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

the clerk: mr. king, aye. the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, no.

the clerk: mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye. ms. baldwin, aye. mr. reed, aye. the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no. mr. ossoff, aye. ms. hassan, aye. the clerk: mr. budd, no.

the clerk: mr. moran, no. mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mr. rubio, no. the clerk: mr. rounds, no. mr. boozman, no. the clerk: mr. merkley, aye.

mr. warner, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye.

the clerk: mr. thune, no. ms. cantwell, aye. mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no.

vote:

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. the clerk: ms. cortez-masto, aye. mr. romney, no.

mr. johnson, no. the clerk: ms. ernst, no.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye. mr. leigh, no. ms. murkowski, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. padilla, aye. mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no. the clerk: mr. kelly, aye.

mr. menendez, aye.

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

the clerk: ms. warren, aye. the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. mrs. fischer, no.

mr. mcconnell, no. mr. sullivan, no. mr. vance, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. hagerty, no.

the presiding officer: the ayes are 52, the nays are 46. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 38, ramon ernesto reyes, jr. of new york to be united states district judge for the

eastern district of new york, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of ramon ernesto reyes, jr. of new york to be united states district judge for the eastern district of new york shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso.

the clerk: mr. bennet.

mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines.

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

mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. the clerk: mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed.

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

senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, blumenthal, booker, brown, cantwell, cardin, casey, coons, cortez masto, duckworth, durbin, fetterman, hassan, kaine, kelly, king, klobuchar, menendez, murray, padilla, peters, rosen, schatz, smith, tester, van hollen, warner, warnock, warren, and whitehouse. senators voting in the negative -- blackburn, boozman, budd, capito, collins, cotton, cramer, crapo, daines, ernst, fischer, graham, grassley, hagerty, hawley,

hyde-smith, johnson, kennedy, lee, mcconnell, moran, murkowski, paul, risch, romney, rounds, rubio, scott of florida, sullivan, tuberville, and vance. mr. barrasso, no. the clerk: mr. tillis, no.

mr. reed, aye. mr. lankford, no. mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye. ms. sinema, aye. ms. butler, aye.

the clerk: mr. braun, no. the clerk: mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. sanders, aye.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. mr. lujan, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: mr. welch, aye.

the clerk: mr. wyden, aye.

mr. thune, no. mr. ricketts, no. mr. heinrich, aye.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no.

the clerk: mr. gillibrand, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. young, no.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye. the clerk: mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. cruz, no -- mr. cruz, no.

mr. marshall, no. mr. cruz, no. mr. marshall, no.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no. mr. wicker, no.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. the yeas are 50, the nays are 4- the presiding officer: the yeas are 50, the nays are 46, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, ramon ernesto reyes, jr., of new york, to be united states district judge for the eastern district of new york. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that s ifn tara -- sitara kitla, a senator

in. ms. hirono:'s office be granted floor purchase lens until october 30, 2023. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask that senators blumenthal, hirono, welch and myself be allowed to engage in a colloquy on the senate floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. the subject of our colloquy is going to be the enormous secret gifts that have recently been disclosed going into the pockets of certain supreme court justices. the first thing that's remarkable about these gifts is how magnificent they are. luxury trips on private jets, luxury trips on super yachts, paying for a justice's mother's home, paying for private school tuition of dependents, $500,000 donations to organizations that

the spouse worked for, $25,000 fees in to a spouse's consulting firm, jet and fishing trips across the country. so it's all pretty rich stuff. in rhode island, if you want to take a gift from somebody, let's say you're a municipal employee and they want to take you to lunch across the street from city hall, it's 25 bucks. that's your limit, and you've got to disclose it. and you get to do it three times and then you're dofnlt then you can't even take the $25 lunch if you disclose it. in rhode island, people are really upset about these multihundred thousand dollars gifts. it gets worse. it's not just the size of the gifts. it's the network. it's the web. the billionaires that are involved in giving these gifts overlap with an array of front groups that are involved with

the billionaires and with the gifts, and there is a common fixer who ties many of these threads together, and the trips very often involve the fixer and the justices and the billionaires and the whole mess is interwoven. the donations go through the front groups to the justices from the fixer. over and over this thing is a web, and we are working hard in the judiciary committee to try to untangle it. and on thursday we'll be taking up the question of subpoenas to the billionaires and the front group corpsings that have participate -- front group corporations that have participated in these different gifts to find out what really went on, how bad really was it. what we know already is bad enough, but there's more to discover. and with that, let me yield to my colleague, senator blumenthal, and then i'll wrap

up after senator hirono and senator welch have had their chance to speak as well. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank senator whitehouse for his leadership on this issue. persistent, consistent, constant in seeking the truth. very simply, seeking the facts. we're here about the authorization of a subpoena to three individuals -- harlan crow, leonard lee yoa and -- leonard leo and robert arkley, who have engaged in, we know for sure, a pt -- pattern of gift giving including lavish vacations, private jet flights, school tuition and even a luxury r.v. these wealthy political activists have given those

gratuities, we know for sure. but we know very little else because the supreme court has no code of ethics. the united states supreme court could defuse a lot of degrading rumor and speculation if it were simply to do as every other branch of government, as every other judge except for the united states supreme court does and impose a code of ethics. its refusal to adopt a code of ethics lies at the core of our reason for being here today. but in my view, these subpoenas are part of an effort to save the court from its own self-inflicted ethical crisis. it is a ethical conflagration of its own making. the supreme court justices are the only federal judges that are

not subject to a binding and enforceable ethical code, and that leads to the next point. the judicial conference is a creation of this body, the united states congress. we are looking into what the judicial conference should be doing and what it may know and should be held accountable for knowing. our investigative effort directly concerns a creation legislatively of the congress. it is perfectly proper. it raises no constitutional issues. all this stuff about the independence of the supreme court, yes, it is an independent branch of government, but it's not nonaccountable. funds for it are appropriated. rules of evidence are created,

and there are numerous ways that it in effect is held a part of an overall and overarching government of the united states of america. the small circle of individuals here that have engaged in these gifts, all of them far-right, wealthy donors, some of them having cases before the court, raises issues that are profoundly important to the credibility of the court itself. and so, again, we are seeking to save the court in a sense from its own potential self-inflicted continuing degrading and diminishing. the fact that the polls show the supreme court has plummeted in public esteem are not the reason

for us to investigate, but they reflect a secrecy combined with these potentially improper gifts that is undermining the court as an institution. i say it sadly because i was a law clerk on the united states supreme court. justice harry blackmun, who, by the way, would not even go to dinner with someone who might at some point in the future have a case before the court. i've argued cases for them before the united states supreme court. i have real reverence for the court as an institution, so i'm especially sad but also particularly angry that the court is failing, totally failing to take action that it owes the american people and itself because the supreme court as an institution will be

diminished by its continued refusal to create an ethics code. and the refusal to disclose the truth about these financial relationships. these twin refusals bring us here today. authorizing the subpoena is not a step that i take lightly. none of my colleagues do. but the weight of the court's ethical crisis makes it necessary. the american people deserve a supreme court that is ethical, impartial, and accountable. the highest court in the land is not higher than the law. it's not above accountability. it may be independent, but it is not unto its own as it seems to believe it is. we are past halloween.

all of the charades and shams that have been offered as arguments are about as valid as the costumes people were wearing the other day, on october 31. the supreme court has a commitment and a promise under our constitution. it has to deliver on that promise or its credibility will be further diminished, and the supreme court as a pillar of justice -- and it must be a pillar of justice -- will be eviscerated in the eyes of the american people. i look forward to authorizing these subpoenas and representing to restore the reputation of our united states supreme court. and i yield to my colleague from hawaii, senator hirono. ms. hirono: mr. president, i rise today because i like the majority of americans am increasingly concerned about the legitimacy crisis at the united

states supreme court. the court consists of nine members who have lifetime appointments and can make decisions regarding the quality of the air we breathe, the exercise of free speech on the internet, autonomy and control of our bodies, protection of our homes, cars, and cell phones from government intrusion. these are just a few ways that the supreme court decisions impact the lives of every single american every single day. these are individuals with immense power. shouldn't they be held to the highest level of ethical accountability? not because we disagree with some of the court's decisions, but because it's legitimacy depends on americans having faith that those decisions are arrived at fairly and objectively, not influenced by moneyed special interests.

yet instead of having the strongest ethical rules or any binding ethical rules, for that matter, the supreme court purports to follow a, quote, collection of principles, end quote, that are both nonbinding and weaker than the rules for government workers, for members of congress, and for many private-sector employees. as we have seen, the supreme court's honor system for financial disclosures and recusals is woefully inadequate. this is not a partisan issue. justices appointed by both democrats and republican presidents have had ethical lapses. the public is paying attention, and now it appears there are sitting justices approved by both democrats and republican presidents that are publicly supporting an official code of conduct for the supreme court.

the supreme court could have adopted such a code decades ago and can do so today if it wanted to. however, if the supreme court will not adopt a code of conduct for itself, then congress has the constitutional power and responsibility to impose a code of conduct on it. this brings me to the topic of subpoenas. for months my colleagues and i on the judiciary committee have worked in good faith to gather information about gifts of luxury, travel and other gifts made to certain justices. to understand whether ethical violations occurred and how and when. we sought information from the millionaires and billionaires who made those gifts about the kinds of access they may have gained as a result. despite lengthy negotiations, we have hit an impasse in our

efforts with two of these individuals and their related corporations. their refusal to provide the committee with relevant information leave us no choice but to authorize subpoenas. we need information from these individuals to understand the extent to which supreme court justices have failed to disclose gifts from parties with interest before the court. congress has a responsibility to craft and strengthen effective, comprehensive supreme court ethics legislation going forward. some of my republican colleagues say that issuing subpoenas to people who paid for luxury travel and gifts for supreme court justices somehow undermines democracy. mr. president, those claims are preposterous. what undermines our democracy is justices accepting gifts and appearing to use their office

for personal gain. mr. president, if the court had done the right thing decades ago and adopted a comprehensive code of conduct, we likely would not be issuing subpoenas. we have a responsibility to ensure that the highest court of the land adheres to at least, at least the same ethical standard that apply to the other two branches of government and to pass appropriate legislation if it has failed to do so. therefore, the committee should continue to exercise its constitutional oversight authority and authorize subpoenas. thank you, mr. president. i yield to senator welch. mr. welch: i thank my colleagues , and i thank senator whitehouse for your work on this. you know, the question that is facing, i think, all of us and is troubling americans is an erosion of confidence in our

institutions. we're seeing that with a lot of erosion in confidence in the legislature which is here to serve the interest of the people we all represent. it is also sometimes with the executive, huge battles there. and of course january 6 was an indication that the norms that have guided us throughout our history, and that is the peaceful transfer of power after the people of this country make a decision about who should be their elected leader, that's all been challenged many -- challenged. and now we have the supreme court. and the supreme court has an incredibly important role in the preservation of our democracy. because it has the capacity to make decisions about legislative actions and whether what the legislator did fits within the parameters of the constitution. and it's an awesome

responsibility. and as my colleagues have said, i have an enormous amount of reverence for the institution of the judiciary, and i have an enormous amount of reverence for the particular role of the united states supreme court. and i have immense respect for the individuals who have achieved that status of being a member of the united states supreme court. they serve an important institution, they have a very important job, but they're not more important, as individuals, than any other american. they're not. they have more responsibility, they have a special obligation as justices to the supreme court, but they're not above the law.

this is not exactly about whether there are legal questions involved. it is about whether they accept the responsibility that goes with -- representing an institution that must maintain the credibility of the american people in order to have the -- the people that they serve respect their decisions. and we have a situation on the supreme court now where within our judiciary we have 850 judges at all different levels. every single one of those judges is subject to rules that are designed to try to instill public confidence, and those rules require those judges to make financial disclosures that includes whether they have been the beneficiary of gifts.

there's nine people in this country who are in the judiciary that don't adhere to those rules, that don't believe it's their burden to share and disclose with the american people what gifts they received, and those are the nine justices of the united states supreme court. that's outrageous. you know, when i talk to vermonters about this and i say, do you think that if a justice of the vermont supreme court or a justice of the united states supreme court should be required to let you know, and the public know, if they got private jet travel to a location to get on a private yacht to take a private vacation, they have an

obligation to disclose that. and vermonters look at me in dismay and they say, peter, are you serious? they can do that? this is not about disclosure, this is about astonishment that someone in a position of authority that every vermonter knows is getting the offer of a free air travel, or a free yacht trip in the indonesian islands, it has nothing to do as persons, it has to do with who they are because of their responsibility and role as a united states supreme court justice. so this question of gifts and the bare minimum of having to disclose it, how is it even a question? and you know, i served in the house, as you know, mr. president, and in 2011, i

and several of my colleagues wrote a letter inquiring about these gifts and why is it that they didn't have to be disclosed. this has been going on for far too long. there's another matter of personal respect. the supreme court justices, all of them have the highest position in the judiciary, and all of those other 850 judges under them, are they not entitled to expect that what is required of them will be accepted by those nine members? and i have to confess enormous dismay that the chief justice of the supreme court, whos in -- who's in the position to bring those other eight justices together and say, hey, let's deal with this. why are we creating this problem when it does so much to undercut

public confidence and what it is we're trying to do, hasn't done it. hasn't done it. so we have to do it. and i believe that the judiciary, not just the 850 members of the judicial branch, but 859 members of the judicial branch should all be subject to the same disclosure rules. and let me tell you, if they disclose these gifts, maybe they won't take these gifts. because what's the point? really? this is when i go back to the vermonters i talked to. who say, peter, what's the deal? you can literally take an all-expense paid vacation and this person thinks it's not going to influence them and they want to know what i've been smoking. seriously. so what we're doing here is pretty modest, bare bones, but

even if it's bare bones and modest, it is absolutely essential in our first step to restore the confidence of the people of this country, republicans, democrats, independents, that our judiciary is all about serving them, not benefiting individually by their positions. and i yield to my colleague from rhode island, senator whitehouse. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: first let me thank my three colleagues for joining me on the floor. the first word that keeps coming up is reverence. and i want to start with that word. because we all do share a reverence for the institution of the united states supreme court. and that's what makes it so bitter to see how badly the supreme court is failing us now

and to see the paths that billionaire influence has let -- led it down. it has to correct. and if it's not going to correct itself, congress is going to have to correct it. as senator blumenthal said, the problem here is that there's no ethics process for the supreme court. there's a perfectly good code of ethics for all of the justices and for all of the federal judges, but there's no way to enforce it for the supreme court. if you have a complaint about a supreme court justice, there's nowhere to file it. there's not even an inbox. even if there was an inbox and a complaint came through there's nobody to screen out the nutty ones from the legitimate ones, and once you have a pile of legitimate ones, there's no staff attorney to do the basic research into what are the facts here, and at the end of the day when you have the facts

determined and the judge or the justices had their say, then you have the factual predicate to compare with the ethics standard and a neutral decider to decide whether or not it come ports. that is -- comports. that is the basic structure of the united states due process, and the supreme court will not allow that for itself. that is the problem that we have. so none of the questions that deserve to be answered about all of these secret gifts and about all of this billionaire influence, none of them have even been asked over at the supreme court let alone answered. so we have an absolute obligation to go forward with answers. and we have tried. we've asked very nicely. we've sent lists of questions. we've gone forward with the people who would know about all of this, and we've received two

answers. one was that this is unconstitutional and so we're not going to participate with you at all. you get nothing. you don't get a single answer. that, as senator blumenthal said, we believe to be a complete sham and a complete charade because the disclosure rules, right? we're talking about disclosure of gifts to justices, that they went undisclosed. so the question is should they have been disclosed? and there is a rule about disclosure that just happens to be a law passed by congress. and there's a related law passed by congress that relates to recusal and it relates to gifts. because if you take big enough gifts from someone, you then have to recuse yourself as a judge from their cases.

and the recusal rule is also passed by congress. so you have a disclosure law passed by congress and you have a recusal law passed by congress, and you have, as senator blumenthal described, the judicial conference, which is the administrative body that oversees the administrative side of the judicial branch, and that body was also created by congress. so the argument that is being made to us is that congress has no authority to oversee how an agency congress created is implementing laws congress passed. that argument is on its face preposterous, and that in turn suggests that there is a lot to look at when we get a chance to look under the hood of all of this mischief, and they really don't want us to see it and

they're going to manufacture completely prepost postus -- preposterous arguments to throw us off the trail. but they did offer a few things, but you can only go back five years. we happen to know with respect to this billionaire that they were giving gifts to justices way more than five years ago. so they're not even allowing us to ask into the known gift-giving conduct between the billionaire and the justice, which, by the way, was undisclosed at the time. so the five-year rule is just nonsensical, just picked out of the air, picked out of a criminal statute as if that had a bearing on this investigation.

and then they said, we'll give you the documents we already have and have the lawyers give a narrative. anyone who knows about the cases, if you rely on the other side's lawyers' narrative, you're getting no place. discovery means you see the documents, you do your real homework like real lawyers do. so for one lawyer to say, we have the documents, but we're not going to show them to you, we're going to give you a narrative about them, there isn't a lawyer who would accept that as a condition in a discovery of a case. and the third one is that once we answered your first round of questions and given you our phony baloney narrative for the five years that is all we'll let you inquire about, no more questions. you waive your right to ask us anymore questions forever. again, there's not a lawyer in

the country who would accept that as a condition of a discovery order. you get to ask the second question. one and done is not a thing when you're doing an investigation. so all of these theoretical accommodations that were offered were just completely fake. we cannot proceed that way, not with any kind of professionalism and not with any kind of ability to get to the truth, which is at the end of the day what we really need to do here. i will conclude by going back to where i starred. the -- started. the reason that we need to follow this process of getting subpoenas so we get answers to our questions is because of two failures. one, the failure of the supreme court to even ask these questions itself. if there were a viable process going forward using these basic

due process investigation standards that everybody in government has to face for ethics except these nine justices, we wouldn't need to do this. but the supreme court won't allow questions to be asked about itself. so we can't go to them for a proper investigation. they refuse to do it. and when we asked the participants in this gift scheme what they were up to, they told us, as the ranking member of the judiciary committee i think rather artfully summarized to go pound sand. when we have a legitimate inquiry into statutes passed, go pound sand is not a legitimate answer. the next step is to authorize these subpoenas, and we're going to do that. this business of the court not answering obvious questions is really a problem.

the question of whether justice thomas should have recused himself from the january 6 cases depends on a single fact -- what he knew about his wife's involvement in insurrection activities. if he knew absolutely nothing at all, okay. then it's probably okay for him to recuse himself. maybe a little appearance of improprietary. if he actually knew of her involvement in those matters, he absolutely should have reduced -- recused himself. the question, justice thomas, what did you know and when did you know it, has never been asked and never been answered. that's not a tenable way for a court that purports to represent due process and enforce due

process to conduct itself with respect to conflict of interest. same thing with these gifts. there is no federal judge in the country who is receiving multihundred-thousand-dollar vacation gifts who is getting huge, half million-dollar checks sent into a spouse's small, private company, out of which she takes money. this behavior of free private jet travel at beck and call, it seems, nobody else does that. it's not okay. but looking at it to find out what actually took place and why and when is a basic responsibility of the judiciary. in any other court, these claims, these charges, these circumstances would be properly

investigated. we'd know the facts, and we're entitled to know the facts. the last is that in the context of our investigation, one of these lawyers made up what i consider to be a sham argument that we can't ask any questions because it's unconstitutional. i've addressed that. it's a congressionally established entity applying congressly established -- congressally established laws. yes, we do get to inquire about that type of job. because that argument is so weak, so sham, that lawyer actually recruited a supreme court justice to go into the editorial page of "the wall

street journal" and offer an extra judicial opinion, not an opinion of the court, just his own personal opinion, that we had no business investigating. that violates a ton of stuff. that violates the rule that they're not supposed to offer opinions on matters that might come before the court. that violates the rule that you shouldn't be engaging as a justice in an ongoing dispute, sort of like a de facto expert witness for a party in an ongoing dispute. in this case, the dispute is over access to information. the lawyer's client in that is one of the people involved in this scheme, leonard leo. and leonard leo has a personal relationship also with justice alito. he's described as his friend. none of that is disclosed. he just offers his opinion on

behalf of the lawyer for his friend. at the end of the day, the inquiry looks at free gifts, undisclosed, received by justice alito. at the end of the day, the lawyer for leonard leo was able to recruit a member of the supreme court, just alito, to offer a private -- i should say a public opinion, but a nonofficial opinion, a personal opinion in "the wall street journal" editorial page to prop up the argument that says we can't look into gifts that leonard leo, the client, organized for justice' lito, the recipient. that is a tangled mess of ethics violations, and nobody can look at that. nobody will look at that.

that can't be. so with the court looking at none of the scandalous behavior, it is entirely incumbent upon the congress to do its job and get to the bottom of what went on, and that is what, under the leadership and guidance of our judiciary chairman, chairman dick durbin, we will do. with that, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i first ask unanimous consent, on behalf of senator durbin, that the following law clerks of the senate judiciary committee be granted floor privileges until november 16, 2023 -- evan zapata, dorva traveti, christopher daffin, timothy

laterak and james stark. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading, en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 374, an act to impose additional sanctions with respect to the importation or facilitation of the importation of petroleum products from iran and for other purposes. h.r. 6126, an act making emergency supplemental appropriations to respond to the attacks in in israel for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2024 and for other purposes. mr. whitehouse: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding en bloc. the presiding officer: objection

having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m., wednesday, november 8, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the mourning hour deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the reyes nomination postcloture. further, that all time on the nomination be considered expired at 11:30 a.m. and that if cloture has been invoked on the burrows nomination all time be considered expired at 2:20 p.m. and that if cloture has been invoked on the mcmillion nomination, the vote on confirmation be at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader. further that notwithstanding rule 22, following the cloture vote on the mcmillion nomination, the senate resume legislative session and proceed to the consideration of calendar

number 238, s.j. res. 38, that at 0:30 p.m. the -- 5:30 p.m. the joint resolution be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the joint resolution. further, that upon disposition of the joint resolution, the senate resume executive session and vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the almadani nomination, and that if cloture is invoked, the vote on confirmation be at 1130 om thursday, november 9. if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the the senate has gobbled out after confirming to be the director of the nassar institute of health

voting on several u.s. district court nominations. throughout the week the senate will continue to work on other judicial nominations and a pump to the equal employment opportunity commission. live coverage of the senate when lawmakers return here on c-span. >> a wednesday at homeland security secretary secretary testify on proposed supplemental funding domestic issues including childcare and the fentanyl crisis. watch the senate appropriation commit hearing it live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three, c-span now our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. ♪ mandate watch c-span series of partnership with a library of congress of books that shaped america will feature milton and rosa freedman's book free to

choose it was written in 1980 shortly after developing the television series by the same name strongly argues for free trade, lower taxes, limited government regulations and school choice a bestseller continues to spark debate today in 1976 freedman won the nobel prize for economics was an advisor to british prime minister margaret thatcher and president ronald reagan who presented with the medal of freedom in 1988. lecture of economics at the university of california santa barbara author of milton freedman a biography will join us on the program to discuss the book. watch books that shaped america featuring free to choose mandate live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. also be sure to scan the qr code to listen to our companion podcast you can learn more about the authors of the books featured. ♪