are loudly in the house fighting in many instances for a shutdown

cast a vote to reduce the salary of the secretary of defense, lloyd austin, to one dollar. this is the complete lack of certificate united statesness with -- this is the complete lack of seriousness with which these members are taking this issue. the head of the armed military -- i'm on the armed services committee. the head of the armed military, one who has stood up against an illegal invasion simplify -- invasion of ukraine by russia, the u.s. has forged a global coalition and on the verge of a shutdown that would hurt our military members, what is the house doing? are they even sending us legislation? they can't get their act together to do that. but in a voice vote earlier today they could get their act together in the middle of the

biggest land war, to suggest that the salary of the secretary of defense should be reduced to a dollar a year. the -- the biggest threats we face as a nation are not external to this nation's borders, they are exemplified by what we're seeing by the house majority that refuses to abide about deal we just voted on who would put the military appeared all -- the military and all other citizens at risk. mr. president, i yield the mr. president, i yield the

and i want to make clear the

about what's at stake transportation for working families. it is for all of us to explore to get there way. i want to identify the millions looking at washington right now. one thing the u.s. government has the basic responsibility is not normal and the most powerful country in the world congressional republicans time and time are able to put the entire country at risk of simply shutting down the government. in particular from concern of the cattle disregard shown for the people who would be impacted the most. any republican control sitting down the government should

explain directly and their paycheck will stop and they should explain nonpartisan civil servants to make sure they land safely those who have to go without pay. i'm concerned by the context of cuts house republicans are trying to force. there's a lot of attention, in my view, not enough in the threatened shotgun to extract cuts the overwhelming majority of americans object. this summer president biden and speaker mccarthy shook hands and made a bipartisan field to keep this running and i should note the deal was tough and it was

tough for this department because of the cutting back on funding forget infrastructure projects for roads and bridges and airports because that was the deal. now a group of republicans refusing to honor the deal. they are holding key functions of our government to get extreme cuts to childcare. let me emphasize was shut down would mean for transportation. after everything we've been through, all disruptions to air travel especially last year, we have finally seen cancellations and delays back down to normal levels. we seen it at a level that is lower before the. we have done that to do better

and expand capacity and improvement to staffing and technology it should be stopped in progress and immediately have to stop training you air traffic controllers and furlough thousand already. i emphasize the complexity in the training process means shut down lasting a few days and will not hit staffing and hiring targets mixture. air traffic controllers to working, i want you to imagine the pressure a controller is already under every time they take their position at work and imagine clinging to that job, a family that can no longer count on the butt whether there is a shutdown or not up to go through

the things if house republicans get their way. to absorb the 8% cut, we would have to free hiring in facilities. modernizing systems like the nationwide 90 minute outage in the same elected officials and responded to weather delays by fleming administration now demanding in the air traffic control. that's air travel operations and men rulemaking and grant. live the strongest customer protection. office of aviation protections get billions in refunds to cancel flights in developing

rules for long delay on developing rules to make families never have to pay two segments to your kid. a shutdown would stop that not to mention the department like helping first responders and work that goes on to strengthen safety regulations. then there is day-to-day work and after the derailment use policy earlier this year, leaders on both sides rightly came together to start the process to make railroads safe. we are looking for congress to follow through and pass the railway safety act. we're waiting to do our own work under current authority again public and shutdown would stop work on new safety rules because some of the people who rushed during the east policy derailment are demanding

extremes railroad safety. their proposal for cut 4000 safety inspections next year alone, 11000 miles of railroad tracks would not be inspected compared to current level so i don't understand how anybody claims to be serious about railroad safety and turnaround and defund our special investors transportation. if republican shutdown would affect everything from national security and law enforcement and the cost republic is who created this situation has made clear their goal is to force extreme and permanent, the same programs millions of working families count on everyday including nutrition assistance, there are 7 million women and children nationwide who rely on federal nutrition assistance including have babies one of the country

under a republican government shutdown. women and children would be essentially turned away in grocery stores because house republicans are threatening to shut down the government in the first place because they want to make permanent for that program and others. fighting to expand so eligible once, especially women and children who they need. 1.3 million active-duty troops forced to work without pay until the government is back up and running. hundreds of thousands of copies of the department of defense for load. it's scheduled to drop some home drill time and pay is unrecoverable, something i experience as a reservist during a shutdown. all of this undermines national security a real way and it's ironic some house members who claim to support our military are actively threatening to make our service members work without

pay. some of the numbers are 50000 access nutrition service like meals on wheels and 65000 children could lose access to childcare and 40000 fewer educators. 20000 veterans will lose their homes and 300 pounds of functional and methamphetamine would be let into the country. their proposal leaves out funny the president requested for things like rebuilding america and covid disasters and trafficking in helping ukrainians. there is no good time for a government shutdown but this is a particularly bad time for government shutdown especially when it comes to transportation. consequences would be structured and dangerous and so with the long-term consequences the form

of safety infrastructure and other priorities. president biden keeps his word including the promises he's made to the american people and the deal for speaker mccarthy. it's up to those in the house of representatives to live up to their word to not play political games in people's lives and keep the government up and running. thanks again for coming. ... especially in the context of some of the rulemaking that's

going on. it's really complex and nuanced across the groundwork but the fact the good news is lot of what we are doing in other areas is advance appropriated meaning even all though all back and you them to buy administrative functioning but not in the way it should and the role of the shutdown but we can get you more specifics across agency balad of her activity would be stopped and people would be furloughed. again at a time when the auto sector needs that certainty of the changes that are coming up. [inaudible] can you assure the public if they will be safe if they traveled during a government shutdown concerning all the furloughs and the pressure, positional pressure that the

dod -- hispanic art air traffic controllers and safety personnel are going to keep going and doing their job. they are allowed to the context of the shutdown but they are doing it under added stress. that is avoidable and preventable. but they are pros and they do what's required of them just like our service members in uniform did but it certainly doesn't help with that critical job for them to work with the stress of not getting paid and i would add each passing day he gets more difficult and complicated a different parts of the agency that is not coming in i think that's something we let -- we saw historically last time we almost shutdown. it took more and more. toll on air traffic controllers and tsa officers in the course we count on them every day.

>> hi. a leo with "fox news" channel. do you think president biden should try to negotiate negotiate this out and prevent a shutdown and what would that conversation with speaker mccarthy look like? >> we don't have the speculate. it's absolutely appropriate for the speaker and the president to sit down and they did earlier this year. all we are asking is the speaker stick to the deal that they already worked out. [inaudible] the training program would be cut. what does that mean for the average person right now and in the months in the years to come? in the context of this, we have seen a lot of disruptions and the air traffic especially last year. some of those were caused by weather and some of those were caused by airline issues but a factor can be the availability of air traffic control staff. we've seen a gap over many

between the stepping we need in the level of staffing we have got. the finite -- finally have that headed in the right direction but the budget calls for 1800 comptrollers to be hired next to but that can't happen if we get stopped in art tracks in training. the end of the day it means more shortages and more outages and that can contribute to cancellations. the same thing thing with the i.t. side especially if these cuts go through. we need to go faster not slower in things like updating the code and many other faa technologies and if you slow that down your increasing the chance that there's going to be some issue. e are working through a bipartisan proposal to keep the government open and operating, at least for the next several months. but those who study the constitution might ask why is the senate beginning debate on a continuing resolution? isn't it the responsibility

constitutionally of the house to begin debates on spending measures? that is true. but the reason the senate is using certain procedural maneuvers to begin the debate on the continuing resolution is because the house refuses to do its job. the house of representatives is currently pretending like the government isn't shutting down in three days. instead of doing their job, house republicans are spending the week impeaching joe biden, even though they admit they have no grounds to do it. they are setting this country on a course towards riewnl. shutdowns cost the economy billions of dollars, starting on

saturday night our military won't get paid. head start teachers won't get paid. our wild firefighters won't get paid. federal prison guards won't get paid. nih scientists won't get paid. border guards won't get paid. and yet the house is pretending this isn't happening. so we are attempting in the senate to try to come together, republicans and democrats, to solve this problem. but it is absolutely extraordinary, extraordinary that the house is refusing to do their job. and the reason for that is that there is this cabal of republicans in the house who want the government to shutdown, who hate the government so much that they want to burn it to the ground. and they are willing to

compromise the safety of this country. they're willing to put hardworking federal employees out of work. they're willing to force our military and our border patrol to forgo paychecks. they are willing to lose $10 billion in revenue to the economy. so this is a pretty sad moment. the senate is going to try to come together, republicans and democrats, to do our job. but house republicans are causing this shutdown. they admit it. they go on tv every day. house republicans go on tv every day and admit that it is their caucus causing this shutdown. hopefully between now and this weekend those arsonists in the house of representatives will come to their senses and put this country above their politics, above their hatred of government, above their hatred of joe biden. the costs are pretty enormous otherwise. madam president, i'd like the following remarks to be displayed in the record

separately. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: this past february, a woman by the name of maria zopata eskamia was startled out of her sleep in her home in a relatively small city in mexico. she was startled out of her sleep because a band of men armed with powerful weapons and wearing military fatigues broke into her family's home. they looked like soldiers but they weren't soldiers. they were in fact drug cartel members. and that night they dragged her husband away and they dragged her 14-year-old son still in his pajamas out of the house. two weeks later ten bodies were found in this town, all dead, at the hands of the cartel. one of them was maria's husband.

she still to this day has no idea where her 14-year-old son is, but she presumes that he's dead. maria's story is the norm in this city, fresnia which for much of this year has been a war zone between mexico's two biggest cartels as they battle for space to make and transport drugs to the united states. maria says every day, every day there are kidnappings. every day there are shootouts. every day there are deaths. it's terror. these cartels act with impunity in mexico because they buy off local officials and police because of endemic corruption inside mexico but also because these cartels are very often more heavily armed than the police. this ability of the cartels to

control so much space inside mexico because of corruption but also because they are often carrying more firepower than law enforcement, this is not just a nightmare for mexico. this is a nightmare for the united states of america. there is a straight through line of the power of the cartels and the trade that is killing american citizens. fentanyl is a plague in my communities in connecticut, in my colleagues' communities. and it is not enough for us just to tell mexico to do better. no doubt mexico does not have clean hands. mexico needs to get in the game to take on these cartels. but on this question of heavily armed cartels, mexico has actually acted. it surprises many people to know that there is one single gun

store in all of mexico. mexico is essentially eliminated the commercial trade of firearms. you can't buy a firearm in the commercial market for all intents and purposes in mexico today. so why on earth is mexico flooded with weapons? why on earth do the cartels trade weapons like water? it's because somewhere between 70% to 90% of the guns that are found in crime scenes, mostly crime scenes connected to the cartel business in mexico can be traced back to the united states. this is absolutely stunning. it is u.s. guns bought here in the united states, transited to mexico that is fueling the violence that ends up in fentanyl being made, produced, and transported freely into the

united states. and so it is time for the united states to recognize that if we want to do something about fentanyl coming into the united states, if we want to save our citizens from ruin, then we have to do something about the guns that move from the united states into mexico. now, why is this happening? why have cartels been able to get their hands on these weapons? well, there's a handful of reasons. first, without a universal background check law in the united states, these cartel members most of which have criminal records can easily buy guns atigun shows and -- at gun shows and online even though they're criminals because in those settings there are not background checks applied. so they go to these gun shows in places like texas, they buy the guns and bring them to mexico. second, there's no comprehensive

effort to stop the trafficking. it's largely americans that are doing the trafficking. dual citizens often. we do lots of checks of cars and trucks going from mexico to the united states, but we don't do significant serious checks on vehicles going from the united states to mexico. so the guns along with the cash move freely, north to south. and so as long as this gun trade continues, the mexican authorities, even if they clean up their act, have very little chance to stop these cartels. and what is so maddening is that this is just a choice. we know what to do to stop these guns from being trafficked to the cartels in mexico, but we choose not to do it. and so for those of us that have relationships with leaders in

the mexican government, we have very few answers when the mexican government looks us in the eye and says do your part, stop these guns from moving into mexico. the things we can do are all politically popular. universal background checks supported by 95% of americans first and foremost because it will cut down on crime in the united states but 41% of the guns that go into mexico come from texas. 15% come from arizona. the lion share of these weapons come from states that don't have universal background checks laws on the books so they have all of these loopholes, these ways for criminals to buy guns and transit them to mexico. second, we can fund dhs to actually do the checks on the cars and the vehicles that are moving into mexico. last year for the first time because of an initiative that i

pushed, we funded 200 more cpb officers to do these outbound inspections but we're still only doing the inspections at a handful of ports of entry. we should be doing them all across the border and that's something that republicans and democrats can come together on. last year we did make progress with the help of senator cornyn and others. we made gun trafficking a crime in this country. amazing that it wasn't. we made straw purchasing a crime. that makes it a little harder for traffickers to move weapons north to south, but it's just a start. and so it's really important for us to own the mistakes we have made that have allowed for these cartels to get so big and so powerful. there is no doubt that the lion's share simplify work lands squarely with the mexican government.

the corruption there that is endemic is the biggest gift to the cartels. but second to the corruption is the flow of weapons that the united states has permitted and at times facilitated. we need a massive, laser-focused effort. it is killing thousands of americans in my state. we can't just lecture the mexican government to do better. we need to do our part, and i'm here on the floor today to ask my colleagues to join me in taking some big, bold steps to stop the flow of these weapons from the united states to the mexican drug cartels. i'd yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you for the recognition, madam president. madam president, i rise today in support of my bipartisan legislation to protect funding for hunter safety programs. senator cornyn is is going to make a u.c. here in a bit, i want to just thank him. senator murkowski for the work

that they have done on this bill. it has been incredible. you know, in montana and across rural america, our schools have long offered hunter safety classes and taught our kid's gun safety and personal responsibility. but recently the bureaucrats in this city who really don't understand rural america very well decided to block funding for these important education programs. i want to be clear, that was a poor decision. it will hurt thousands of students who benefit from these resources and these programs. -- every year. and that's why i'm pushing for this bipartisan fix that would require the department of education to restore the ability to use federal dollars for school archery or gun safety or hunter education programs. look, folks, when republicans and democrats came together to pass a bipartisan safer communities act, we did so to ensure that our kids are safe when they go to school. this commonsense bill will make

sure that we stay true to that intent by educating future generations on the importance of responsible gun ownership and hunting, which will only make our students and our communities safer, and it will protect montana's long-standing and proud tradition of hunting and shooting sports, which are central to montana's way of life. i would urge my colleagues in this room today to support this bipartisan solution, and with that, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, following the devastating shooting in uvalde just a little over a year ago, congress passed the bipartisan safer communities act. as we know, this legislation invested in mental health, school safety, and commonsense measures to prevent dangerous individuals -- namely, those with mental health problems or criminal records -- from carrying out acts of violence.

importantly, it did all of this wouldn't impacting the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. that was a red line. unfortunately, the biden administration has misinterpreted a section of the law and is using it as a pretext to defund hunter education and archery programs, which is ironic because one of the things that many people have advocated is, let's teach people how to safely use firearms for recreational or hunting purposes. yet they want to somehow stop those very programs? well, these programs are offered in school districts across texas and equip students with invaluable skills, including as i suggested is firearm safety and wildlife management. they're teaching students to be responsible gun owners and good stewards of the environment, something i would think we would all want.

these programs are -- have overwhelming bipartisan support, and congress has -- had no intention of impacting them or curbing their availability in any way. members of congress worked together in good faith to pass this legislation that will build stronger, safer communities. but the fact that the administration is stretching the law, the words of the law beyond any meaning that we intended is unjustifiable. when this happened -- happens, it undermines the good will between congress and the white house. it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to legislate on important and contentious issues like this. the biden administration is attempting to create -- to take a creative license with the law and congress needs to step in and correct the situation immediately. that's what we are doing today.

senator sinema, senator tillis, senator murphy were my partners negotiating this bipartisan safer communities act. we came together with senator capito and immediately started working on a new bill to clarify congressional intent on this legislation. given the overreach by the administration, we worked with our colleagues on the house side to craft a bill that could pass both chambers of congress. the protecting hunting, heritage, and education act clarifies that federal funds can be used to support archery, hunting, and other valuable enrichment programs in schools. this legislation passed the house yesterday evening by a vote of 424-1. an overwhelming show of bipartisanship. i hope the senate will follow suit today and send this legislation to the president's desk to clarify once and for all that the biden administration

cannot ignore the express will of congress. this is the biden administration, not the biden kingdom. the wishes and whims of the president and his staff do not outweigh congress' intent. i'm eager for president biden to sign this legislation and acknowledge that this interpretation of the clear words of the legislation that we passed on a bipartisan basis were totally in conflict and once again congress has reclaimed its right as a separate, coequal branch of government in a bipartisan way to pass legislation that expresses not the will of the staff at the white house or some administrative agency but the will of the members of congress. i'm glad the house acted quickly to correct this shameful behavior, and i hope now the senate will follow suit. madam president, i see the senator from arizona here on the

floor, and i would yield to her. ms. sinema: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. ms. sinema: thank you. i join the senior senator from texas in support of our commonsense bill today that ensures the administration follows the bipartisan safer communities act as we wrote it. when we wrote this law last year, this was historic legislation to reduce community violence, improve mental health services, and save lives, and when we wrote this bill, we were clear in our intent. we wanted to make our schools safer places to learn, our communities safer places to live, and our mental and behavioral health care system among the strongest in the world. and we did that with broad bipartisan support. our law prohibits the use of new federal funding for weapons for school staff, but our law very

specifically does not prohibit the use of funds for archery classes, hunting safety classes, or any other extracurricular activities of the sort. madam president, what is at issue here is a misinterpretation of this section of our law by the white house. and it is a symptom of a larger issue. the alarming tendency of this administration to ignore the will and intent of congress when carrying out the very laws that we pass. time after time, congress has come together to pass historic legislation with bipartisan support, just to see the current white house interpret provisions, repeated provisions of repeated pieces of legislation not in line with congressional intent. we pass the laws. that's our job. and the administration is supposed to follow and implement those laws.

that's their job. but this administration routinely fails to do its job correctly. this creates distrust. it delays meaningful solutions for our constituents, and it wastes taxpayer money. enough is enough. we shouldn't have to be here today. we shouldn't have to pass a bill today telling the administration to do its job and follow the law, but here we are. so once again congress will come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to pass a bill, and we'll hold the administration accountable, ensure the accurate interpretation and implementation of our bipartisan safer communities law, and we will allow students in arizona and all across the country to continue enjoying school-based hunting and archery programs, junior senator as our law -- just as our law intended. thank you, madam president. i yield back.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, madam president. i want to thank my colleague from arizona and texas for really, first, historic activity -- it was an historic month last year. in the wake of the uvalde shootings, we kale together in one hearing. this was a very diverse group of people. senator murphy from connecticut being one of them. we came together in one mealing and we developed -- we came together in one meeting and we developed trust, trying to come up with a bipartisan bill that's addressing some of the root causes of community safety. we did it in 30 days. we sent it to the president's desk. i watched it virtually every day. i watch what's happening on the ground. i look at funding for school safety, funding for school hardening, funding for v.a. courts, funding for family

courts, more funding to make sure that background checks are done quickly and identifying young people that, yes, a couple a hundred should not have a gun, out of 150,000 who have actually tried to purchase a gun over the last year. short story -- it was a very successful bill. madam president, i've been involved in the last congress in every bipartisan bill that went to the floor. i took the heat back home. senator cornyn took the heat back home. but we worked on it, and we had trusted partners who understood the intent. it goes to the president's desk. and what does somebody in his administration do? get in our heads. all they needed to do is call us. they knew this wasn't our intercept. hunter safety, archery training? teaching a young person how to respect and handing a gun safely, that they really thought that we did not want to treat -- train them on that? we didn't want to train them

about conservation and wildlife stewardship? that's what you also learn. even if you never want to own a gun, i encourage you to go to a hunter safety course. you'll learn a lot about conservation, wildlife stewardship and also safe handling of a gun. same thing for archery. i can only assume that the reason we're here today and the reason the house had to cast a vote, as somebody in the administration -- is somebody in the administration wanted to play politics. gotcha. it makes people like me question whether or not i should trust the administration to implement a bill in the manner that we intended to implement it. if i'm going to get a gotcha at the end, what encourages me to do it again? so today i think we're going to write this wrong. but i really hope the administration recognizes that some of us are sick of the polarizing environment in washington. some of us are willing to work on a bipartisan basis to make

things different. but we have to have a willing and trusted partner down the street. this rights a wrong now, but i hope the administration recognizes in the future, if you want to see more people like me stick our neck out for things that need to be done, you better behave differently. thank you, madam president. ms. murkowski: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i am really very pleased to be on the floor with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about this. as my colleague from north carolina has pointed out, it was pretty clear -- it was more than pretty clear. it was crystal clear what the intent of this provision was. the intent was really designed to prevent gun violence. what this administration is doing with this interpretation is so far afield of where we

were with the bipartisan safer communities act. it's almost breathtaking. i had an opportunity less than a week ago to be back home in fairbanks, and i went to the tannena valley shooting range. i was greeted by about probably 25, maybe even 30 high school students from hutchison, from west valley, and from lathrop, who were all part of the rifle team. they were there proud of what they were doing. they wanted to understand how we could possibly be doing something that was going to be limiting or restricting opportunities to understand who are about firearms and firearm

safety and hunting safety. this is hunting season? alaska. it's moose season. it's duck season. we all have our firearms out as we are providing for our families. and in my family, one of the first things that you learn in a household that has firearms is about gun safety, firearm safety, and those schools that have those programs that provide for hunter safety, those are the ones we all want our kids to be part of. and it's not just the hunter safety. it's the archery programs. again, when you're thinking about programs that help build young people in strong ways, in leadership skills, in safety and discipline, that's what these kids from the fairbanks area schools were telling me. i said what else do you learn other than really being a

sharpshooter, and they said a sense of discipline, discipline and respect. they said every single one of us, there's not one of us in this, in this room here that has been subject to any kind of discipline from within the school. we kind of look out for one another. there is a, there is a respect that comes when you're operating around a rifle. okay? the other issue that they raised was, they said we understand that the way the department of education is interpreting this is not only hunter safety programs would be at risk, not only archery programs would be at risk, but culinary programs where you have to use a knife with a blade that is in excess of two and a half inches, i believe it is. so how do you, how do you work

with a student when you're trying to chop celery in a classroom if you can't use a chopping knife? what do you do in a rural school where all aspects practically of your curriculum surround those matters that are relevant to you, subsistence. and so as part of your science class, you are cleaning or preparing a skin from a seal or a walrus and you're using an ulu, believe it or not, the department of education would say that that ulu that basically is preparing your food for your family would be a dangerous instrument and you can't teach that in a classroom. so trying to explain what the department of education has interpreted this to mean as separate from what we as the

lawmakers who helped put this into law, trying to explain to them made no sense. up know what their message was? can you just fix it? well, that's what we're here on the floor to do today. so it's not only been the work that senator tester has done with his bill, the work that senator cornyn has done with his bill, the work that senator barrasso has done with his bill, the letters that have gone out, we have given the department the ample opportunity to fix it on their own, but if they don't, we've got to do the legislative fix and i'm standing with my colleagues to do just that. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 5110, the protecting hunting heritage and education act which was received by the house.

from the house -- excuse me. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 5110, an act to amend the elementary and secondary education act of 1965, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. cornyn: i further ask the bill be considered read and passed a third time and the motion to reconsider be made and will be -- and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: good afternoon, madam president. i'm here today to urge our senate colleagues to join me in considering the confirmation of two excellent people to serve on

the postal regulatory commission which is the governing body for the u.s. postal service. robert todd, currently a commissioner, seeking to reconfirm him, and also thomas day, who has come through our homeland security governmental afirst committee and i think unanimously recommended for a position on the public service commission. both of them have spent literally decades. mr. tabb served on the commission since 2011 and actually served as chairman for, i think, more than six years. mr. day has spent over 35 years at the postal service. 35 years at the postal service. and other service, as i recall, in uniform for our country. i'd like to add we have unanimously confirmed mr. tabb not once but twice previously and there is no doubt he served

our country well. i want to share three stories with you, a little bit about the history and importance of the postal service. another about mr. tobb's role in making the agency what it is today and a third about mr. day's influence on the function of our postal system across this country. in 1787 the founding fathers of our country gathered in philadelphia to literally to draft a constitution to outline how a new country might be formed and actually operate and work for the betterment of people who lived here then and in the future. they drafted a constitution, and they sent that constitution out across the 13 colonies and asked the colonies to look at it, kick the tires, find out what they liked and what they thought ought to be changed. the first state to actually take it up and confirm, affirm,

ratify, if you will, is the colony that is now delaware, the state of delaware. on december 7, 1787 after a week or so of debate at the golden fleece tavern, the founding fathers of delaware said we like this constitution and maybe tweaked it a little bit and sent it on to the other colonies who followed suit. delaware was for one whole week the entire united states of america. then we opened it up, we let in pennsylvania and maryland, and i think the rest turned out pretty well for the most part until now, and hopefully we'll continue to exist for many, many years, decades, centuries into the future. one key element of the constitution was the creation of the postal service. the first postmaster general was actually, believe it or not, ben franklin. ben franklin. the establishment of the postal service represented an important early effort to bind us together as a nation, to bind us

together as a nation, to unite us in communication with one another. that work continues today as postal deliverers cover all 50 states. they'll do it at least six days this week and to also make sure we have the ability to provide the postal service to folks who live in the u.s. territories. delivering the mail that helps unite our families. it helps to grow our businesses and helps enable, really to enable our democracy to function and thrive. more than two centuries later we continue to live up to that promise. in 2006 one of our colleagues, senator susan collins, and i led the passage of the postal accountability and enhancement act on this floor where we're gathered today. that legislation modernized the postal service for the first time i think since 1970. just last year weent on to pass the, on top of that, the

postal service reform act to shore up the agency's financial foundation, including a requirement for all postal service retirees to enroll in medicare when they became eligible for those benefits. over the past couple of years i've had the opportunity to work with postmaster general dejoy and the postal commission to make the agency even more energy efficient. together we've successfully procured billions of dollars to expand the number of electrical vehicles in the postal service delivery fleet. the post service has one of the biggest delivery fleets in the country. they also have one of the oafltd and one of the -- oldest and polluting. we've worked with the leaders of the postal service to make sure those old vehicles time out and for the most part they have timed out. they need to be replaced. they are going to be replaced with vehicles that will not only help us deliver the mail but do an even better job of that, but

to make sure that the delivery vehicles that are out there aren't making worse the climate crisis that we're going through as a nation, as a planet. i want to tell you a little bit more about mr. tobb if i could and how he has been integral to the changes we've seen in the postal service, especially as it has become more modern and more efficient. after spending years as a staff member to members of congress and working for the government accountability office, mr. tabb, native new yorker, became chief of staff to then-congressman john mccue, an old friend and very good member of the house. a republican, as i recall. under represent mccue's leadership mr. tobb helped craft the postal accountability enhancement act in the house of representatives. that was the same legislation that i mentioned earlier that i worked on with senator collins and together with representative mccue and his team we ushered

the bill to the president's desk where it was signed into law, again, in 2006. this transformation of the postal service was just the beginning for mr. tobb's involvement with the postal service. after establishing his expertise in public sector, he continued to the, continued with his work. when representative mccue was appointed secretary of the army and secretary mccue as -- secretary mccue's principal civilian advisor, mr. tobb helped lead a workforce of more than, get this, 1.2 million people and managed an annual budget exceeding $200 billion. and for his exemplary work he was awarded the army's decoration for civilian service. all this while serving on the postal regulatory commission under three presidents including both democrats and republicans.

he was first nominated to the commission in 2011 and strong leadership led to appointment as chairman of the commission in 2014. as i like to say in adversity lies opportunity. despite the troubles left over from a previous chairman, mr. tobb took adversity in stride, embraced the role of chairman with grace, led a massive undertake to study and revise the postal system as a result of the enhancement act he helped to pass. in 2016 his work paid off when he was once again confirmed to be chairman of the commission and continued to serve as chairman. mr. day has had an incredible record with the postal service as well. let me take a minute and talk about it. in his 35 years at the agency he held almost every role emergenciable, including -- imaginable in the government affairs department as well as

chief sustainability officer. mr. day helped lead the postal service into an environmentally conscious practices of the 21st century. as chairman of the environmental and public works committee, i know the importance -- that's my role, but i know the importance of our agencies carrying out practices that protect our planet. mr. day shares his belief and understands it firsthand. for example, he's been working to reduce the fuel emissions of the aging postal fleet i talked about, and to do that over the past decade. let me be clear, if i could, the kind of institutional knowledge and expertise mr. day holds is unique. it would make him an extremely valuable asset on the commission. mr. day also has experience working with the exchange of mail on an international scale serving in senior positions at the universal postal union, a united nations agency and at the international post corporation. on top of that he's a graduate

of the u.s. military academy at west point and has bravely served in the u.s. army and when i learned about his service in the army, i'm a navy guy, i said different uniforms, same team, and thanked him for all the service in uniform as well. there's no doubt that someone with his commitment to our nation would make a terrific addition to the postal regulatory commission. together mr. tobb and mr. day will continue revising the postal rate system and modernizing the agency for the berment of our country. for this reason among many others, we think it's imperative that we confirm both of them. not one of them but both of them to make sure the commission is fully staffed. congress relies on the commission to hold the agency accountable and that its prices follow the law and its practices follow the law. and it is our duty to make sure

the agency can perform at the highest level, including for the good of our planet. i would like to say service for others is the rent we pay for service on -- for being on earth. i urge my colleagues to confirm both mr. tobb and mr. day to ensure that the postal regulatory commission can do its work on behalf of all of us and the departments that it provided for our country. with that, madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum, and i want to thank you and i want to thank our colleagues and ask for their support of the nomination of these two excellent, excellent candidates. with that, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

eric foley is with

congressional reporter. thank you for joining us. >> thank you so much for having me. >> of the from the hill this morning, this is the paper is on the doorstep of members of congress and their offices today. what happened yesterday in the senate? >> in it advance its own stopgap funding bill. these bills typically originate in the house but the senate is trying to take the lead right now and democrats are pressing for the senate to do just that as we are seeing these tensions take over the house and slowing down chances of us seeing a stopgap coming up. >> what is the senate proposing and what are the what are their their provisions if they have got graydon? this is a bipartisan bill is majority leader said.

>> it would fund the government temporary at the levels that were set in the last congress the lot of republicans on the house i don't like that however. our levels have relaxed as democrats control both chambers republicans are pushing for more immediate cuts which is in a major contrast what we are seeing in the senate bill the senate bill is pressing for aid in ukraine and disaster relief and house republicans have raised scrutiny around the idea of further aid to ukraine and some think -- this bill would have tough chances passing in the lower chamber right now. >> senators are betting if they jam it in before the deadline the speaker mccarthy will relent in bringing to the floor. what are you watching for today and in the next couple of hours when the house gavels and on the house side? >> rightly know particularly

leadership are moving with the stretch in bringing up individual spending bills for commitment for a lower overall funding levels. what we have seen conservatives push for was something to gain more conservative support. it will be interesting to see how that strategy plays out if they are able to pass these bills and at of some of these bills don't pass and we are still able to see a essentially a cr come up and senator mccarthy has been eyeing it friday so what does support looks like for that additional expected forthcoming partisan plant. >> for the house funding bill is sierra continuing resolution as it's known, would that be at the same ilk of what they sought early last week, the bill that was agreed to by republicans in negotiations that included some cuts but not as much as some on

the conservative wrightwood want? >> i think that's kind of the expectation. i know we were talking to ralph norman, one of the former conservative philadelphia -- who supports one of the more recent iterations of the cr plan by leadership. i think there's an expectation that would be not just lower overall spending levels so cuts in overall spending levels. immediate cuts that would take effect for the duration of the stopgap and the cr plan even though these changes don't have much chance of passing the senate. there's also an expectation that would sit we would see more policy changes at h.r. to their signature border bill were attached to an overall stopgap fundingnk measure. floor and maybe in a less serious vain, i mean we're all incredulous that while we do our

work here and keep the government open, the -- you know, the people down the hall there, they're playing political games and threatening shutdown and when 55,000 people in my state and probably 10,000 people in the presiding office's state will be laid off because they are trying to play political games. we talk about that a lot and try to fix that, but today i want -- i have something more lighthearted than that. that is about the retiring manager of the cleveland -- cleveland will play their last home tame with tito as their manager, probably starting in 20 minutes. tito has been a part of the team since 2013. i don't know the cleveland manager, i've never met the cleveland manager, but i watched

him and watched a lot of games on television, but we all refer to him by his first time. i -- name. i was at a game earlier this summer and we were pulling out in a traffic jam, and tito does what i read in the paper, all of a sudden he passed -- the game was over about an hour and he rode by in his scooter to his cleveland condominium downtown, he didn't have errs about him. he led cleveland, he was the manager of the 2016 world series where my daughters and my wife and i broke our hearts in game seven to a team like the chicago cubs, and that was fairly amazing. there was a rain delay in the ninth inning.

cleveland lost in extra innings. a week later donald trump was elected so i don't think it was a good week for the country but that's just my biased opinion perhaps. but in ohio, cleveland, if you're a cleveland guardians fan, you know about perseverance. his baseball career extends back to when he joined major league baseball as a player. spent nine years on the field, played a year for cleveland. he's a baseball lifer but his life is inextricably linked to cleveland as a baseball player and manager. i'm not sure he was born in cleveland. he lived in cleveland when his dad played for the cleveland indians at old municipal stadium. his dad has the -- notably his dad twice was traded for larry dobe, the first african american player in the american league, one of the hall of fame member because of his baseball play, his courage, his guts and his -- note as being so important to

history and breaking the color line. i grew up watching his father play. i saw his father once in a doubleheader get seven hits. the eighth time he came to the plate, brooks robinson, the third baseman for the orioles who passed away this week, brooks robinson made a great play at third and threw him out. i also, as i said, his dad was traded twice for larry dobe. his dad one year should have led the league hitting .363 but was disqualified because he had one too few plate appearances, batted 399 times instead of 400 even though he walked a number of times, too much inside baseball maybe for the senate floor and for my colleagues to care about. but his dad played for -- spent, as i said his dad played for years, all-star 1961. hit.363 in 1959 and was a fan favorite. so the francona family, you

know, was formed in cleveland, grew up in cleveland in that sense. it reminds me how baseball is a game that spans generations and brings people together. my dad -- i grew up about for hours south of cleveland. my dad used to take us to major league baseball games, often five or six times a year, often doubleheaders. my dad hated the new york yankees so much, he would never take us to a yankee game because he didn't want mickey mantle, the star of the yankees to get ten cents of his ticket. we never saw the yankees play so i could drive myself to new york. but his father, when tito francona joined the montreal expos in 1991, exceeding his father as a baseball player, he played in cleveland for a year. 1990 retired from the game, not particularly stellar baseball career, not as good as his father's but he became a manager.

managed the red sox to two world championships. came home to us in cleveland in 2013. and he won -- in 2016 cleveland won the american league championship with the indians, now of course the guardians. he led the team to the world series. game seven, quite an experience that i could take my daughters then in their 30's and we had gone to baseball games. my dad took me for years and got to see this team we loved and this team we followed so closely go to the world series, a team that wasn't considered at the beginning of the season world series caliber and it was quite a season. then the next year cleveland came back. they at one point won 22 games in a row. only once in major -- only device -- once in major league baseball that a tim win more than that when the giants in 1926 won 26 in a row. it was an incredible streak. tito -- more importantly, tito, his players reached a level of excellence that was beyond what most people think is -- was their skill level.

cleveland to that owners who never spent the money, that owners in the presiding officer's home state of atlanta, they try to -- like the yankees do, the mets do and the dodgers do and the red sox do, they spend so much money to try to buy the best players. cleveland never had owners that were either that rich or generous. tito had to figure out how to win without that kind of money. but what he's done which i so much like is he looks at his players in a way that is -- he gets out of his players a skill and a drive that most managers are not able to achieve. you can tell he loves america's game. he shared that with all of us. he loves the city where his team plays and where he manages. he's been here for ten years in cleveland. i guess 11 years. his players could have gone somewhere else and made more money. the star player for cleveland, a

young man named jose ramirez signed a long-term contract, made a whole lot of money but everybody said he could have made so much more money if he had gone to new york or atlanta or l.a. or boston and signed huge contracts with really rich, generous owners. so that's the -- i think his players want to play for him. and he put -- helped put our team on the map again. so i just wanted to say to tito francona, thank you for everything you've done for cleveland. thank you for the memories and the joy you've brought so many of us as fans. we celebrate his contributions to baseball, his commitment to cleveland, and his extraordinary career. thank you, mr. president. i would like, mr. president, to -- the following words i ask to be placed in a different point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. on a much more serious note i want to honor a friend of mine who passed away this week, a

national leader of stature that made such a difference in working people's lives. many of you have seen i come to this floor and talk about the dignity of work, talk about people who put their lives on the line, put their careers front and center about workers. tom conway did that. tom conway passed away the last few days, president of the united steelworkers. he joined the labor movement in 1978, worked as a mill right. mill right means those workers who essentially fix and make equipment work inside plants. he worked at the burns harbor works of bethlehem steel in northwest, indiana. he joined local 40 years ago, 45 years ago he joined local 6787. he dedicated his life to expanding opportunity and economic security for workers. whether on a picket line or sitting across from the steele executive -- steel executives, his values were on his sleeve. his commitment to workers never wavered. trade issues, worker safety.

one of the first calls i made to talk to tom conway to get wisdom from tom conway, to get perspective from tom conway because i knew always he was looking out for the workers whom he represented. he -- steelworkers in ohio knew what those bad trade deals from nafta to tpp, all the issues that frankly is a big part of the reason my state has struggled with so many lost jobs. given the devastation tom saw across the industry, you might understand if you became -- owe he was never that. he drew his energy from the resilience from american steelworkers and steel communities across the midwest. he knew what we know in ohio, that american workers can compete with anyone. they just need a level playing field. he never stopped fighting for that level playing field for fair trade, for real investment in american industry, for strong enforcement of our trade laws.

because of his advocacy and the advocacy of so many ohio steelworkers, we've made real progress. we passed the original level of the playing field act, trade remedy laws to allow steelworkers to fight back against cheating by china, against dumping steel from china against other unfair foreign competition. we passed the strongest ever buy america rules to ensure that americans tax dollars support american workers. he never gave up on american steel. he never gave up on american workers. he saw the potential in this union to grope. he knew that if -- to grow. he knew if more people carried a union card, their lives would be better. it would mean higher wages and better benefits, a more secure retirement, aive is aer workplace and more control over your schedule. that's what carrying a union cards means. my wife will say her dad's union card saved her live. she grew up at 16, had an asthma attack, she lived two hours, almost two hours from cleveland clinic. she got an ambulance to take her

to the clinic. she was there for a week. it saved her live. her dad could afford that care, that ambulance, that time in cleveland clinic because he carried a union card and they had negotiated for health care benefits. that's what tom conway did his whole live. i wear on my lapel a pin depicting a canary in a bird cage. the mine workers used it take the canary down in the mines. a hundred years ago if the canary died, the mine worker was on his own. he knew he didn't have a union strong enough or a government who cared enough to protect him. that's why he carried the canary down in the mines. it was given to me by a steel worker some 20 years ago in lorraine, ohio. i wore it on my lapel ever since. that's what tom conway is about. john shin, secretary treasure of usw says sol dared wasn't just a word to tom. it was a way of life. by working together we balanced the scales against greedy corporations. we see it now. chrysler now called stellantis

is made -- has made $12 billion just in calendar year 2023. stellantis ceo makesle00 times -- makes 800 times what the entry worker makes. tom conway understood we fight against that worker greed and we help lift up workers so they can share in the wealth created by their work. balances those scales is what unions are all about. it's why autoworkers in that picket line, it's what they're doing, it's what tom conway led the steel wore workers to do -- steelworkers to do. we hon oar his memory by carry be on his life's work. successor as usw dave mccaul, fellow ohioan, dave mccaul worked with and has known tom conway over 40 years. reserve out the remainder of his term. i can't think of anybody better to carry on tom conway's legacy than dave mccaul. dave and i have been in the trenches for the better part of our careers walking picket line, talking to workers and fighting

against bad trade policy that this body far too often falls for because corporate lobbyists swarm this place and push these bad trade agreements always, always, always at the expense of workers. dave mccaul understands the dignity of work as tom did. he spent his whole life fighting for it. he will make -- would would have made tom conway proud. i ask my colleagues to join honoring tom conway today. our thoughts are with his wife, sons and grandchildren and with steelworkers and brothers in ohio and around the country. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, last week i spoke about the scheme of corruption by right-wing billionaires out to capture the supreme court. i mentioned their lawyers

blockade of our investigation into this corruption and described then how little sense their lawyers' arguments made. that brings us to this speech today. the connection is that those in my view nonsense lawyers' arguments badly needed propping up. and who should come to the rescue but united states supreme court justice sam alito. alito's actions propping up that argument caused me to write this ethics complaint against him. i ask unanimous consent that it be appended as an exhibit at the end of my remarks.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. this complaint highlights some of the supreme court's current legitimacy problems which are legion. one is that the court has no procedure for an ethics complaint. i had to write to chief justice roberts both in his capacity as chief justice and in his capacity as chair of the judicial conference because unlike in every other federal court, there is no clarity about process. the supreme court has no formal process for receiving or investigating such complaints so they go there to die. complaints about supreme court justices have sometimes been referred to the judicial conference and there they have

mostly disappeared. it's a mess. the supreme court, the body with the highest responsibility to police proper procedure and fair factfinding throughout the rest of government has no clear and proper procedure for itself. that's weird, and that's wrong. nothing proy hibts the court or the -- prohibits the court or judicial conference from addressing complaints of misconduct by the justices. they just haven't bothered to. the most basic modicum of any due process is fair factfinding. but they have no process at all to find out even what the facts are. that is simply not defensible. that has to change, and my complaint presents the court and

the conference that opportunity. now, let's move from procedure to the substance of my complaint about justice alito. at one level it is an obvious slam-dunk ethics violation. at another it will take a lot more digging. let me explain. my complaint relates to a so-called interview published on "the wall street journal's" editorial page, july 28 of this year. how it's both an interview and on "the wall street journal" editorial page i'm not going to explore. justice alito was the person interviewed. his interviewers were david rivkin and james taranto. in this interview, justice alito offered his legal opinion that,

and i'm quoting him here, no provision in the constitution gives congress the authority to regulate the supreme court, period. that's the end of his quote. now, that comment wasn't just floating in the ether. it was related to my supreme court ethics bill, the supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act, which the senate judiciary committee had advanced just one week before. and it also related to an array of congressional oversight information requests, from the senate judiciary committee and from the senate finance committee. more on that later. back to the slam-dunk part. i sit on the senate judiciary committee, where we hear in every supreme court confirmation hearing that it would be

improper, that it would be wrong, even in a confirmation hearing, to express opinions on matters that might come before the court. well, obviously alito's interview comments, his "wall street journal" editorial page opining, touched on a matter that might come before the court. that's the slam-dunk. look at what other justices have testified about this opining problem. but let's start with alito himself, who testified in his confirmation hearing, and i quote him here, improper, and i quote him again here, a disservice to the judicial process. for a supreme court nominee to comment on issues that might come before the court. his words. consider also justice thomas, who testified that such opining would, i quote here, leave the impression that i prejudged this issue, which would be, he said,

inappropriate for any judge who is worth his or her salt. end quote. justice kagan told the committee it would be, and i quote her, inappropriate for her to, and i quote, give any indication of how she would rule in a case, even in a somewhat veiled manner. justice kavanaugh testified that nominees, quoting again here, cannot discuss cases or issues that might come before them. he went on that prejudging an issue in this manner is, and i quote, inconsistent with judicial independence, rooted in article 3. he continued that, litigants who come before the court have to know we have an open mind, that we do not have a closed mind. he quoted justice ginsburg, no hints, no forecasts, no previews. justice gorsuch went one better in his confirmation hearing. he actually testified that this

no opining rule applies to discussions about supreme court ethics, the exact topic of justice alito's "wall street journal" opining. senator blumenthal, on the committee, had asked judge gorsuch about proposed ethics rules for the supreme court, and whether they would violate separation of powers. gorsuch answered, as i say, right here, as i quote, senator, i'm afraid i just have to respectfully decline to comment on that, because i'm afraid that would be a case or controversy, and you can see how it might be. i can understand congress' concern and interest in this area. i understand that. but i think the proper way to test that question is the prescribed process of legislation and litigation. end quote. in sum, the court itself is plainly on record that this sort

of opining is wrong. so that is broken rule one, just offering the opinion. but it gets worse. this was not just general opining out into the general ether. alito's comments referred to a specific, ongoing legal dispute. let me explain. there are ongoing senate investigations into the scandal of secret billionaire gifts to certain justices. the senate judiciary committee is investigating a report that supreme court justices accepted and improperly failed to disclose, in violation of congress' disclosure laws, lavish gifts from billionaire benefactors seeking to influence the court. and the senate finance committee

is investigating federal tax compliance regarding those undisclosed gifts. were tax laws broken? were proper declarations made? in those congressional investigations, requests for information have been sent out. in response to those requests, objections have been raised. and here's where alito comes in. the objections by the billionaires' lawyers assert that congress has no constitutional authority to legislate in this area, hence no authority to investigate. they assert, in my view, plainly, wrongly that our constitutional separation of powers blocks any congressional action in this area, which in turn they assert also plainly, wrongly in my view, blocks any congressional investigation. set aside the demerits of that

argument, for which i refer you to the lawyers' letters i added to the letter in my previous speech and my own takedown of that arrangement -- of that argument. sound or unsound, the proint is, it -- the point is it is their argument in that ongoing dispute. and in that ongoing dispute justice alito's "wall street journal" comments prop up that argument. the language is nearly identical. you can compare it for yourself. in fact, lawyers for some of the billionaires to whom we have sent information requests have actually quoted justice alito's comment in declining to respond. so, this is not just some improper general opining. it's a supreme court justice

leaning into one side of a specific ongoing dispute, and being used and quoted by one side of a specific ongoing dispute. that's pretty bad. it gets worst. one of the interviewers in that "wall street journal" interview, attorney david rivkin, wasn't just some interviewer. he is the attorney for a party in that specific ongoing dispute. rivkin is the attorney making the precise legal argument that alito echoed, and he is making it in that ongoing dispute. none of this, of course, was disclosed in the so-called

interview. a logical mind would rightfully ask whether justice alito opined on this matter at the behest of his interviewer, attorney rivkin. a suspicious mind would even wonder whether toshe rivkin -- whether attorney rivkin prepped his witness, as lawyers are want to do. with no means of factfinding, all this remains unknown. bad enough to opine on some general matter that may come before the court. worse when the opining brings a supreme court justice's influence to bear in a specific ongoing legal dispute, and worse yet when the influence of the justice might have been summoned by counsel to a party in that

dispute. the timeline is suspicious. mr. rivkin's interview with justice alito was reportedly conducted in early july 2023. on july 11, chairman durbin and i had sent a letter to rivkin's client in that dispute, inquiring about undisclosed gifts and travel provided to justices. on july 20, the senate judiciary committee voted to advance my judicial ethics bill. and, by the way, the rivkin-alito congress has no authority argument fared very poorly that day in the committee. on july 25, mr. rivkin, by letter, refused to answer our information requests on the purported ground, and i'm quoted him here, any attempt by congress to enact ethics standards by the supreme court would falter on constitutional objections. and three days later, on

july 28, comes the supportive opining from justice alito about those constitutional objections. there are a lot of questions that need answering, under oath, about how this mess played out. but wait. there's more. attorney rivkin's client in that dispute has a relationship with justice alito. he is a friend, an ally of justice alito. rivkin's client is leonard leo. leo is not just a friend and ally of alito. our oversight questions that attorney rivkin is blocking relate to mr. leo's actions to facilitate gifts for supreme court justices. from right wing billionaires, a free and undisclosed

transportation and lodging. mr. leo didn't just facilitate, he was justice alito's companion on the luxurious alaskan fishing trip in 2008 that right wing billionaires funded. the relationship goes back. leo's political organization, and i quote here, had run an advertising campaign supporting alito in his confirmation fight, and leo was reportedly part of the team that prepared alito for his senate hearings. so, it appears that justice alito, a., improperly opined in "the wall street journal," b., to influence a specific, ongoing dispute, c., possibly at the behest of counsel in that dispute, and d., to the benefit

of a personal friend and ally. none of that was disclosed in the interview, either. and it brings us to the last and most damning point. justice alito's opining, potentially at the behest of his friend and ally's lawyer, props up an argument being used to block inquiry into undisclosed gifts and travel received by justice alito himself. justice alito himself is the ultimate beneficiary of his own improper opining. it comes full circle. in the worst-case scenario, justice alito broke the rules against opining in order to facilitate an organized campaign, to obstruct

congressional investigation into tens of thousands of dollars in gifts he, alito, personally received and doesn't want investigated. whether justice alito was unwittingly used to provide fodder for such interference or intentionally participated in that interference plan, and whether he did it to protect the right wing billionaires or himself or both, those are questions whose answers require additional facts. the heart of any due process is a fair determination of the facts. uniquely, in the whole of government, the supreme court

has insulated its justice from any semblance of fair fact finding. the obstruction of our inquiries by mr. rifkin and mr. leo, fueled by justice alito's opining, prevents congress from gathering those facts, and the supreme court won't even look. mr. president, that can't be. not in a nation of laws. that is flagrantly, obviously wrong. so i have asked the chief justice or the judicial conference to take whatever steps are necessary to develop a process to investigate this affair and provide the public with the prompt and trustworthy answers it deserves.

the supreme court's legitimacy cannot stand on an edifice of obstruction, secrecy, and lies. to be continued, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

good afternoon everyone. you are all familiar with the choice we have before us to shut down the government, or keep the government open up until november the 17th and give us a chance to continue to resolve a number of the appropriation issues. it is important to remember that if we shut down the government, they are concerned about the border and want it to be improved, the border patrol went ice agencies have to continue to work for nothing. so i don't think, even those of us were deeply concerned about the border -- i don't think that is likely -- more likely to happen in a shut down then with

the government open. the senate and the house are quite different as you know. and i think in the senate we are going to continue to try to reach an agreement, pass it on a bipartisan basis and hopefully keep the government open. lettered during consideration of the inflation reduction act there was a discussion about whether or not there will be increased audits are people making less than $40000 you all recall the democrats appropriate or funded $80 billion for a new irs agents but a 7000 new irs agents. at the time, republicans offered an amendment that would have forced the irs not to increase audits on people making less than $40000 per year.

every single democrat voted against that amendment. and now we find that the irs watchdog the irs is not going to be able to adhere to the pledge they had made to ensure people making under $40000 a year are not subject to increased audits. under the guise of agility. they need agility in order to reach their funding goals for the irs. well, this is exactly what we suggested was going to happen. ultimately all of the money all the new irs agents were going to start auditing people making less than $40000 a year. it's another byproduct of. what if we gotten? we got increased audits but we've got higher interest rates, crippling inflation. lower and buying a part depleted savings accounts. that is what we get with bidenomics. betsy inflation reduction act ultimately has yielded in terms of an outcome and a result which

many of us predicted. the work reports this week as a leader pointed out is to try to make sure we get the government funded so we get a normal appropriations process going we can have the big policy and funding debates that we should be having through normal appropriations bill debates were not just members of the appropriations committee but also our entire caucus have an opportunity through the amendment process have their voices heard. >> the government is on the verge of a shut down and the government is currently being operated using the bloated budget of pelosi and schumer and biden from last year with lots of wasteful washington spending in it. the american people deserve better. they deserve a government that is open and works for them for they deserve a government that is open and a border that is closed which is why republicans will be working on amendments and what we are dealing with on the floor and now that will stop

the flow of illegal immigrants coming into this country and stop the flow of illegal drugs or him so much damage to the people of this country. the public deserves a congress that provides a check on this out-of-control administration and the agenda coming out of the biden administration. the way to do that is to passion 12 appropriation bills. we have a responsibility to do that. that is why i am such a proponent of the prevent government shutdown active. i have continually cosponsor this every time over the last three congresses. he is speaking this holds the public harmlessly. it holds washington here, republicans, democrats, house and senate here working day after day seven days a week to get all of the appropriation bills done and they can work on nothing else until that happens. this is set up to put the pressure and punishment on the politicians not on the public.

we need to pass prevent government shutdown active. we need to do it now. that is the way to prevent government shutdowns permanently. >> harvest is in full swing back home in iowa. on monday as i was driving up to the airport i go through all of these wonderful communities lined with soybean fields, cornfields and some of the fondest memories that i have as a little girl in southwest iowa what was riding in that tractor, the combined with my dad or my uncle or my grandpa. i winds are working really, really hard. it is such a different position that what we see here in washington d.c. where it yet once again congress as a body is not able to get its work done. i think folks here in washington could really learn a lot from

our hard-working iowans. and so this last friday i tried something new. i brought a lot of the washington d.c. agents out to iowa for my first ever entrepreneur expo per week connected small businesses and individuals from the great state of iowa with those in government agencies to learn about contracting opportunities. we really want to develop our small businesses in iowa. and again give them a shot at providing government, our federal government with their next best idea. >> well, we saw the startling numbers i think from the august immigration. i talked about that illegal immigration i talked about that last week. but this week i also realized as i went to see what's called the martinsburg initiative in martinsburg, west virginia it's an all hands on deck

preventative initiative to fight addiction and the addiction crisis. the numbers that were released 111,000 americans lost their lives to fentanyl overdoses last year. my state of west virginia per population unfortunately leads that statistic. our statistics went up 4.5% in terms of the number of lives that we lost. as we look at this potential for a government shutdown, if we look at the alarming numbers at the border what we are faced with this with the leader says we are faced with asking our border patrol agents were totally overrun we are asking them to do more now. but how we could be asking them or they could be asked to work and not receive a paycheck. and so what happens to all these fentanyl deaths in the fentanyl coming over when we have a workforce overstretched and has to stop 224,000 illegals coming through.

the drugs fled through and kill our americans and our young people and our sons and daughters. it is just a human crisis that we have here. so we have got to keep the government running. we have got to pay it and figure out a way to enforce the border. i think a big great place to put it to have more border protection of absently for that. but at this point right now 77% of the american people do not believe we should shut the government down and i am in that 77%. i think it will have great impact not only on the border but also on those suffering from addiction and having a dishes with the flow of fentanyl that's thiscoming across our border thk you. >> and joe biden is a record-breaking president. record high inflation. record high gas prices. record high illegal border crossings. riend from west

virginia will submit a resolution regarding the senate dress code. though we've never had an official dress code, the events over the past week have made us all feel as though formalizing one is the right path forward. i deeply appreciate senator fetterman working with me to come to an agreement that we all find acceptable, and of course i appreciate senator manchin and senator romney's leadership on this issue. i will move for the senate to adopt this resolution in a few minutes, and i now yield to my colleague from west virginia. mr. manchin: let me thank you. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: let me thank you, senator schumer, for working with us to come to this conclusion bringing all of us together. we appreciate it very much. i appreciate senator mcconnell for being a part of this, enjoying this bipartisan effort. and of course my dear friend, senator mitt romney, who has been a part of all these efforts we've worked together in putting this small token of our

appreciation for what we've been able to to do. i want to thank senator fetterman also. senator fetterman and i have had many conversations and he worked with me to find a solution. i appreciate that very much. i it has truly been a team effort. for 234 years every senator has had the honor of serving in this distinguished body has assumed there was some basic written rules of decorum, conduct and civility, one of which was a dress code. the presumed dress code was pretty simple. the male senators were required to wear a coat, tie, and slacks or other long pants while on the floor of the senate to show the respect that we had for our constituents back home. just over a week ago we learned there were not in fact any written rules about the senators and what they could and could not wear on the floor. so senator romney and i got together and we thought maybe it's time we finally codify something that was precedented rule for 234 years.

we drafted this simple two-page resolution that will put all of that to bed once and for all by just codifying the long-standing practices into a senate rule which makes it very clear for the sergeant at arms to be able to enforce. so with that, i want to thank senator romney for working, as always, in a bipartisan way on so many endeavors. and this is just as important as many any of them we've ever done. with that, i turn it over and yield to my good friend, senator romney. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. romney: mr. president, thank you, senator manchin. we have collaborated on quite a number of things together. it's been a great experience and a joy for me. thank you, leader schumer for beginning this process and making sure that we reached a favorable and bipartisan conclusion. this is not the biggest thing going on in washington today. it's not even one of the biggest things going on in washington

today. but nonetheless, it's a good thing. it's another example of republicans and democrats being able to work together and to solve in this case what may not be a real big problem but it's an important thing and makes a difference to a lot of people. i've been thinking about the extraordinary founders of our country and the leaders in the early days that decided to build this building. i mean, george washington approved this building. in the years that followed, huge sacrifices were made. they could have built a building that looks like a walmart with lazy boy chairs. instead they built this extraordinary edifice with columns and marble. why did they do that, make that huge investment? one i think is to show the respect and admiration we have for the institution of the government of the united states of america. this was at a time when we were allege agricultural -- an agricultural society and yet they made this enormous stwies

-- sacrifice and built this he had edifice. i think it is in keeping with that spirit that we say those who serve in this room and hall to show dignity and respect that is consistent with the sacrifices made and with the beauty and surroundings. i appreciate the effort senator manchin has led and senator schumer put on the floor this evening such that we might be able to proceed and codify what has been a long-standing practice showing our admiration and respect for the institution in which we serve, the very building in which we're able to serve it and our respect for the people that we represent. thank you. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: though we've never had an official dress code the events over the past week have made us all feel as though formalizing it is the right way forward. and so i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 376 submitted earlier

today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 376 clarifying the dress code for the floor of the senate. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president.

the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. schumer: i have nine requests for committees to meet today during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions -- s. res. 373, s. res. 374,s. res. 375, sdz 377. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure en bloc? without objection, the senate will proceed en bloc. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it recess until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, september 28, that following the prayer and pledge, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed, that upon conclusion of morning

business the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 3935 postcloture and that all time be considered expired at 11:45 a.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand in recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until today it set up lawmakers continued work on a srt-term spending bill to avert government shutdown on saturday at midnight. bipartisan measure would extend current funding levels until november 17. edition bill provided $6 billion each for aid to ukraine and u.s. disaster relief. off the floor at senator bob menendez aeared in court today to plead not glty to corruption charges. the new jersey senator is expected topeak to the decratic caucus on thursday growing number of democratic

members have beenalling on him to resign. encoding majority whip dick durbin. watch live coverage of the u.s. senate lawmakers return here on cspan2. did you ever miss any of c-span's coverage are confined any time online at c-span.org. audios of key hearings debates and other events which are markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. ports of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play unselect videos. this timeline told makes it easy to quickly get an idea it was what wasdebated and decided in washington. scroll through spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> tonight former president presidtnald trump hold a rally outside detroit just ahead of e gop presidential debate whhou will not be participating in. it will be his first campaign en since a judge in new york found him and his company lbl

for fraud deceiving banks and insurers withxaggerated assets and financial informati. in the years prior to being president part in question former presidents rly live starting at 8:00 p.m. easte o cspan2, c-span andow freight mobile video app. >> healthy democracy does not just like like this. it looks like this it. americans can see democracy at work. a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from nation's capitol to were ever you are because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span powered by cable. >> senate democratic gop leaders spoke to reporters following their weekly party caucus