vote:

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

mr. tester, aye. ms. murkowski, aye.

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

mr. lee, no. ms. butler, aye.

mr. schmitt, no. mr. scott of south carolina, no. ms. lummis, no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. grassley, no.

the clerk: mr. thune, no.

mr. lujan, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye.

mr. mcconnell, no.

vote: the clerk: mr. manchin, aye.

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 37. the motion is agreed to. the clerk: mr. manchin, aye.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, the office of government ethics is an agency that independently works to oversee executive branch's ethics program. the director serves a term of five years in this instance leading work that prevention financial conflicts of interest and ensures that the executive branch, regardless of political party, holds itself to the highest ethical standards. mr. president, our nation has been without a senate-confirmed director to this critical agency for more than a year. let me say that again, more than a year. but fortunately we have a highly qualified nominee for this post, one who has received support from both democrat and republican senators, including senators on the senate committee on homeland security and

governmental affairs which i used to chair. since 2016, david hideman served as assistant legal advisor for ethics and financial disclosure at the department of state. in his role he has the responsibility of managing the department's ethics program. previously he serves as attorney advisor at the department of state, worked in private practice for severable years and completed clerkship at the u.s. court of appeals for the 11th circuit. mr. hydeman has a deep and thorough knowledge of the law and ethics p compliance. in addition to his range of experience at the state department and in private practice, i've no doubt that his skills and his experience will enable him to effectively lead the office of government ethics. i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following

nomination. calendar number 620, david huitema tor direct of the government ethics for a term of five years and the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, that if confirmed, the -- if that is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered and made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the director of the office of government ethics is an importantly position, due to the office's role in aiding the president with the nominations process and assistance to the senate in evaluating potential conflicts of interest for presidential nominations. this point was of course made

clear in mr. huitema's, his hearing as he testified to the committee that the nominee vetting would be a priority, not just a priority, but priority one for the office of government ethics and would dominate the next year, meaning the year that is about to arrive. given the fact that this position serves, once confirmed, for a five-year term, it's also important for us to remember that we are now just a few weeks away from a presidential election, a presidential election that will determine who will serve as president of the united states for the next four years. so in light of that, we should wait to see who's elected before confirming this person to a five-year term. it's concerning to me that during his hearing before the homeland security and governmental affairs committee, mr. whiement left open the --

mr. h huitema left open the possibility of a partisan policy, a partisan approach from a nonpartisan position, one that could be used as a means of further weaponizing our government against officials who might be appointed should president trump win in a republican administration. individuals responsible with directing the office of government ethics must not enganl, promote, or tolerate partisan lawfare, particularly in the midst of unprecedented lawfare and political weaponization of the u.s. government against donald trump by the biden-harris administration. i've got grave concerns that led me to oppose their partisan nominees and policies considered in this chamber, particularly between now and the election. the biden-harris administration forfeited that courtesy when they decided that they wanted to govern more like a banana republic than the united states

of america. now after these two assassination attempts that we've seen so far on donald trump, continued lawfare by democrats at both state and national levels and unacceptable rhetoric from vice president harris who has brought foreign leaders to campaign for her in a key battleground state, it's clear that they've changed their tune. and so i'm not going to change my tune. we have to remember that the president of the united states at any given moment, for constitutional purposes, is the executive branch, is the living embodiment of the executive branch. this is an office that really out to be filled, at least with members being allowed to take into account the outcome of a coming presidential election. with that presidential election just weeks away, there is no

reason this has to be done today. in fact, there are very, very good reasons for us not to do it today. let's take this up after the presidential election. that's the appropriate time to raise this. if mr. huitema is willing to further clarify his position and the next sitting president appoints him to fill the position, i'm happy to revisit this question. until then, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. john cuong o associausti the dict of columbia superior the d.c. superior court functions as the state l court bench have been straining the court, delaying justices or justice for individuals and

families all across the district. judge bouchet and mr. truong each have the expertise and the temperament needed to serve on the superior court and are committed to serving the people of the district of columbia. judge bouchet has served as a magistrate judge for the district of columbia superior court since 2016 and is currently the deputy presiding magistrate judge. prior to joining the bench, judge bouchet served as a clinical law professor and spent over 15 years in private practice, focussing on family and criminal law. mr. truong is currently a deputy chief in the civil division of the u.s. attorney's office for the district of columbia, where he has served since 2013. he previously served as the assistant u.s. attorney in the office criminal division where he prosecuted misdemeanor and felony crimes in the d.c. superior court. mr. president, these are not controversial nominees. they were vetted and recommended

to the president by an independent local commission and received bipartisan support in my committee. in fact, former president trump has also nominated judge bouchet and mr. truong to serve on the d.c. superior court. the people of the district deserve to have the empty seats on the superior court filled by qualified judges, and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these nominees. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nomination, calendar number 770, rahkel bouchet to be an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate and that 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. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee.

mr. hagerty: i object. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nomination, calendar 771, john cuong truong to be the associate judge of the super court of the district of columbia, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, and that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president to be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hagerty: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: mr. president, i object. mr. president, reserving the right to object, this summer several of us made clear that given the unprecedented lawfare by the biden-harris administration against president trump, we will not consent to fast-tracking any judicial nominees before the coming election. and we're keeping our word on that. if democrats truly want these nominees confirmed, senator

schumer can schedule them for votes. the truth is they don't care enough about these nominations to do that. so they're trying to confirm them this way with a fast-track process. i have firsthand experience with this process. in 2017, senate democrats forced floor votes and 30 h hours of postcloture time on my confirmation to be u.s. ambassador to japan under president trump. so i'm not standing in the way of confirmation. as promised, though, i will not fast-track judicial confirmations before the election when the american people will get a chance to reject the politicized administration of justice that is occurring here in america right now. we clearly stated this position, and now are following through on it. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. peters: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, shortly i will ask for unanimous consent to confirm ann fisher and ashley polling to serve as

commissioners to serve on the prc. the prc is an independent agency that serves as the postal service's regulator, providing oversight as well as accountability. this bipartisan commission is most effective with a full complement of commissioners who have diverse perspectives but all committed to ensuring transparency and accountability of the postal service. ann fisher and ashley poling both demonstrated their commitment to robust oversight of the postal service. these are not controversial nominees. they are both dedicated public servants with deep expertise in the postal service. both were previously nominated to the prc by former president trump and they were l unanimously confirmed by the senate. they also received strong bipartisan support in my committee for their renominations. and i would urge my colleagues to join me in confirming these

well-qualified nominees. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nominations en bloc for postal regulatory commission. calendar number 772, ann fisher. and calendar number number 773, ashley poling. and calendar number 773. and that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc.

.

mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, the democrats' talking points are being proven wrong day after day after day. now, we've heard them say repeatedly, noncitizens, including illegal aliens don't vote because they can't vote. that is to say they don't vote because they're not allowed to vote, noncitizens are prohibited from voting in u.s. elections. but, mr. president, they do. they have. in existing -- and existing laws make it far too easy for them to do so. in fact, oregon officials, to cite one example, they said it was much more significant than

previously thought, having registered 1209 noncitizens. some mistakingly noncitizens and then went on to cast a ballot according to the oregon secretary of state. this was first un-earthed earlier this month with officials admitting to wrongly registering 300 voters through an oregon dmv program that registers legal citizens when they obtain a driver's license or state i.d. but this week the dmv and the secretary of state's office said a complete review showed 1259 people who didn't provide proof of u.s. citizenship or add it to oregon's voter roles, a number previously acknowledged and reported figure.

unfortunately, oregon is not unique in this regard. there are other states that have acknowledged problems, a long list of them, including states like texas and virginia. each clearing thousands of noncitizens from their existing voter registration roles. yet, democrats say this isn't happening. they continue to dismiss the need for the safe act citing an existing law under which noncitizens are in fact already barred from voting in federal elections, as well as they should be. but the fact that they are barred doesn't mean there isn't a combination of circumstances in existing law make it far too easy for noncitizens to vote, and they do even though they are prohibited from doing it and in many circumstances they have. but we're seeing it happen in

real time. this is our final chance to address this issue before what i think most of us would acknowledge is going to be one of the most conventional elections of our lifetimes. if democrats truly believe, as most americans do, that voting in u.s. elections should be reserved for american citizens, then they must agree to pass the save act. this is not too heavy a lift. this is something that just makes it possible for us to enforce existing law, existing law that to my knowledge nobody in this chamber or in the other legislative chamber down the hall has suggested we change. that's all this does. that's all the save act is about. this is, in fact, the last chance to prove that they care about election integrity in order for it to matter, in enough time that it can make a difference between now and the

november general election. after all, since the biden-harris inauguration, over 10,000 illegal immigrants have come into the country illegally, those 10 million who came into this country, that exceeds the population of most of our states. a supermajority of all of our states have a population smaller than the population of illegal immigrants who have come through unlawfully under the biden-harris watch. with millions of unauthorized people on u.s. soil, the potential for election fraud through ineligibl not a hypothetical risk. this means the foundational principles that underpin our republic, or any republic for

that matter, are under attack. it's under attack because secretary biden, secretary mayorkas and border czar kamala harris refuse to enforce the law. with the influx of illegal aliens under this administration, if even a fraction, let's just say one in 100 were to vote, this could translate into hundreds of thousands of votes depending on where they're located and concentrated this could be far more than enough to sway many of our most tightly contested elections and alter their outcomes, even in the case of the presidential election. make no mistake, this matters. it has consequences in what we do or choose not to do, it will make a difference. this is concerning considering a recent study. and in that study we found that

noncitizens have ample openings, significant opportunities repeatedly to vote unlawfully. the study found anywhere from 10% to 27% of noncitizens in the united states are in fact today registered to vote, and anywhere from 5% to 13% of noncitizens in the united states currently do vote in presidential elections. so, no, don't tell me this doesn't happen. don't tell me it's already unlawful so we don't need to do anything about it. we know that existing law while it prohibits noncitizen voting in federal elections, existing law makes it far too easy to do and that's what we want to do in america for our electionings, weep want to make it easy to vote, hard to cheat. we don't want to make it easy to vote for those who cheat by virtue of their voting because

they're not entitled to do it. it means what -- it's what it means to be a citizen in a republic, to have a vote, you're diluting their votes and disenfranchising legitimate votes when you participate unlawfully, falsely, if he loanusly, instances abound where states have inadvertently apparently facilitated this crisis, who knows to what degree of inadvertence this was, and unless or until we can do otherwise, we have to deal with it, regard of the degree or intentionality, these things in fact happened. everything from unsolicited voter register forms being mailed directly to the addresses of noncitizens. drivers' licenses be issued without checks.

relying on the honesty of illegal aliens as they complete forms. all of these practices have opened up the floodgates to voter fraud. there is no law in place at thing the states as they process voter registration forms under the 1993 national voter registration act or nvra, the so-called motor voter law. and it's a law that allows people when they apply for a driver's license to simultaneously register to vote in federal elections simply by checking a box and signing their name. nothing in the nvra or in any other current provision of federal law tells the states exactly how or what they must do in order to verify the citizenship of voters who plan to participate in federal elections. regrettably a few years ago the supreme court of the united states interpreted the nvra

based on the fact that it doesn't instruct the states on how to verify citizenship as somehow precluding, prohibiting the states from asking for proof of identification verifying citizenship at the time someone registers to vote under the nvra in a federal election. now, this ruling was wrong in my opinion. majority opinion of the supreme court, i believe they got it wrong. it's the court's ruling nonetheless and it stands. it was if you check the box

on the attached nvra form saying you want to register to vote and sign your name saying i'm eligible to do this, that's it. the state isn't even allowed to ask you for any kind of identification. that's the end of the matter. a mere check on a box and a signature is all it takes. with little to no risk being caught. in fact, noncitizens are being encouraged to vote and not warned of the consequences of doing so. the fact that the supreme court wrongly interpreted federal law that banned states from requiring proof of citizenship when registering voters via federal forms makes it all the more urgent and important for us to do this. this signals loudly and clearly this is how we get around this.

we've got to close this gap. an increasing number allow noncitizens to vote. that's a terrible decision on their part. but it's a decision over which we as congress, we as the lawmaking branch of the united states government, have no control. but what we do have control over is who may vote in federal elections. that part is our business. prominent democrats have openly discussed these tactics as beneficial to their agenda. these tactics meaning deliberately bringing about the registration to vote in federal elections by noncitizens and participating in federal elections and carrsing -- casting ballots unlawfully as noncitizens. only months ago every senate democrat voted to count illegal aliens in the census to help

them shore up more seats in congress and more votes in the electoral college. this cannot continue. it's one thing to do that in the context of the dis seen yal portion account, the part of the census that is used to distribute seats in congress and in the house of representatives and the electoral college. it's quite another thing to let them actually vote. no sane republic would or should do that, certainly not this republic. the american people agree overwhelmingly on this. if you're an american citizen you can vote in federal elections. if you're not, you can't and you shouldn't be able to. it's our responsibility, it's our imperative to close these gates, these gates that have been left wide open as a result of a combination of circumstances, including the nvra, the wrong interpretation of it by the supreme court a few years ago, and then the ten

million-plus illegal aliens coming in the last three and a half years alone and the total 30 million-plus noncitizens living in the united states today coupled with the fact take it's never been easier to apply for a driver's license in all 50 states and the district of columbia, even if you're a noncitizen. my bill called the safeguard american voter eligibility act or the safe act would be a vital step in securing the electoral process, ensuring that every state vote -- that every vote cast must be legitimate, that every vote cast must be cast by a u.s. citizen and every voter be duly and lawfully registered. the safe act amends the national voter registration act so states can ensure that only u.s. citizens can participate in federal elections. the safe act requires states to

provide concrete proof at the time of registration. it specifies that acceptable documentation must be provided and it explains what kind of documentation. it also requires states to establish alternative verification processes for those rare cases where standard documents might be unavailable. and in that respect, mr. president, it's far easier to comply with than other examples we can identify under existing law where americans routinely can be and are required to produce proof of citizenship in order to do a certain thing. the most common of these instances of federal law requiring proof of citizenship involve the submission of the form known as the i-9. if you're not familiar with that, i can guarantee if you're a u.s. citizen and you've ever had a job, you've filled one out. the i-9 is the form that you

have to present whenever you start new employment. if you're starting as an employee, you have to fill out the i-9. attached to the i-9 has to be proof of citizenship. typically it's most easily satisfied if you have a u.s. passport f. you don't have a u.s. passport, you have to show a u.s. birth certificate and i think a couple of forms, a government-issued photo i.d. to prove you are that person identified on that berth certificate -- birth certificate and then you're g. the save act is even more flexible than that. it's not too onerous by itself but recognizing the right to vote is at stake and some people might not have or might have lost some of these documents, it provides myriad other avenues by which they may prove their citizenship. this is not too onerous. it also requires the states to set up these verification processes to make sure that they can get this done and provides incredibly expansive ways to

prove citizenship. if you don't have any documented proof, you can do it. this will in no way make it hard for any u.s. citizens to vote, not even the poorest or the least fastidious of recordkeeping among us. indeed it will prevent their votes from being canceled by foreign actors trying to bring about what really amounts to foreign interference with u.s. elections, which is something we all claim to care about. and be opposed to aggressively. furthermore, the save act compels states to proactive remove noncitizens from voter rolls and introduce severe federal penalties for those individuals who knowingly register noncitizens to vote. the bill echoes the sentiments

of the american people themselves, from coast to coast. from north to southeast to west. it transcends political affiliations and speaks directly to the core of what makes our country great. fair, free, and secure elections. there's a lot that dis us here -- divides us here, that sets democrats against republicans and can result in us disagreeing on the basis of a genuine disagreement among our vo voters, among our constituents. republicans and democrats, voters and senators alike often disagree depending on our political alignment. but in this particular instance it is the senators who are opposed to each other, not reflected in the way that the american people feel. among the american people, this is like an 80% issue. like 80% of americans believe that we should be doing this. in fact, they feel like it's absolutely crazy to not do it. this is about transcending those

political affiliations. and going back to what's so important about being a u.s. citizen and casting our vote. your vote doesn't mean much if it can be canceled out by somebody else who is not entitled to be there. there's not a corporation in america that would allow nonshareholders to participate in a shareholder election. it wouldn't let a nonshareholder vote if the whole point of the vote was to let shareholders vote. if i were to wander into the senate democratic caucus as they're holding their leadership elections or any other important deliberation where they've got to vote, they wouldn't in a million years let me vote in there because i'm not a senate democrat. whether i arrived in the united states senate, each of the three times i've been sworn in as a united states senator, i had to produce documentary proof that i had in fact been elected in

utah. i had to produce an election certificate issued by the chief election official in the state of utah, the lieutenant governor who indicated i had won my elections first in 2010, then in 2016, then in 2022. without being able to prove that i was entitled to be here and to cast a vote here, i would never have been allowed to vote, nor should i be. it's no less true with u.s. elections. we cannot let those who are not entitled under the law to do it because they're not citizens to vote in our elections. this is about protecting our elections from foreign interference, something my democratic colleagues claim to care immensely about. and every day we delay, the foundation of our lek electoral -- electoral processes erodes a little more. we can't wait for this administration to enforce the law. this bill will make it harder to cheat in elections and ensure the integrity of every single

ballot that gets cast. there's really no valid argument against it. so heretofore people aposed to it are either throwing out red herrings like it's already illegal for reasons i explained a minute ago means nothing if there's no way to enforce the law and existing law makes it far too easy to cheat without getting caught or alternatively just ignoring it all together but there is no valid argument against this bill. that's why you don't hear any valid argument against this bill. it doesn't exist. the only reason to oppose this bill would be if you need -- they're counting on illegal votes to win elections. perhaps in the first instance or as a backup, i don't know. there is no valid, legitimate reason to oppose it. by passing the save act, we would send a clear message that in the united states voting is not just a privilege of

citizenship but also a protected and cherished right, one that we need to protect. as debates about election integrity rage, the save act stands out by guaranteeing that only american citizens will have a say in our elections. american elections must be decided by americans, by american citizens. without that, without them we have no right to be here. we have no right to pass laws on behalf of the people without those people being citizens. so we've got to make sure that those people determining who's here, who is in the chamber down the hall and who sits in the white house is in fact a u.s. citizen. i acknowledged the presence of my friend and colleague, the distinguished senator from kansas. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: thank you, madam

president. i'm honored to be here on the senate floor fighting to defend our democratic process with my friend and colleague from the great state of utah. free, safe and secure and fair elections are integral to the survival of our republic. without election integrity, the voice of american citizens, the foundation of our republic, is at risk of being silented. -- silenced. unfortunately, million, of americans have lost confidence in the security of our elections. they question whether their vote truly matters or if their vote is being diluted by noncitizens. we must ensure that the outcome of our elections is determined by our own citizens uninfluenced by illegal ballots. the heart of our democracy depends upon this. ensuring that only u.s. citizens vote in our elections isn't just necessary. it's common sense. i'm proud to support the save act, which will protect our

elections by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and an i.d. at the time of voting. this shouldn't be a divisive issue. nearly 80% of americans -- democrats, republicans, independents all -- agree on this simple requirement. 80%. now again, this is common sense. you need an i.d. to drive, you need an i.d. to board a plane, you need an i.d. to get a fishing license. but vote something a sacred right with an even higher value than those other examples. voting should demand the same standard. protecting this right isn't controversial. it's common sense. now, right now due to the crisis of our open southern border, at least 11 million illegal immigrants are in the united states today. that number alone could replace the population of 36 states, almost four times of population of kansas. imagine what that could do to

our electoral process if left unchecked. you know, friends back home -- i just did a telephone town hall. they asked me the same question -- why do my colleagues across the aisle refuse to support a policy that 80% of americans agree upon, that would make our elections freer, safer, more secure in well, let me tell you why. it's because they've spent years courting illegal immigrants, ushering them into our country, ushering in over 12 million, hoping to tip the scales in key states. but we cannot let them hijack our elections. now, look, noncitizen voting is real. this isn't hypothetical. in texas, virginia, and oregon, noncitizens have been found on the voting rothsters. additional -- rosters. additionally, maryland, vermont, and washington, d.c., already allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. this is an immediate threat to

the future of our democracy, and it demands action. this is a nonpartisan american issue. it's about protecting our country. just as we reject foreign interference in our elections, we must reject noncitizen voting with equal seriousness. this is congress must act, and it can act today. we can pass it today and the president can sign it tomorrow and away we go. we're only 40 days away from the most consequential flecks our lifetime. our election depends on it. mr. lee: i recognize the senior senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i thank my colleague from utah, madam president.

thank you for the time and recognition. and i with a want to say thank you to him -- and i want to say thank you to him for bringing this issue forward. as i am out in tennessee, i hear a lot about this. people are concerned about what would happen if those who are illegally in the country get a vote. if they exercise the rights of citizenship because so many people in tennessee talk about in america there is nothing more fundamental than guarding our god-given freedoms. approaching the ballot box as equal citizens for fair and open elections. and they're quite disturbed because for the last more than

three years what they have seen is the biden-harris administration has waged a war on this sacred institution by working overtime to make illegal immigration legal. now, you've heard reference to the numbers of illegal aliens -- and, by the way, that wills the statutorily term that is used -- about the numbers that have come into this country. we know it is north of 10 million illegal aliens. the senator from kansas referenced this, and the size larger, the number -- the population number larger than 36 of our states. and the impact that that can

have. and, as my colleague from utah pointed out, when someone comes here illegally and they go into a state like minnesota that gives those that are illegally in the country a driver's license and then this individual goes to another state through the motor voter law, they can check that box and they can register to vote. they can get that driver's license, they can register to vote. and we know that this has occurred, and we have seen it occur in voter rolls all across this country. massachusetts to arizona and everywhere in between. now, recently the state of virginia went through their voter rolls, and they discovered that they had more than 6,000

that were on their voter rolls who had entered the country illegally. and this becomes such a problem when you look at the number of states that do not require voter i.d. when they vote. we've got 14 states across this country where you do not have to show an i.d. when you go to vote at the polls. you just show up and you vote. now, one thing is clear -- while it's against the law for illegal aliens to vote in federal election, many states and jurisdictions lack the proper safeguards to enforce this law. it's already illegal. it's already illegal. but they broke the law coming in the country illegally, they've broken the law by checking that box and registering to vote. and the risk is higher than ever

because of what has transpired at the open border, but the save act, which the gentleman from utah has brought to the floor today, would solve this problem. because it would require proof of u.s. citizenship to vote in an election. and you would have to provide that proof in person. i will tell you, madam president, there are many people that are surprised that we don't require that proof, that you prove you are who you say you are. the save act also has provisions to restore our election integrity. it would require states to establish a program to remove those that are illegally in the country from the voter rolls and it would also allow citizens to sue election officials who fail to uphold requirements for proof

of citizenship. now, the house did pass this in july, and it has been sitting over here for the last couple of months, and so i would ask my democratic colleagues, what in this bill do you oppose? what do you oppose? why is it that you would want to open the door to allow individuals that have illegally entered the country to actually vote in a federal election? do you want to encourage them to vote in our elections? this is why we need to protect the integrity of each citizen, each person. one person, one vote. now, my colleague from north carolina has also come to the floor, and i want to the say a word about his promoting free and fair elections act, which

would also be helpful. his bill, which i support, would block president biden's executive order that forces -- not allows, but commands. it forces federal agencies to work with outside partisan groups to mobilize voters. and guess what? the taxpayers got to pay for this. talk about wanting to federalize elections, talk about the federal government wanting to throw their weight. this is it! and of course the executive order excludes any information about how the biden-harris administration would go about approving or selecting groups. so i commend my colleague from north carolina for the promoting free and fair elections act. i commend my colleague from utah for the save act. and i yield the balance of my

time to my colleague from utah. mr. lee: i thank you. madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 439, h.r. 8281 is the save act. further, 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? a senator: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. lujan: reserving the right to object, today marks the third time -- [inaudible] -- not the first time, not the second time, three times. madam president, in this particular case, the third time is not the charm. but i grant my colleague one thing -- he says that things have changed since the last time

they tried to bring this bill up for vote or approval under unanimous consent. mr. padilla: this bill actually failed to pass the republican-controlled house of representatives just last week. republicans atad this bill to -- attached this bill to a must-pass government funding bill, and they still couldn't find the votes. not even with the votes that they have on their side of the aisle. so it does beg the question, what the heck are we doing here? this is not a serious attempt to protect our elections. the only thing that this bill does -- and the discussion of this does -- is we're stoking fear that our elections may not be fair and it creates mistrust in the outcome of elections. so i feel compelled to take a moment to once again reassure americans that are listening

today, there is no credible evidence of massive voter fraud or massive number of noncitizens voting in our elections. no evidence, none. let me be clear. no evidence, none. in fact, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, no matter what state they live in. and some of the conversation from some of the as if in morning business over the last several move to -- from some of the senators over the last several minutes, there's conversation about what at federal government might be doing to federalize elections. i will make specific mention to motor-voter law. it directs states to do what they can to encourage civic participation and to utilize their departments of motor vehicles to engage eligible voters. it's already interfacing with

government. let's take that moment of their time, as they're already sharing name, address, date of birth, other personal information, and in addition to applying for a driver's license or a state i.d., if they're eligible to register them to vote or to update their registration. and, yes, there are states in the nation that do allow a noncitizen, a documented immigrant, even to obtain a driver's license. but i can tell you as the former chief elections officer for the say the of california, not just on behalf of california but my colleagues across the country that i have worked with, protocols are in place. if you are a noncitizen applying for a special type of driver's license or an undocumented immigrant applying for a special type of driver's license, you go through one process. if you are a citizen, you go through another. that includes that opportunity to register and vote. let me come back to the bottom line here again. no evidence of massive voter

fraud. no evidence the last time this bill came up. no evidence today. and i doubt there will be any evidence between now and november 5, or even after november 5. because of the integrity of elections administration in the country. now, i have to speak to the timing. we stand here today 41 days before this november's election. election is already happening for those who are familiar, ballots have already been mailed out to members of the military and other overseas voters. in many states, the vote by mail ballot process has already begun. in some states, early voting is beginning. the election is happening. but again, i sensed the real motive for bringing this bill up today is an attempt to continue to inject fear and uncertainty in the minds of voters at a time where, frankly, we need calm, we

need understanding, we need truth. so, as i have in the previous objections, i'll extend my invitation again today. let's work together in a thoughtful, responsible, bipartisan manner to ensure more eligible americans can easily register to vote, stay registered to vote, and cast their ballots. but until i'm taken up on that offer, madam president, i object. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senior senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, my distinguished friend and colleague, the senator from california, makes an impassed plea that we -- empassed plea we not passion this bill. i appreciate the care he routinely gives to matters pending before the senate. i wish i could say that always translates into accurate statements. today it didn't.

he's made several statements that are just not accurate. first and foremost, he sug suggested -- not just suggested, he said that this bill, the save act, which i'm trying to pass right here, right now, that it failed to pass in the house of represe representatives, that even in the republican-controlled house of representatives it couldn't get the votes to pass. that is not true. it's 100% false. in fact, this has passed the house of representatives. it passed the house of representatives not only with the republicans voting for it, but they picked up five democrats along the way. so they passed it. they passed it with a bipartisan vote. now, he may be referring to the fact that there was another vote, another vote cast last week in which they attached the save act to a spending bill. it was the spending bill that caused the combined measure to fail. but in fact, the save act has been passed by the house of represe representatives. it was passed with a bipartisan vote.

even these democrats who joined with all the republicans over in the house of representatives acknowledged that this is a problem, the problem that's been created by a combination of federal laws that have grown too loose, that have been further loosened by the supreme court of the united states and its interpretation of it, and that the need for it has escalated. point number two that he makes this is the third time, sounding i think a little frustrated that we've tried to do this multiple times. well, forgive me, but the case for it has continued to build. it's continued to build steadily. even at the same time that the house of representatives has now passed it. this does matter. he's mistaken in that nothing has changed. he says that there's no evidence of this. that's not true. that's news to me, given that the world learned yesterday of this evidence that just came out from the secretary of state's office in oregon showing that

complete review revealed 1,259 people in that state who didn't provide proof of u.s. citizenship and they've been added to oregon's voter registration rolls, a number four times the previously reported figure. that's also news to texas and virginia, to state a couple, there are more, going through their voter registration rolls and discovered a hospital of knowledge citizens. thousands of noncitizens registering to vote. then he pivots, he says there's no evidence of massive voter fraud. if thousands of illegally registered voters, people who illegally registered to vote in federal elections, if that's not massive, i don't know what is. now, as to the next point that he makes, ballots have already been mailed out. i don't dispute that. i'm absolutely certain that is the case. that is in no way, shape, or form an argument against the

save act, nor is it an argument against passing this now. in fact, there's no reason not to pass this now. there's good reason to pass it now, given that in fully 22 states in the united states of america, fully 22 states allow voter registration up to and including the day of the presidential election. so in addition to the thousands of persons who are noncitizens, therefore may not lawfully register to vote or vote in a federal election, who have already registered to vote, many of whom in past elections have been shown to have voted illegally, we don't even know what the total number is, we don't even know what the total number of people who might register to vote, then vote unlawfully between now and the 5th of november when the general election is held. in addition to the 22 states where you can stege reg -- you

can register to vote up to and including the day of the presidential election, a whole lot of others allow it to varying degrees at some point in time between now and election day. then he goes back to the fact that this is not a serious proposal. i don't know what that means, other than democrats don't like it. i understand that they don't like it. it is serious. i assure you, madam president, and i assure my colleagues this is a very serious matter. when people register to vote and vote ill really, that disenfranchises actual u.s. citizens. finally, madam president, i do take exception to something. i take exception to the suggestion as to motive, suggesting that the reason i'm here to do this is to d disingenuously plow what he refers to as fear and uncertainty as to the legitimacy of these elections. not only is this uncalled-for

and prohibited under rule 19 of the senate rules, where you're not supposed to characterize somebody's motive as devious, if i were deliberately trying for kicks and giggles to undermine the legitimacy and outcome of the election, that would be inappropriate. that is not accurate. not a scintilla of proof. there's a mountain of proof we have darn good reason to bring this about. i am deeply disappointed, madam president, that we can't pass this. this is not a heavy lift. it is not too much to ask that we put something in place, putting teeth into existing law that's been on the books for decades that americans overwhelmingly agree with, that says you can't vote in a u.s. election unless you're a u.s. citizen. the house passed it. we could pass it today. this could make a difference. we should pass it. it's inexcusable that we're not. thank you, madam president.

mr. budd: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from north carolina. mr. budd: thank you, madam president. americans should be able to trust our electoral process, but the biden-harris administration administration is undermining the system, and this is rightly causing millions of americans to doubt the integrity of their vote. that's why my colleague from utah, senator lee, has worked so hard to pass the save act. it's a commonsense bill to make sure only american citizens vote in american elections. now, this would address one of the most pressing threats of the electoral system, but there's also another serious threat to the integrity of our elections, the use of taxpayer dollars for partisan political activity. during the first 100 days of the biden-harris administration, president biden signed an executive order directing the

head of every federal agency, every federal agency to submit a plan for their agency to, and i quote, promote voter registration and voter participation. now, on the surface this seems like a harmless order, simply designed to increase the number of americans who vote, and i believe, we probably all believe, that is a laudable goal. the problem is that the order also mandates that all federal agencies partner with approved third party organizations to provide these services on federal agency property and using your taxpayer dollars. so big questions remain. liss than two months -- less than two months before a general election, which third-party organizations are approved? who approves them? and what criteria are required? all of this information is conveniently missing from that

order. now, congress has attempted to provide some, and conduct some oversight on this, and citizens have rightfully filed the freedom of information act lawsuits. the biden-harris administration has released only a tiny fraction of these agency plans. now, in at least one instance the administration redacted every single paragraph of an agency plan, leaving only vague headers. i have one of these, madam pres president. i have eight pages of redaction. that's how they responded to what american citizens are entitled to in regards to freedom of information. that's how the biden-harris administration, kamala harris administration responded. so it begs the question, what does the biden-harris administration have to hide? i'm concerned that this administration is writing their own rules and using taxpayer money to partner with liberal,

get out the vote organizations. for example, a few months after this order was issued, the biden-harris administration hosted a listening session to discuss the implementation of this order. now, about 50 left wing organizations attended this meeting, and every representative attending was either registered as a democrat or donated to democrats, with the exception of one member of the green party. according to notes from a department of justice attorney documenting this meeting, their talking points focused on expanding democrat voter blocs and espousing extreme liberal views. remember, this is everyone's taxpayer dollars doing this. as a matter of principle, i don't believe the federal government should be using those taxpayer resources to advance their partisan politics and pol policies. that's a principle that should be commonly shared across the

aisle. but more than that, the prospect of a blanket federal agency mandate to engage in electioneering on the taxpayer dime? that raises serious ethical and legal concerns. i don't think you can draw any conclusion, other than to say this executive order is another example of the weaponization of federal government. congress should shut down this ethically and legally dubious scheme to help restore faith in our elections. that's why i stand here today to propose that the senate pass the promoting free and fair elections act. the bill is simple and straightforward. it would prohibit federal agencies from using your taxpayer dollars to enter agreements with partisan organizations that conduct voter mobilization activities. the biden-harris admini administration's sweeping directive is inherently political, and directly --

directed primarily at groups expected to vote for one party over another. when the american people ask for information on it, this is what they get. this order must not be allowed to stand. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on rules and administration be discharged from further consideration of s. 1398 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, 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? mr. padilla: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senior senator from california. mr. padilla: i rise in opposition to the bill introduced by my colleague from

north carolina. let me start by saying this, the senator from north carolina says the federal government should not use official taxpayer resources, no taxpayer dollars, to advance partisan politics. you'll be happy to know that i agree 100%. now, i'd venture to say that all of my democratic colleagues agree 100%. well, let's also be clear that the executive order referenced isn't that. my colleague's attempt to attribute some scheme behind informing eligible citizens of their right to vote, and facilitating their voter registration and participation, is simply without merit. as i mentioned a few minutes ago, when debating the save act, we are now less than six weeks until the november election, and

while there may be disagreement on policy with my colleagues, we should certainly agree that it is crucial to make sure that every eligible american can participate in the political process. again, without any unnecessary barriers or obstacles, and certainly without intimidation. as i referenced i once served in california as secretary of the, chief election officer. i'm proud of the policies we implemented, making it easier for people to renal ster for -- register to vote, stay registered to vote and to cast their ballots in the elections. but i want to emphasize these reforms were put in place for all citizens regardless of political party, regardless of political leanings. we wanted to make sure that

every eligible californian could exercise their right to vote. and that's what should be our business here today, ensure that every american can exercise their right to vote. so that's exactly why president biden first issued this executive order which builds on decades of which once upon time was bipartisan effort to expand voter registration. what could be more patriotic than performing your civic duty? the bipartisan history of congress in promoting voter participation includes a bipartisan passage of the national voter registration act once upon a time. president biden issued the executive order to bring the weight of the federal government to help americans register to vote. and it strikes me as perfectly reasonable that when americans are already interacting with the

government, that we should take that opportunity to securely get more eligible americans registered to vote and ready to participate in the elections. so the executive order that we're debating here is simply fulfilling the mandate that congress created with the passage, bipartisan passage of the national voter registration act. so i couldn't help but notice that in the debate, in the presentation, in the arguments that there has been a failure to point to any partisan language either in statute or in the executive order. so, i'm disappointed that these efforts continue. what we should be doing is working together to facilitate civic participation and combatting misinformation and disinformation surrounding the

2024 election that only stokes, risks confusing or discouraging people to participate. for those and other reasons, madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from north carolina. mr. budd: thank you, madam president. and i really do appreciate my colleague's comments, especially the part on agreeing 100% with me. you know, it's very easy for my democrats colleagues to wax poetic about wanting more americans to want to renal ster to -- register to vote. after all, it could be the program i'm discussing here is designed only to help his party. especially when i go back to what i referenced earlier about a department of justice attorney documenting this meeting and noticed that all the points were focused on expanding democrat voter blocs. and it was 50 left-wing organizations that attended the meeting except for that one

member of the green party. when we asked for details on this, first he said it wasn't that. but i do look at the top of this document from the biden-harris administration referred to as the interim strategic plan for the implementation of executive order 14019, access to voting. and this is what the american people get from the biden-harris administration. now i would hope at the very least that my colleague, while waxing poetic would agree about this program, like all federal programs should not be about oversight and transparency. but that's the case at the present time. and i do want to make one thing perfectly clear. we need as many people as possible to vote. republicans and the vast majority of americans support the idea that you need a photo i.d. to vote. republicans and the vast majority of americans support

the idea that you should be a u.s. citizen to vote. and republicans and the vast majority of americans do not support the use of federal taxpayer funds, your dollars, for partisan political activity. opposing these measures make it clear that my democrat colleagues simply aren't valuing election integrity, especially when we ask for details and this is what the biden-harris administration shows the american people. in regarding executive order 14019, access to voting. republicans value election integrity. at least you can tell by our efforts here. folks, we just want it to be easy to vote and hard to cheat. i hope the american people are watching. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin:i rise to support johns ton for the eastern court of wisconsin. this commission has identified and put foorld highly qualified -- forward highly qualified experienced candidates such as mr. conway, and i am pleased to see the senate moving forward with his nomination. as i shared with the judiciary committee, in addition to being an exceptional judicial

candidate, byron conway is wisconsin through and through. he was raised in green bay, wisconsin, and attended notre dame academy. he went on to receive a bachelor's degree from santa clara university before coming back home to earn his law degree from marquette university law school. after being admitted to the wisconsin bar, mr. conway practiced in the milwaukee area before moving to green bay to practice civil litigation. mr. conway has experience with a wide variety of cases, including misdemeanor and felony criminal matters, employment discrimination cases, and personal injury cases. i am certain that his prior litigation experience will serve him well as a judge for the eastern district of wisconsin. mr. conway is a very active member of his local community,

having served as president of the brown county bar association, as the brown county district representative to the state bar board of governors, and as the vice president of the board of directors for the brain center of dpreen bay, which offers -- dpreen bay, which offers resources to individuals with cognitive deficits and neurological disorders. byron conway has both the experience and the temperament necessary to serve wisconsin's eastern district with fairness and impartiality. i want to thank the chairman of the committee, chair durbin, ranking member graham, and the members of the senate judiciary committee for advancing mr. conway's nomination out of the committee with bipartisan support. and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm mr. conway's nomination. i yield back.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote begin immediately. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the nomination. mr. whitehouse: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote the clerk: ms. baldwin. the clerk: mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman.

the clerk: 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. helmy. 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. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith.

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

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, brown, cardin, casey, collins, duckworth, durbin, hickenlooper, murphy, ossoff, whitehouse. senators voting in the negative -- britt, budd,

daines, ernst, grassley, kennedy, lee, marshall, mcconnell, sullivan. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

ms. warren, aye. mr. van hollen, aye. the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: ms. smith, aye. ms. butler, aye.

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye. mr. padilla, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. schmitt, no.

mr. blumenthal, aye. mr. rounds, no. mr. warnock, aye. mr. graham, aye. mr. cassidy, no.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no. ms. hassan, aye. the clerk: mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: mr. romney, aye. mr. reed, aye. the clerk: mr. thune, no.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no. mrs. murray, aye. mr. bennet, aye. mr. peters, aye. mr. tuberville, no. mr. hagerty, no.

mr. carper, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye. the clerk: mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mr. braun, aye. the clerk: mr. rubio, no. mr. young, no. the clerk: mr. wyden, aye.

mrs. shaheen, aye. ms. lummis, no o -- no. mr. kaine, aye. mr. sanders, aye. ms. sinema, aye.

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

ms. cortez masto, aye. mr. warner, aye. mr. lankford, no. mr. johnson, aye. mr. barrasso, no.

t the clerk: mr. booker, aye. the clerk: mr. helmy, aye. the clerk: mr. moran, no.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye. mr. schumer, aye. mr. paul, no.

mrs. capito, aye. mr. cornyn, no. mr. wicker, no. mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye.

mr. crapo, no. mr. tester, aye.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. cruz, no. mr. welch, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, no.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye.

the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye. the clerk: mr. king, aye.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. mr. schatz, aye.

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

the clerk: mrs. fischer,

helmy. vote vote:

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no.

the presiding officer: on this

vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 37, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider sr considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action.

sa

mr. sanders: madam president, over four months ago stewart health care be and the -- health care and the more than 30 hospitals it owns in eight states declared bankruptcy with some 9 million dollarses in debt. it has caused harm to patients, health care workers and entire communities from massachusetts to arizona. in july, the senate health, education, labor and pensions committee that i chair voted to authorize a bipartisan investigation into the financial mismanagement of stewart health care. on that same day, the help committee also voted to subpoena dr. ralph delatorre, the ceo to

testify. sadly, sadly dr. delatorre made the unfortunate decision not to show up at this hearing ■in defiance of a congressional subpoena. so last week the help committee voted 20-0 on two resolutions to hold dr. delatorre accountable for his failure to appear at this meeting. the first instruction instructs senate legal counsel to bring a civil suit in the district of columbia to require high school his compliance with the subpoena and his testimony before the help committee. the second resolution would refer this matter to the u.s. attorney of the district of columbia to criminally prosecute dr. delatorre for failing to comply with the subpoena.

in a few moments i will be asking unanimous consent to pass the second resolution which seeks to hold dr. delatorre in criminal attempt for failing to comply with the congressional subpoena. before i do that, let me take a moment to explain why the help committee believed it was so important for dr. delatorre to testify before congress. first, we wanted dr. de la torre to explain to us how it could happen that 15 patients a at hospitals owned by his company died, died as a result of a lack of medical equipment or staffing shortages and why at least 2,000 other patients were put in immediate peril, according to federal regulators. that is something that the

american people deserve to know. but perhaps most importantly, we wanted to know how it could happen that while thousands of patients and health care workers suffered and communities around the country have been devastated as a result of steward health care's financial mismanagement, dr. dell tori and the -- dr. kell la tori and the companies he -- dr. de la torre and the companies he owned were able to receive at least $250 million in total compensation over the past four years. for months, senator cassidy, the ranking member of the health committee, senator markey and i have asked dr. de la torre to testify before our committee to answer these questions. and time after time, he has arrogantly refused. and that is simply not

acceptable. so today i will ask the senate to unanimously adopt this resolution seeking to hold dr. de la torre in contempt of congress. let me take this opportunity to thank ranking member cassidy and his staff for working with me and my staff on this very important issue. the passage of this resolution by the full senate will make clear that even though dr. de la torre may be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, even though he may be able to buy fancy yachts and private jets and luxurious accommodations throughout the world, even though he may be able to afford some of the most expensive lawyers in america, no, dr. de la torre is not above the law. if you defy a congressional subpoena, you will be held

accountable, no matter who you are or how well-connected you may be. the goal of the help committee throughout this entire process has been to make sure not only that we have a complete understanding of the financially canary -- chicanery surrounding steward health care but to do everything we can to make sure that such a travesty never occurs again. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that two letters be printed in the "congressional record," one from dr. de la torre's attorneys to the committee and, secondly, a response letter from ranking member cassidy and myself. and with that -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: with that, madam president, i would be happy to yield to the ranking member of the committee, who has done an excellent job on this issue, senator cassidy. khasbulatov thank you, mr. chairman d.d.

mr. cassidy: thank you, mr. chairman. madam president, the help committee as investigated the financial mismanagement of steward health care and the impact on the delivery of care at its hospitals. steward's mismanagement has nationwide implications affecting patient care in more than 30 hospitals across eight states, including one in my home state, glennwood regional medical center. because of steward's management decisions resulting in limited resources at glennwood, the state had to force the hospital to operate at one-third capacity. one patient reportedly died waiting for transfer to another hospital because glenwood did not have the necessary resources to treat. according to a report from the centers for medicare and medicaid services, a doctor at glenwood told a louisiana state inspector that the hospital was, quote -- was performing, quote, third world medicine, end quote.

now, the problems at glenwood are not unique. the help committee heard testimony that because of understaffing at a steward-owned st. elizabeth medical center in boston, patients at the hospital waited in the emergency room for hours and sometimes days. we've also heard testimony that steward neglected to pay the vendors for essential hospital services. at st. elizabeth's, there was a report that when newborn babies died, nurses had to buy -- had to put their bodies into cardboard shipping boxes because steward did not pay for proper ber reachment -- ber reevement -- bereavement boxes. a mother died because a basic piece of medical equipment required to save her life to stop the bleeding had been repossessed because steward did not pay its bills. through the committee's investigation, it became evident that a thorough review of chief

executive officer dr. ralph de la torre's medical decisions was essential to understand steward's financial problems and its failure to serve its patients. to better understand and hopefully prevent this from happening again, we sought testimony from dr. de la torre. frankly, given -- giving him the opportunity to present his side. it's 0able that there's something -- it's a possible that there's something we didn't understand and if he had presented it, that would have given us a different perspective. he refused to testify. as a result, the committee issued a subpoena in july and up until september 4, his lawyers indicated he intended to comply with the subpoena and to tow. however, eight days before the scheduled hearing, dr. de la torre informed the committee that he would not comply with the subpoena. we responded to him explaining why his objections to the subpoena had no merit, directing

him to comply. unfortunately, dr. de la torre ultimately defied the subpoena refusing to appear before the committee. now, a witness cannot disregard and evade a duly authorized subpoena. that is why today the senate will be voting 0en a resolution to hold dr. de la torre in criminal contempt for defying the subpoena. i think it's unfortunate that we are here. but if someone shows contempt for the american people by defying a subpoena and refusing to provide answers, that is a contemptible thing. congresses has the responsibility toage of i urge my colleagues to approve this -- to approve of this resolution and hold dr. de la torre in contempt. with that, i yield to my colleague. mr. sanders: i thank senator cassidy. senator markey has played a leadership role in the investigation of this whole process. i'd like to yield to senator markey.

mr. markey: thank you, mr. chairman, very much. thank you for your great leadership on this issue. thanks to senator cassidy. we've made this bipartisan from the very beginning in order to ensure that the american public can completely understand what has happened to this steward health care chain, and i thank them for their leadership in holding dr. ralph de la torre accountable for his greed and shining a light on the deadly consequences that result from the involvement of for-profit forces in our health care system. steward health care declared bankruptcy in may. it was a culmination of a financial tragedy. over the past decade, steward, led by its founder and ceo dr. ralph de la torre and his corporate enablers, looted hospitals across the country for their own profit. and while they got rich,

workers, patients, and communities suffered. nurses paid out of pocket for cardboard bereavement boxes for the babies to help grieving parents who had just lost a newborn. hospital beds collapsed underneath patients, patients died alone in hallways. "the boston globe" spotlight team has laid out the details in eye-watering fashion. meanwhile, ralph de la torre and his corporate cronies got just what they wanted -- hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, yachts, private jets, luxury vacations. they used hospitals to fund their own episode of "lifestyles of the rich and famous." and its star is ceo dr. ralph de la torre. today we are here because dr. de

la torre has yet to answer for what he has perpetrated. i asked him to appear before my primary health and retirement subcommittee in april in boston. he declined. he refused. senator sanders and cassidy invited dr. de la torre to testify in january here in washington. he declined. refused. on july 25, the committee kished a legal order for him to appear. he ignored it. he refused to. dr. de la torre is using his blood-soaked gains to hide behind corporate lawyers instead of responding to the united states senate's demand for actions. but while he tries to run and hide, dr. de la torre is revealing him for what he truly is -- a physician who placed personal gain over his duty to do no harm.

the senate has not made a criminal contempt referral in more than 50 years, since 1971. it is a rare move for the rare degree of cobblousness -- callousness, cruelty, and cowardliness that dr. de la torre has demonstrated. in the health of all the mismanages, health workers fulfill their responsibility to their patients and communities. they cared for young and old, held grieving families' hands and responded in people's greatest moments of fear and vulnerability. and now workers and communities will spend years cleaning up ralph de la torre's disaster all in order to ensure that they will be protecting patient care. the rich don't need to use communities as a safety net for their wealth, but that's how dr. de la torre used these hospitals and communities,

including in massachusetts, and sacrificed community health in the process. they are outrightly outraged in those communities and i am outraged for them. for them and for everyone who has suffered due to ralph de la torre's greed and steward's collapse, i hope the department of justice will move swiftly to bring charges against him. to dr. de la torre, you cannot use your millions to shield yourself from accountability to the american people. i urge the senate to hold dr. ralph de la torre, ceo of steward, in criminal contempt. and i thank again chairman sanders and ranks member cassidy for their great leadership on this issue. mr. sanders: senator markey, thank you for your leadership role on this. madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate

consideration of calendar number 522, senate resolution 837. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 522, s. res. 837, authorizing the president of the senate to certify the report of the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions of the senate regarding the refusal of dr. ralph de la torre to appear and testify before the committee. sandcy and know of no further -- mr. sanders: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. sanders: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. if there is no further debate, all those in favor please say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the resolution is agreed to. mr. sanders: madam chairwoman, i ask unanimous consent that the preamble 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, so ordered: .

:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, before i give my remarks on the continuing resolution to fund government, i do have to take just a moment to note thatoday is national lobster day, and

that is extremely important to the state of maine. just last week i treated the members of my caucus to a wonderful lobster lunch, complete also with maine potatoes and maine wild blueberry pie. that should be an incentive for people to become republicans, i would think, to get that annual lobster lunch. but it is an iconic industry in my state. if you ask people about the state of maine, lobster always comes up. so i do want to acknowledge that senator king and i have once again this year noted that september 25 is national lobster day, and we appreciated the support of our colleagues. now, madam president, i rise to urge passage of the government

funding measure that was approved by the house of representatives earlier today. the bill which is known as a continuing resolution or a c.r. is straightforward. most important of all, it prevents a government shutdown. government shutdowns are inherently a failure to govern effectively. they have negative consequences all across government. they require certain essential government employees, such as border patrol agents or members of our military or air traffic controllers, to report to work but with no certainty that they would be paid. we simply cannot allow that to occur. other harmful impacts have been

outlined by the secretary of defense and all of the service secretaries would point out that new defense programs cannot be started when there is a government shutdown, that inevitably increases cost to the taxpayers and programs that should be terminated or trimmed continue to be funded at current levels. so we can't have -- or stopped altogether as people cannot do their work. so we cannot have a government shutdown. this continuing resolution is not perfect, but it is an effort to extend current year program levels through december 20 with limited exceptions and primarily preventing program disruptions

and preparing for the presidential transition and inaugural activities. madam president, i would also note that this temporarily funding bill includes $231 million for the secret service's immediate protection operations following the two recent assassination attempts on the life of former president trump. and all of us are aware that there also is a plot by the iranian government to assassinate president trump. so we need to make sure that we are providing robust protection. while the first attempt on president trump's life, the

secret service has conceded was due to poor communication and other failures, the secret service has also asked for this additional funding. it's absolutely essential as they deal with the increased threat environment and ensure that our current president and vice president and presidential candidacy are all fully protected. as i mentioned, the secret service has acknowledged that the security failure on july 13 was not the result of a lack of resources. the additional funding nnl bill will help to surge support to meet emergent personnel equipment and logistical needs. it will also allow the department of defense to be

reimbursed for the activities that it provides and will now resume for former president trump. madam president, the continuing resolution also allows the federal emergency management agency, fema, immediate access to more than $20 billion for its disaster relief fund to sustain disaster assistance during the period covered by the c.r. this funding resolution is the product of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. it is essential that it be adopted in order to prevent a government shutdown, and i urge its adoption. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i am very pleased that we now

have a straightforward bipartisan compromise to fund the government and avoid a pointless, devastating shutdown. i hope every single one of my colleagues will join us in voting to pass this p bill. but, madam president, our work does not end here. my hope is that now we can get going in earnest on hammering out full funding bills including long overdue disaster assistance. it's time for democrats and republicans to negotiate those bills together instead of republicans having the loudest voices on the far right because madam president, it is getting a little exhausting to watch some house republicans push again and again for the most extreme partisan cuts and policies, stuff that is not realistic at all, before learning the same lessons the hard way yet again. you cannot strike a deal to govern with people who do not really want to govern. you can't avoid a shutdown trying to placate the people who want a shutdown. but here's the important thing.

you do not have to waste time trying. if you're serious about governing, you do not have to let a few extreme house republicans set the agenda or let donald trump call the shots. there is a better way, and i know because it is the path that we've been following here in the senate. vice chair collins and i passed 11 funding bills out of our committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. we negotiated strong bills that could actually be signed into law and would make a real difference for folks back at home. we did it by listening to each other, listening to folks back home, rejecting partisan policies and focusing how we set our nations and families up for success. that is the same approach i hope we can now take, now that this c.r. gives us the time we need to negotiate bipartisan, bicameral, full-year bills. madam president, i know that compromise takes time and it takes a lot of hard work. i've hammered out, with my colleague, many tough deals here

in my time. but i think we have proof than this congress -- proven in this congress, many times over, that the path to bipartisanship is far easier and far more productive than the dead end m megaextremism the maga republicans make their first priority. let's vote to pass the c.r., then, let's get to work in a serious, bipartisan way on our full-year funding bills and on meeting the long-overdue disaster relief needs of so many of our states and communities. thank you, mr. president. . i -- thank you, madam president. . i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i do think it's important to point out the house passed this bill by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. thank you, madam president. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i understand that the senate has received h.r. 9747 from the house, and i ask the chair to execute the order of september 24 with respect to

the bill. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to legislative session. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: h.r. 9747, an act ma ma ma making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2025 and for other purposes. mr. schumer: madam president. (the majority leader. mr. schumer: -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: tonight, the american people can sleep easier, knowing we have avoided an unnecessary government shutdown at the end of the month. it is a relief for the country that, once again, bipartisanship prevailed to stop another shutdown threat. it took much longer than it should have, but because house republicans finally, finally chose to work with us in the end, congress is getting the job done tonight. because bipartisanship ultimately prevailed, the government will stay open, vital government services will not be

halted, appropriators will have more time to fully fund the government before the end of the year. this bipartisanship is a good outcome for america, and i hope it sets the tone for more cons constructive bipartisan work when we return later in the fall. thanks to speaker johnson for working with me on the agreement, and thanks to leader mcconnell and leader jeffries for helping make it happen, and special thanks to our appropriators, particularly chair murray and vice chair collins, for setting an excellent example of bipartisanship. i urge everyone to vote yes. i yield back my time. i yield back all time and urge us to vote now. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: h.r. 9747 an act

making appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2025 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the passage of the bill. is there a stuff second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. 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. helmy. 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. merkley.

mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer.

mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. ms. hassan, aye. mrs. shaheen, aye. mr. tester, aye.

mr. schatz, aye. mr. padilla, aye.

ms. butler, aye. vote:

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- barrasso, blumenthal, butler,

cantwell, capito, collins, cortez masto, durbin, hassan, kaine, lummis, murkowski, murray, padilla, reed, rounds, schatz, schumer, shaheen, smith, tester, van hollen, wicker, young. mr. hoeven, aye. senators voting in the negative -- blackburn, hagerty, marshall, paul, risch, tuberville.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye. the clerk: ms. warren, aye. mr. sanders, aye. mr. wyden, aye.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. mr. grassley, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no. ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. king, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye. mr. lee, no. ms. ernst, aye.

mr. johnson, no. mr. hawley, no. ms. baldwin, aye.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye.

mr. kelly, aye. mr. daines, aye.

the clerk: mr. romney, aye. mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, aye.

the clerk: mr. crapo, no.

the clerk: mr. lankford, aye. the clerk: mr. booker, aye.

mr. rubio, aye. mr. peters, aye. the clerk: mr. tillis, aye. mr. cramer, aye. mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. mr. casey, aye.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye. the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. mullin, no. mr. graham, aye. mr. lujan, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. welch, aye.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. mr. budd, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no. the clerk: mr. cruz, aye. mr. braun, no.

mr. thune, aye. mrs. britt, no.

the clerk: ms. sinema, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye.

the clerk: mr. helmy, aye.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. mr. moran, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye.

vote: vote:

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye. the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 78, the nays are 18, and the bill is passed.

the senator from vermont. mr. welch: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume executive session and resume considerations of the perry nomination. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, april m. perry, of illinois, to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: for two weeks now, i've come to the floor to continue thanking my staff in the republican leader office publicly for their outstanding and ongoing work. over the years, i've been very fortunate to have so many tremendously talented individuals helping me tend to the duties of the leader. but just as i'm grateful that so many have decided to join our team, i'm even more gratified by how few have decided to leave.

since i became leader, my office here in the capitol has been steered by just two chiefs of staff, we've had just two communications directors, two national security advisors, three legal counsels, just to name a few examples. it's been a bit like managing a baseball team with a franchise player at every single position. every one of them marked by loyalty, professionalism, and genuine expertise. so, today, i'd like to single out members of this all-star team of policy advisors. i'll begin with my senior advisor on appropriations, cindy perry. my entire team misses cindy around the office, but the wealth of institutional expertise she lent to our

efforts more than earned her the right to close out a distinguished chapter on capitol hill. she retired earlier this year. cindy joined my team with about the most impressive resume in senior congressional leadership you could possibly have. house committee work, two speakers of the house, and a senate whip. suffice it to say, she knows her stuff. cindy's deep experience gave her a sixth sense of spotting issues along the way, for anticipating pitfalls, and helping us all avoid them. she knows the arcane mechanics of budgets and appropriations. she knows the people who write them, edit them, and pass them, and her understanding of both chambers gives her and anyone fortunate to have her in their corner a macro view of the

process of funding the government. i know my team was especially grateful for cindy's skills as the house whisperer, so to speak. she was our forecaster for legislative prospects across the capitol, a trusted liaison with the lower chamber whfrp it came time to get -- whenever it came time to get important bicameral efforts across the finish line. in even the most stressful moments, cindy knew how to cut the tension, donning her trusty good luck sunglassesr colleagues to enjoy her annual dolly parton advent calendar. cindy can look back with pride both for delivering excellence in difficult circumstances and for making so many friends along the way. but i'm confident that cindy's

dearest relationship on the hill was her parallel service of her brother, patrick,my. who is a capitol police. i'm grateful to them for their devoted service. thank you, cindy. i found humor in what my good friend lamar alexander used to say about the job of being the leader of the senate. he said it's a little bit like being a grounds keeper at a cemetery. everyone is under you, but no one is listening. in the senate we can only be directed by rowing in the same direction with folks who share our same principles, the senior advisor has been the youngest son of a big irish catholic family from detroit. jim neils roots taught him what

he was standing for and how to get a noisy room to listen to him. in meetings in my staff, all jim has to do to get our attention is simply stand up, but his engagements further afield draw on jim's other strengths. authenticity, candor, a political weather veteran with a -- vane with read -- i can't begin to tell you how many times important senate accomplishments have nearly died on the launch pad, but for jim's depth and diplomatic touch. like many of our fellow travelers, jim credits president reagan with an outside role in forming his interest in politics and his conservative principles.

i expect fewer conservatives of jim's generation would use the next breath to credit rolling stone guitarist keith richards with forming his style and good taste. around my office, my team's resident rock 'n' roll historian doles out quick humor, but his colleagues know him most of all as a big brother, friend, whose advice and perspective ring true. his ability to get through thorny issues go to his wife and his kids maggie and patrick who i know make him have toed -- extraordinarily proud. thank you, jim, so much. the space jim shares in my

office -- that is in no part due to stephanie sparks. we just call her sparks. she is responsible for a portfolio for which few people understand. it's a lot like playing left tackle, and i always want the best covering my back. as it turns out, identifying the best wasn't that difficult. in the world of health care policies, sparks' reputation is unmatched. she is among the most highly regarded policy professionals in washington. she it sew up a tough deal like no other, and when the job requires dashing hopes or breaking china, she's somehow able to do that with a shiel and her universal -- smile and her universal admiration in tact.

needless to say everyone in washington would be eager to bring starks' talent on board. fortunately for me, i wasn't the only one to make sure she landed here. in fact, no less than a former boss, speaker ryan made frequent calls to my office to make sure we hired her. the speaker was right and i have been so grateful for sparks' knack of keeping me apprised of the ever-shifting tides of important debates. i know the rest of my team, for their part, are grateful for the office's foremost authority request fordevelopments on true crime, formula 1 raising her mom

barbara is rightly proud. because the louisville cardinals are headed to south bend this weekend, i have to close otherwise unqualified praise with just two words, go cards. sparks, thank you for everything. now, as one of so many lawyers in the senate, i've always been quick to admit to colleagues how i wouldn't go to me for a simple will. but i've been fortunate to have counsel on my team who can handle that and a whole lot more. the first such person i need to thank might very well be a victim of fate. my senior advisor and counsel steve donaldson is a proud native kentuckian, a sharp lawyer and one of the few experts out there on the intricacies of campaign finance. frankly, it's nearly impossible to imagine a situation in which

steve didn't wind up working for me some day. i needed somebody who could keep up on this niche issue that i've been emersed in during my entire time in the senate. in that regard, steve was an obvious choice, but over the years i've come to rely on steve so much more than a sounding board on our shared interest in the first amendment. he's also our resident wiz on the nuaunces of employment law. it's an important issue to begin with, but it took on massive new importance with the onset of the pandemic a few years ago. he became my team's trusted navigator through public health care concern ands rapidly evolving efficiency guidance, he was instrumental in shaping the cares act asking questions

others had no considered. on top of it all, he has carried the essential responsibility of ensuring my entire office upholds the highest standards of professional ethics. the team looks forward with pain amusement to his annual impression of the grifrn who stole -- grinch who stole christmas and with sincere appreciation of his legal counsel that keeps us all in the clear. he is the professional -- perhaps i can accept the blame for keeping him too busy at the office to play more often. his pride in kentucky roots is more than anything but pride in his family. i know he makes his mother cathy, sister annie and if these

and -- niece and nephew very, very proud. thank you very much. next is my chief council mike furgoso, mike came with an ivy league pedigree. but unlike his peers in black robes, he carries a -- he is another member of my staff with a challenging multitacited mandate from the judicial confirmation process to matters of criminal justice and border security. i call him an frags that wares many -- wears many hats. seriously, it's a job that draws on every bit of frags's

experience traveling the width of politics to plumbing the depth of conservative jurisprudence. he is equally at home in the discourse of the legal community and the urgent pragmatism of congressional deal making. he's so exceptionally confident that he often produces from his depth of the work that would normally require literally teams of outside counsel. frags stands on a deeply help principle but remains on a firm grasp of the possible. he has sacrificed holidays to make headway against all problems. he knows which screws to twist. fighting the good fight can be draining, especially when the

good guys come up empty handed. but much of his colleagues' dlat, frags never -- he never misses his self-effacing humor. i'm certain he showers his wife ashley and their daughters maria and helena withular joy and even greater pride than he has for his noble work. frags, thanks for everything. there's a certain irony in the fact that many years ago my team found the kid who would end up as my fearest advisor in the cause of restoring american hard power, interning at the epicenter of american sought power, the department of state. in those earliest days, my fellow kentuckian robert found

himself driving me around town to important events. these days, as my national security advisor, i frequently send robert to the end of the earth and to the seats of foreign governments. of course there was a period in between when i had to exercise strategic patience and i'm not referring to the moments when classified meetings made robert difficult to reach. i mean that his talents couldn't be contained. and over the years they've landed him in the service of who's who of foreign policy luminaries. i'm sure they found him to be a relentless focus on worthy causes and a passion for advancing them that simmered just beneath the surface. certainly, this last bit

represents a compromise between robert's experiences and the boiling caldron of the house and his appreciation for the cooling saucer of the senate. when robert returned to my office, i handed him a portfolio of tough problems with noisy solutions. it demands that he juggle the urgent and the important, the big picture and the smallest details, the secure of the senate in moments of unprecedented crisis and the enduring credibility of america's commitments in the world. robert knows how to advance the ball in international settings with cosmopolitan tact. naivety and incompetence around washington with righteous ire and defuse office monotony with

humor. i'm grateful for all of it and for the loyalty and dedication that should make his family, his commonwealth, and his nation very, very proud. thank you, robert. now, folks, all around the -- folks all around the senate appreciate this body's cooling saucer reputation, but no one embodies it like my senior advisor on commerce. to be sure, chappy cut his teeth with tom coburn who prided himself on playing an assertive role out here on the floor and his work in the whip's office under senator cornyn dropped him straight into the middle of vote-counting chaos. but that pedigree did nothing if not make chappy a master of senate rules and procedures and with that comes a calm,

collected assurance. the composure of a recovering collegiate athlete. the competence of a senate expert at the top of his game. chappy's path through the senate earned him a reputation as a swiss army knife. he can cite senate rules, he can carry the day on conventional nominations with deep dive background research and, of course, most recently, he can keep me sharp, parsing tariff disputes and employment reports with equal ease. in the proudest -- chappy is the utility player every team wishes it had. and of course the team that

could claim his proudest allegiance is the one he built with his wife suzanne. herself a distinguished member of the senate family in the chaplain's office. as i understand it the wonderful story that includes two young sons, sullivan and fielding -- began with a proposal. i'm just grateful the republican leader's office gets to be a part of it so, thank you so much, chappy. i can't help wonder how many industries and constituents know that my senior adviser responsible for business coalitions is also a watercolor painter whose work adorns the invitations. my colleagues receive at our annual kentucky derby lunch or whether erica, former colleagues at coastal living magazine have followed long as her reputation

as a consummate adviser has reached every corner of the uppermost echelons of republican politics from jim demint to m.i.t. romney to me. her talents for diplomacy and coordination are undeniable. for more than a decade, i've trusted erica to relay important guidance around the republican conference and build consensus across business and advocacy groups. she's charismatic, perceptive, highly intelligent. in the heat of battle she's been known to forgo sleep for days. but the depth of erica's commitment and the breadth of her professional accomplishments are a testament to something else. a genuine friendly warmth that is downright difficult to sustain in a town like washington. as much as she excels at tending

relationships with stakeholders across the senate and private sector, erica tends relationships with her dleegz with the utmost care. she takes it upon herself to welcome new arrivals, to celebrate birthdays with requisite cookie cakes and to fulfill other duties that come along with being indisputably the heart and soul of the office. i know my entire team is grateful to occupy a small part of erica's heart. the rest rightly belongs to her family, her mother, her late father roger who she continues to make so very, very proud. erica, thank you. terry van doren told me before about the awe he felt visiting the harry truman presidential library and seeing a replica of a bust that stands in the hall

outside this chamber here in the capitol. the thought of seeing the real thing let alone passing it by every day at work was a thrill. what says the most about terry or as we call him, tvd, is that after 12 years on my team, i'm certain he still -- that's not to say the senate hasn't tried mightily to grind it out of him. for more than a decade terry has juggled a uniquely challenging portfolio that encompasses agriculture transportation, energy, and a laundry list of niche constituencies in between. with massive implications for federal spending and issues that matter deeply to kentucky, terry inevitably finds himself in the thick of every vote-a-rama, every government funding fight,

and every last-dash legislative effort right before the holidays. with a steady hand, deep expertise, and unwavering loyalty to me and the folks i represent, terry has been an extroed narrowly effective -- extraordinarily effective workhorse even if in one instance it might be becoming an expert on race horses. for spearheading the cra process in defense against harmful overregulation to shepherding massive bipartisan accomplishments on infrastructure and agriculture, he's exercised his talents with a mild manner, a self-effacing humility and with undaunted optimism that this might be the year that the senate schedule doesn't spoil his hunting season travel plans. so i'm grateful to terry's family, his wife, lisa, and

their kids abigail and bobby for letting us lean on him literally at all hours. thanks again, terry. now, it's fortunate to have outstanding personnel on my team, but if you want to make a lasting impact, you need good personnel in every corner of the gove government. to do that you need someone like any nominations counsel jodi wright. for starters jodi has the institutional credentials of a senate thoroughbred. from the whip's office under don nickles to the republican cloakroom jodi knows as well as anyone just what it takes to make the place tick. she's well versed in the senate's written rules and just as importantly in the unwritten rules. trust me when you're trying to clear last-minute logjams on the floor, it helps to have someone who speaks these languages fluently. of course, nominations don't

start here in the senate. jodi works necessarily involves a heavy dose of executive branch procedure and a further -- and to further complicate matters, the nature of the job changes significantly depending on which party is in the white house. these days jodi has excelled in identifying and claiming rare opportunities for republican nominations to influence policy in meaningful ways. jodi's work is a delicate balancing act on the best of days but it also requires the sort of people skills and undaunted optimism that this proud texan has in spades. her sunny disposition isn't reserved for meetings for candidates for public office. it's dolled out around my office and the entire senate whenever and wherever it's needed most and it speaks to the pride i know jodi feels for work right here in the capitol.

and that's second only to jodi's pride in her family and her husband glen's own service in the navy and in the joys of raising their daughter grace who i know jodi's callings -- colleagues have enjoyed watching grow up. jodi, thank you so much. mr. president, if you can believe it, the work of thanking this incredible staff of my republican leader office is still unfinished. i'll still need to brag on a few more outstanding leaders who have made so much of our success possible, and i look forward to doing that sometime soon. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, let me tell you two brief stories. a high schooler takes from the internet a picture of a female classmate, then uses artificial intelligence to nudefy that young girl and shares this d deepfake sexually explicit image with the rest of the school on social media. the classmate, motorified and -- mortified and

humiliated, doesn't want to show her face at school. she's afraid. she spends a week begging her parents not to force her to go back. her parents futilely report the images to the social media company, but they never hear even a word back. meanwhile, everyone at the school knows who distributed this sexually explicit image of this 14-year-old girl. but he faces no congresseses. -- but he faces no consequences. here his a second story -- here's a second story: a teenage boy begins a relationship online with a young girl. he's smitten, and they decide to swap explicit photos with each other, but it turns out the teenage girl is a scammer, and he's just fallen prey to sextortion.

the scammer repeatly messages the young man, demanding payment or the explicit photos will be sent to his friends via the social media network. the young man, embarrassed, mortified, thinking there's no way out, dies by suicide. his name was gavin guffy and his father is sheer today advocating to hold big tech accountable. on my lapel i'm wearing the heart emoji that gavin texted his family moments before he took his own life. where do these stories take place? texas, new jersey, south carolina, washington,

california, illinois, florida? sadly, the answer is all of them. american high schools are experiencing an explosion of a.i.-generated sexual images, and in many cases, there is no consequence and no research for the teenage girls or the boys like gavin. there have been thousands and thousands of cases of sleazebags using nonconsensual intimate images to extort victims. both sexually and financially. in fact, the fbi just issued a warning this year about the growing threat of sextortion for minors online. there are dozens of families across the country whose children have taken their own lives because of their fear of these images being released.

there are hundreds of high schoolers targeted, often by their own classmates, who are experiencing incredible psychological harms knowing that these images exist and are still out there. and your child's images aren't just targeted while they're in middle school or high school. in new york, a young man right out of high school took images of his former classmates from their social media profiles and used a.i. to alter the images in a sexually explicit manner. he then posted them for the world to see, along with their personally identifiable information, encouraging violence and harassment against those he was victimizing. he was convicted only of a misdemeanor, and he faced zero charges for the deepfake explicit images.

and i'd venture to guess, some of the victims tried and failed to get these fake images removed by the tech company. i've spoken to these victims and their parents, including two 14-year-old girls who were victims in the same month with the same story on opposite sides of the country. these girls were scared. they were hopeless. but they also wanted justice and relief from these images, so they took action. allison berry of texas and francesca manny of new jersey bravely spoke up about their experiences and how the take it down act, my bipartisan legislation with democrat senator amy klobuchar, would have protected them and afforded them justice for these horrific

acts. both eliston and francesca testified at a field hearing bravely sharing their stories. there are 29 states that have not criminalized deepfake important reform. thus law enforcement in those states cannot prosecute the slimeballs who peddle this lifelike yet fake smut. that's justice denied for these teenagers and other victims. the take it down act empowers victims across the entire united states. it makes it a felony for these creeps to use a.i. to create and publish fake life-like important graphic images of real people. just as importantly, our bipartisan bill requires big tech to have a notice and

takedown process so that every american, not just the taylor swifts is of this country that are famous enough that they can get the images taken down, but every american, every teenager in junior high and high school who are victimized, like eliston and francesca and gavin can get these disturbing images taken off-line immediately. i don't want to see another family suffer such a fate. which is why i'm on the floor today trying to pass the take it down act. this bill is overwhelmingly bipartisan. there are nearly 20 republican and democrat cosponsors of this bill. over 80 organizations, including victims advocates, including unions, including law enforcement, are backing this bipartisan legislation. the take it down act passed the senate commerce committee

unanimously. every republican, every democrat on the committee voted for this legislation. the house companion likewise has strong, bipartisan support. the senate has acted on parts of this issue earlier this year. having passed two complementary pieces of legislation 11 weeks ago. however, neither of these other bills empower victims to get their explicit images, real or fake, removed from websites. in a moment, unfortunately, you will be hearing an objection from my colleague, the senator from new jersey, who previously supported both of these complementary bills. one of these bills, the shield act, authored by senator klobuchar, the coauthor of my take it down act as well. the shield act was significant

modified at the request of my colleague from new jersey before he would allow that to pass. the take it down act deliberately adopted the exact same language that the senator from new jersey requested in the shield act. everything he requested, from the same sentencing provisions to the same intent provisions to the same exceptions to the bill. now it appears the senator from new jersey no longer supports the language he has voted for and the language he negotiated and helped draft. it cannot be that the senator from new jersey is concerned about free speech matters because he has already agreed to pass two bills that deal with this very same issue using the same language. i certainly hope that the senator from new jersey doesn't actually believe that realistic

child pornography, as we've described here today, is somehow protected speech under any of our legal precedents. it is not. the only difference between the two bills that perhaps the senator from new jersey can possibly point to is that the take it down act criminalizes the publication of deepfake revenge porn, an issue this body has not yet addressed, and that the take it down act requires big tech companies to remove these heinous images upon notice from the victims in order to protect the victims. neither of these positive changes are good reasons to hold up the bill. but they are essential to bringing justice to our constituents from francesca to elliston. so if the senator from new jersey objects, teenage girls like francesca mani, like

elliston berry from texas, or gavin will have no protection from sextortion. or have having images and videos, literal child pornography, being publicly shared by predators and sex offenders. if he objects, the next francesca, the next elliston, the next gavin won't be able to force instagram, facebook, or tiktok to take down this abuse content. sometimes senate procedure can be confusing. i want you to listen for two words from the senator from new jersey -- i object. let me tell you how this works.

if he doesn't say those two words, this legislation will right now this evening pass the united states senate 100-0. and, understand, this legislation, 99 senators have already indicated they have no objections to this legislation. all the senator from new jersey has do is not say those two words, i object. and this law is passing a the senate unanimously. on the other hand, if you hear those two words, i object, the result is going to be that this legislation is defeated on the floor of the senate. on behalf of elliston berry, on behalf of francesca mani, on behalf of memory of gavin guffy, on behalf of teenagers who have

been victimized by real and deepfake explicit image, on boost thousands more -- on behalf of the thousands more teenage girls and women that are likely to be victims of this abuse in the future, i urge my colleagues to come together with a simple, bipartisan step and pass the take it down act. therefore, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on commerce, science, and transportation be discharged from further consideration of s. 4569 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the cruz-klobuchar substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection?

mr. booker: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. cruz: madam president, i have to tell you, i am saddened -- the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i am saddened that the senator from new jersey chose to give no explanation for his objection. he chose to give no reason to francesca, why she's being denied, no reason to ellis top, no reason to gavin. he had an opportunity to explain his objections. you know what he said? nothing. nearly two weeks ago was when i circulated this amendment to both sides of the aisle, and it cleared 99 senators. he had a week and a half to object. yesterday this legislation was about to pass, and an hour before it was going to pass, the senator from new jersey raised his objection.

he said last night, he said, ted, i haven't had time to read the bill. been circulated to his office two weeks earlier but he said he hadn't had time to read the bill. i said great, i'll delay this for a day so you can read the bill. the language in the bill is word for word verbatim. the language you agreed to, you have voted for, and you negotiated. he said he had numerous substantive objections. if he does, we heard none of them, not a word of it. it makes me sad that he doesn't feel his constituents deserve any explanation for blocking legislation as important as this. madam president, it's not lost on anyone that this is an election year, and i will say absent a single substantive objection, the obvious inference is that this objection is being made because we've got an

election in less than six weeks. i consider the senator from new jersey a friend. i sure hope he's not standing up here denying victims of this abuse relief simply to score partisan political points. i would like to think he wouldn't do such a thing. but in order to believe he wouldn't do such a thing, he needs to actually explain some reason for his objection, which at least so far he has not bothered to do. i will tell you, we had an agreement negotiated with the majority leader to pass an entire package of bills. republican bills and democrat bills that have passed the senate committee on commerce, science, and transportation. all of that package we were going to pass yesterday until at the last minute the senator from new jersey came with his midnight objection and no reasoning whatsoever.

so i'm now going to give this body the opportunity to pass the package that had been negotiated in a bipartisan manner, that had been agreed to. and we're going to find out if the senator from new jersey will not only object to providing relief to the victims of this abuse, but will object to multiple other bills that are bipartisan bills supported by members of this body. because he wants to play partisan politics instead. i hope he does not. madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc -- s. 4569, the take it down act, cruz-klobuchar. calendar 47 # 3, s. 275, the rural broadband protection act of 2024, capito-klobuchar.

calendar number 474, s. 1570, the bottles and breast feeding equipment screening enhancement act, duckworth and daines. calendar number 285, s. 115 # 3, the national manufacturing advisory council for the 21st century act, peters and rubio. calendar number 480, s. 3475, strengthening the commercial driver's license information system act, peters and young. calendar number 479, s. 3277, the marine debris reauthorization, sullivan and whitehouse. calendar number a 513, s. 4212, american music tourism act of 2024, blackburn and hickenlooper.

and calendar number 485, s s. 4107, the think differently transportation act, duckworth and capito. further, that s. 4569 be discharged from the commerce committee, that the committee-reported amendments were applicable be agreed to, the cruz-klobuchar amendment to s. 4569 which is at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bills as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. booker: i object. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey, objection is heard. mr. cruz: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> thank you very much, your leaders, your excellencies. today i want the tell you about a day that has already passed and a data must -- day that must never come. i sevenned one of the most terrifying reports at the beginning of the russian full scale invasion against ukraine, firing directly at the buildings of our ukrainian nuclear power plant. the the largest one in europe, six nuclear reactors. the russian army stormed this facility just as brutally as any

other during this war without thinking about consequences. possibly disastrous. this was one of the most horrifying moments of the war when no one could know how russian strikes on the nuclear facility would end, and and everyone in ukraine was reminded of what chernobyl means. now the nuclear power plant if is occupied by russian forces, unfortunately. and it's at risk of a nuclear incident. this is a major source of radiation danger in europe, possibly in the world. that's why in the -- i presenter safety. in ukraine we know exactly what we are dealing with, and i want

the thank you, the general assembly members, for are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. kennedy: i ask that the quorum call be suspended, madam president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. three quick points, madam president, number one, i rise first to thank the bloomberg foundation. i had made notes from which i was going to speak, but i lost them, so i'm going to kind of wing it here. over the past couple of years, the bloomberg foundation has spent millions of dollars. i want to say the figure is $30 million to $40 million, to try to help really smart kids from low-income families access some of our finest colleges in the

country. and america does have the best system of higher education in the world, by the way. we have the best quality colleges. and what the bloomberg foundation was focussing on, these were just really smart kids from low-income families who had great grades and great standardized test scores and great extracurriculars, but many of them didn't know about the opportunities that were out there in the world for them. and the bloomberg foundation wasn't concentrating on race or gender or sexuality or part of the country, any of those things. they were just looking to try to help really smart young women and young men in high school with great grades and great standardized test scores access some of the finest universities in the country. and they spent $40 million doing it, working with some other groups. well, it didn't work out like they thought. they just didn't have as much

success as they wanted to. but they learned from the experience. what they learned was in order to reach these young people, you can't just text them. you can't just call them. you can't send them an e-mail. in part because today when all of us receive e-mails and text messages from people that we don't know, we automatically assume it's some kind of scam. so that's what bloomberg and its contractors found. people, including our young people, they're just very suspicious. and so they weren't able to reach that many kids. and those that they did reach -- an the folks that brookberg did, they just found out it was not effect:15. but they also learned that the way to reach these kids is to

see them in person and, in part, go through the kids' high schools guidance counselors and placement officers. so i'm hoping that bloomberg is is going to start again. i'm not saying that bloomberg had no success. they had success, but it just wasn't as much success as we all wanted. but, by god, they tried. and they deserve thanks. this wasn't any taxpayer money. it was the money of the bloomberg foundation. and they tried. and they learned a lot from it, and i wanted to thank them for trying, and i hope they won't give up, and i hope they'll use what they learned to try to reach these young people again. number two, i want to repeat very briefly what i said last

week. katherine foster is a member of our cloakroom staff. she is in the back doing her job. today is her last day, and i wanted to thank her again for her service and, as i said last time, she's taken a very prestigious job in the private sector. i wish her well, and i hope she makes bucketsful of money. to those who don't know, we have -- by we, i mean the republicans and the democrats -- have what we call cloakroom staffs. these are the people that work with us to make this place work. on any given day, the democratic staff and cloakroom staff and the republican cloakroom staff are the nicest and the smartest people in this building, and they just do an incredible job, and they work hard and they have

to be here at all kind of un-godly hours, and they have to put up with backsass from united states senators, and it is a very hard job. and that's true on both the democratic side and the republican side. but, anyway, katherine is one of that group, and she's leaving and we're sorry she's leaving, but we're happy that she's leaving because she's going to make more money than the father, the son, and the holy ghost. and so we wish her well. but i also wanted to use this opportunity to thank our entire teams on both the democratic and the house side for their incredible work. number three, the house passed a bill, madam president, dealing with the sanctity of taxpayer records. in another life -- i worked in state government, i worked for, like, i don't know, 16 or 17

years, i don't remember. it went by in a flash, as state treasurer, which was an elected position. but before that, i was in an appointed position, a position appointed by the governor. it was a political position. it was called the secretary of the department of revenue. and that was a fancy way, fancy title for tax collector. i was the state's tax collector for, i don't know,three and a half years, before i left the position to go run for state treasurer. and one of the things i learned was the sanctity of people's income taxes. i mean, i can't -- i'm sure there are some documents that are more private, maybe our medical records, but they're not that much more private to us and precious to us than our tax records. you know? and we had this -- and at the louisiana department of revenue,

which is where i worked, we had a hard and fast rule and every embryo knew it and -- employee knew it and they respected it, by god. if you leaked somebody's tax returns, we would chase you like you stole thanksgiving and we would punish you and we would not only fire you, but we'd prosecute you, if we have to. and so consequently we had almost no leaks -- none. i wish i could say that for the irs. through the years they've had a bunch of leaks. i don't want to overstate it, but they have. and not that long ago back in 2019 they had a leak -- it actual lay came from a vendor -- actually came from a vendor that was working for the irs. and by the way, the sanctity of those tax returns and the importance to protect them also

applies to contractors for the tax agency. but, anyway, one of the vendors for the internal revenue service leaked 8,000 tax returns, 8,000. not 80, not 800. 8,000. 8,000 tax returns. and they gave it -- they gave these tax returns to a media organization. and the person who leaked it, he didn't do it because he was trying to show tax fraud. he did it to try to embarrass the people. a lot of them were really wealthy. and he wanted to embarrass them. just out of the meanness in his heart.

some very famous people -- i think mr. jeff besos was on the list. president trump was on the list. but if you looked at this list, this list was as long as king kong's arm. you could stack this list here and paint that ceiling. 8,000! 8,000. and embarrassed a lot of people. and it would have embarrassed you, if your name was all over the internet with your personal information and your home address and your signature. it was just wrong. and it took years for the irs to track this down. we kept pushing them and raising fresh hell and saying this is not right. well, i don't think they did on their own. i think they got outside help. they finally caught this person.

you know what thinks personal in was? he -- you know what his personal was? he got five years and they fined him $5,000. i just don't think that's enough of a deterrent. i don't. when you add up all the misery that this one meathead caused to 8,000 people -- not who were cheating on their taxes; he was just trying to embarrass them. that's just wrong. and so the house passed a bill the other day that basically says the penalty is going to be increased. it's no longer going to be a minimum of five. it's going to be ten years. also instead of a $5,000 fine. the maximum fine is going to be $250,000. and here's the thing -- you can't -- you can't -- let me

put it another way. every document, every tax return that you release is a different count. in other words, this meathead that released 8,000. under the new law, that would be 8,000 counts against him. and that's the way it ought to be. it shouldn't be, let's just lump all them together into one and that's one count and he pays $5,000 and he gets five years, but he's probably out in two. that's just not right, folks. and what you allow is what will continue. and i don't hate anybody. i don't hate anybody. and i don't know this meathead who did this, and in my heart, i don't hate him. but what he did was wrong. he just tried to embarrass -- and did embarrass -- 8,000 americans.

who weren't doing anything wrong. they were paying their taxes, for god's sakes. it's just wrong. it makes me want to throw up. it triggers my gag reflex. so i hope we can pass the house bill. like i say, i hadn't change add word in the house bill. it's identical to what just passed the house. and if i'm wrong on this, madam president, i'll come back and correct the record. i think it passed the house unanimously. did it pass the house unanimously? do we know, josh? there were a couple votes again -- this is josh who i work with, smart as a whip. well, it wasn't unanimous. i stand corrected. josh, my brain, corrected me. but it was almost unanimous, and i would sure like to see this body do the same thing. and i just don't see this has

a -- this as a partisan issue. now, i understand -- the reason i'm talking so long is i think that my good friend, senator ron wyden, wants to object. -- object to this. now, i hope he doesn't. i will -- i don't know if i can say this but i'm going to say it anyway. i will buy him a pony if he doesn't object to this bill, a pony of his choice. that is not a bribe. i like ron wyden so much, i would buy him a pony of his choice anyway. but if he won't object to this bill, i'll buy him a pony, okay? because this is a good, good piece of legislation. and i don't want to do this behind his back, so i don't see ron here, but what i'm going to do, madam president, i'm not

trying to tell you how to do your job. you can do whatever you want. but i'm going to make this motion, and i would ask if you would consider holding it until senator wyden has a chance to get here. because i don't want to do this behind his back. i see the parliamentarian is unhappy. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognizing that fact, yes. senator kennedy: i'll buy her a pony, too. okay, madam president, let me go to plan b. what i'll do is i'll -- i want to hit pause because i don't want to do this behind ron's back. i want to hit pause and i'll ask

that we go into a quorum call, and when ron gets here, i would ask to be recognized so i can assert my motion, and ron can agree with my splendid bill and then we'll go pick out a pony. so i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator will be recognized after -- the presiding officer: i suggest the absence of a quorum. -- mr. kennedy: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. my friend, senator wyden, is here. so i would like to proceed. i'm sorry he missed my speech. it would have given him goose bumps it he had been here to listen to it. but maybe y'all can tell him about it. in the meantime, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 8292. which is a bill that i talked about. passed by the house almost unanimously. which was received from it the

house -- they couldn't hear me? let me start history of. -- met me start over. i didn't have my mike on. you recognize my request we suspend the quorum? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: okay. senator wyden is here. iing that i him for coming out. i hope he heard my speech. i hope he was persuaded. i know him to be a reasonable man. so i took my best shot. so i'm going to ahead and make my motion now that he is here. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 8292. that's the bill i talked about that was passed almost unanimously by the house. that bill has been received from

the house. and i further ask, madam president, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i certainly have no sympathy for leakers. i want to make a couple of points to make it clear why i'm going to oppose this proposal. first of all, the biggest leakers of taxpayer data are the big tax software companies, and we never hear a peep from our colleagues on the other side about that. in fact, my republican colleagues try with every piece of legislation where there is a possible connection, try to get

rid of the irs's new direct file system that allows taxpayers to avoid the big tax prep companies who overcharge them and give away their data. so my view is it makes no sense to create an even larger double standard a life sentence for nonviolent offenders. that seems disproportionate to the whole concept of potentially zero penalty for big corporations that leak all the t time. second, let's talk about the system that this proposal would protect. it's a system that allows the people at the very, very top to pay what they want when they want to, and often sometimes nothing at all for years on end.

some of the wealthiest folks, the people at the very top, have paid zero for years on end, including the ex-president. so my view is the american people ought to have more information about the tax games the ultra wealthy are playing. not less. and i want to make it clear again i take a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting taxpayer data, but the tax games of the ultra wealthy are not a state secret that ought to be protected like the nuclear codes. the congress ought to be doing more for tax transparency. i'm happy to have that discussion. in the meantime the senate should not go out of its way to protect the system that allows ultra wealthy individuals to hide in the shadows and dodge paying their fair share. for those reasons, madam president, i object.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: i thank my friend ron for his point of view, and i hope we can sit down and talk about this and perhaps work something out, because this bill is not about changing the tax rate. it's just about everybody's tax return is their own business. and i also thank, madam president, your courtesies and your time and attention in this matter. with that, i suggest, madam president, the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. ossof: i ask unanimous

consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ossof: as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 52884, the lieutenant stopping prison contraband act introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 5284, a bill to increase the penalty for prohibited provision of a phone in a correctional facility, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. ossof: i ask that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ossof: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. and the bill is passed. mr. ossof: i finally ask that

the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ossof: i yield the floor.

.

i am speaking on behalf of the countries will never forget what nations do in their united. france of just paid tribute indeed to the people of america who have allowed us to liberate ourselves from the nazi grip. progress and peace also. france, has created eight free

states, sovereign states able to engage with each other. to understand what is essential. also, hope. much like we have seen in recent times during the olympic games france hosted this year, with beauty, enthusiasm and supportive people. despite this, the olympic truth that we wanted here did not come to life. however the danger of words without actions the diplomacy before us every day. however, our organization is facing the biggest convergence of crisis possibly ever after eight decades of existence. the lack of control is currently face with wars, with climate change increasing every day

humanity seems to be more fragmented at a time when it would require us to find common responses strong, effective responses. these two words, united nations needs somebody hope once again. what must we do for this? we need to find this essential bedrock of this. first and foremost we need to restore the terms of trust and respect between peoples. here i can see them often trampled in our debates. to do this we need to pay equal attention to those suffering. as they mentioned here two years ago in fact, let's stave off the possibility of having a double standard. one life is equal to another. the civilian protection is an imperative must remain the northstar this year we are marking the 75th anniversary of the geneva convention.

let's not let the idea take root for a moment those who died in ukraine or from the north. those who have died from the south and those who die in that conflicts in the great lakes region would be those alone and ignored. what's regaining control in this confidence and not next except any differences at a time when human lives are at stake. let's not accept any difference when it difference be made went to integrity and sovereignty of state is at stake either. these complex today call into question our very capacity to ensure the un charter is respected for ac people want to propose a piece my asking for capitulation, it is surprising.

hope we can support any idea like this i like to hear of all he marriage and workers those working to defend our values. it's crucial each and every one of these conflicts. we must provide a common response the two wars affecting europe and the middle east. russia indeed is waging a war in ukraine for territorial conquest. scorning the most fundamental principle. they are guilty of violating the law, ethics and honor but nothing they are doing is in line with the common interest of nations. nor the responsibilities they shoulder within the organization. the fate of ukraine is a question of peace and security in europe and around the world. who could still believe they are protected from their bigger

neighbors, violent neighbors. no one could do that. we could therefore in our common interest the common interest ukraine be restored in its legitimate right as soon as possible. could hold strongly out of danger and obtain justice. will continue to provide equipment for necessary defense. france will support the remarkable resistance pendant will commit their lasting security. let us look for peace france will join its forces with all of those sincere partners to build solid piece in ukraine.

i know for many of us the key issues elsewhere is a long list of forgotten wars, unjust victories, badly negotiated by not forgetting any of them even if i cannot list them here. the situation and i will go back in a few days with consent as well. and the prime minister meant territory intentions with this national committee must be there so that piece, negotiations are successful. internationally are preserved. a lot of the people here the issue beyond these walls here in

gaza the fate of the palestinian people is currently present and heavy in all of our debates. this topic of such a topic i would like to say clearly the position from day one. we condemn the terrorist attacked an unprecedented carried out by hamas against israel on the seventh of october. terrorism is unacceptable whatever the cause may be on the attack on the seventh of october. they include 48 citizens. my compassion and friendship to all of those families must we ask also once again and solemnly

several friends compatriots to achieve this this remains a priority for us all in denied the memes of attacking them again. on some thick effective october and the big consequences. that war raging in causes gone on too long. the thousands of civilian victims in palestine and the hatred, resentment which threatens and will threaten everyone security.

this work needs to stop. and cease fire needs to happen as soon as possible but the same time the hostages are released. the humanitarian need to arrive en masse in gaza. this is a position where the resolutions it's now up question of political will new page is turned in gaza for the guns to be silence were humanitarian workers for civilians to finally be protected. any initiatives that will save lives. and will allow for everyone's safety the implementation of the two state solution. it's up to the security council

to take a position on this. and also without further ado to preserve the link between gaza and the west bank to restore sovereignty and also to ensure the reconstruction of the territory. and to once again make life impossible. france will ensure everything can be done for the palestinian people can finally have a state side by side with israel. the conditions are well known. we just need to open the way for this. an path to this short as possible france will therefore is committed to two state solution. finally benefit the people and meet their legitimate aspirations. a palestinian state should be created, giving guarantees for

israel. we should build the reciprocal recognition and common security guarantees for all in the region. i will be working on this over the next weeks for the israelis and palestinians all with international partners as well. and at this time, at the moment, the main risk is that of an escalation. my brotherly thoughts to lebanon and the lebanese people. has a below for too long has been running an untenable risk into a war. israel cannot, without consequence to lebanon. france demands everyone respect their obligation along the blue line. we will therefore act to ensure diplomatic voice can be heard a voice that is indispensable for sparing the civilians and preventing regional.

we cannot have a war in lebanon. there cannot be a war in lebanon. this is why we urge israel to cease this escalation and lebanon and to hezbollah to cease the missile launch to israel. we urged all those who provide them with the memes to stop doing so. we have asked for the security council to meet today indeed to defend. i welcome this and the french minister at the end of the week we will head to lebanon themselves. it's the same unity that we must show when faced with the great regional challenges, and the global challenges before us. be on the conflicts we are seeing as i just mentioned, we need to gather to continue to

ensure that sovereignty is respected. everyone sovereignty. a regional and international solution seem to be built to tackle these challenges. this is the idea behind the relationship we wish to have with africa. a new partnership. that is for the last two years we have been doing, working to do. fritz has the decades and more specifically with the french army has fought successfully against terrorism. side-by-side with international partners. however the military coup deters the necessary conclusions europe and africa have a shared destiny. which demand a broader partnership a partnership for peace and security. of which the terms need to be renewed. more training, more equipment, or mutual respect. also the partnerships

underpinned by economic energy as well as cultural memory aspects. in senegal, algeria, morocco and every many other countries. this is what we have been patiently building over recent years and we will continue to do. so, that's the same philosophy that for the last six years we have been embodying to build a partnership at the end of pacific region where france has international law without which there will be no prosperity for this region which has seen in recent years much of development. a lot of people try to trample on roll their wills by force. france is proposing alternative not to replace amnesty but to give it regions once again the possibility to choose their partners on a project by project basis. french territories you need

expertise in the fight against climate change the protection of diversity but the development of clean energy the fight against cross-border threats. it is to cooperate with all on the environment. this partner based logic is one that seeks to build new balances to refuse the fragmented old rulebooks or we respect each other. we build the path toward peace and stability and be on that by the challenge we have is of course affected by the conflicts i mentioned. but we must not lose sight of the agenda. nor should we lose the effectiveness we are committed too and having come to the pandemic so blatantly of the importance of some of these common challenges. we need to bear all of it in

mind. i believe profoundly it's never been as effective as today. it must get results for development, fighting against a quality education, healthcare, each of these individual pillars we need unity. we need also to do everything we can to a divide which of the north and the south and that's exactly the philosophy we have developed in the paris pack for peace and planet the more than 60 states that already joined. to ensure never we will push estate to choose between objectives. what would they teach lessons to the states of the south and try to explain they should respect the claimant. therefore announce economic opportunities. this is something we did not do 20 or 30 years that will be unacceptable therefore to build

an agenda that allowed at the same time progress to be made in the fight against inequality and development for education, for climate and biodiversity and the global health. then solutions need to be made in these solutions need to be based on the proposals of the states themselves. this is what we have started to do with the partnerships for transition. not having one-size-fits-all solution for all from capitals will be go ask them to all follow exactly the same recipe. each country has her own path oh that's the key to sovereignty. we need public financing and leveraging the private sector two. this allowed three years ago to properly support the special rights and obtain the reallocation of more than

1 billion rights for the benefit honey that most urgently appear particular in africa the silent revolution was crucial. this is why with this fact we were here with the members of the effective authority and part of the united nations. this is why we wish to refute these reforms and carry out far-reaching reforms of multilateral banks final institutions. we launch this objective for shared financing brings together development banks from across the world. including those whose agendas are not quite aligned. we need to work on this common financing agenda we can meet the objective as i mentioned and we, together, i hope and the monster, soon as then we will be able to carry out this reform we

need the membership the institutions were built at a time when many of you were not independent. the structure of capitol needs to be restructured to make it stronger the world bank and the ims were only violence calibrated at the time the challenges were very different. when the global economy was not as big a part of the population was completely different. we need to lift these absurd taboos of blockages because sometimes the biggest to prevent others from receiving money because it could be diluted. we need to give the capacity to act to these institutions they can from the countries of the south need. this is of for our wettability as a whole. i'm saying for those around us on the table if you decide not to do that, what you will see in the next few years you'll see an alternative order emerged. you decide not to do this

cynicism perhaps not wrongly. the claimant biodiversity agenda. we have upcoming very important. will play its part particularly with costa rica convening for the united nations. and for oceans and niche in jund oceans conference. we will continue work on this. i hope a lot of you hear will be able to ratify what we have managed to achieve in that recent years. this is crucial. when that's indispensable at the one on planet summit on water. this is alongside kazakhstan and saudi arabia.

i won't go into details on other topics that are necessary. i do wish to recall artificial intelligences all states here to coordinate on this. innovation accessible to all people and it does not deal more division and inequality. we also need all this to be developed within an ethical democratic framework created by the peoples of the planet. which is resolute. we cannot let some people, a few private actors who are on the cutting edge of the innovation at the moment think about the future for our people. this is why france in february 2025 will be the next action summit for intimate for intelligence i'm sure you understood the aim is to build a

common framework. i welcome the work that has been done are coordinate by the secretary-general in the global compact which has built is the best of expertise and enshrines the philosophy we describe two totally. to conclude ladies and gentlemen i am aware of course i have forgotten some the difficult situations from venezuela common to the heart of africa. as so many other tensions i want to talk about her institutions. i hear a lot of people say that what we need to do to the un's throat in the bin. there is no point in it. we cannot result conflicts why do we have it? so here, let's show a constructive kind of impatience. we can't just be satisfied with not being able to resolve things. but what we have a security council that is been blocked

reciprocally according to interest, were able to make progress is there a better system? i don't think so. let's make the un more it's in favor of the security council being expanded germany, japan and brazil should be permanent members. much like two countries in africa will decide to represent them. the new elected members also need to be accepted. the composition of the council is not sufficient alone to make it more effective. and i wish this it should change limit the rights of each of massive crime and focus on operational effective decisions peacekeeping needs. that national security this is why when it should be brave and audacious to do so the current

members is something we should be doing. almost 25 years after the millennium the summit it's high time to be more effective to act better on the ground states and civil society and beyond the united nations we must also mark a new era in each of our multilateral institutions as i just mentioned. these are the few words and one to share with delays and judgment, today. of artworld order so many conflicts seem unresolvable i will say it france will continue to carry this voice that's loyal to its vice is demanding refusing to oversimplify my context and will continue to defend the simple values we have always defended. human dignity, the respect for

dignities of the charter be on conflicts in the current news cycle. we continue to build with you affair more international order. this is will continue to advocate for alongside our friends and our allies. but also we should be free to say no sometimes. we should sometimes be able to refuse the cynicism of the time. also things that seem obvious but are not spray thank you very much for your attention. [applause]

.

thank you for giving us your time again. is that latest pieces taking folk processes and voting. what brought you attention to this piece? >> my second book was on voting what you need to know about voting and why i've been watching us for quite a while. it looks like some of the challenges that are coming into this election are a bit

different. they are pre-voting challenges. what i write about is the effort to basically recruit regular voters to pose challenges to their neighbors eligibility to cast ballots to knock them out earlier and create chaos rather than just a challenge and after the election which is what we saw in 2020. >> massive voter challenges, how does it work? >> it is around identifying a potential inaccuracies. things that seem off. voter eligibility and a challenge voter to voter with the election board. when it is done en masse it can create a lot of chaos for the election administration officials. it also makes it difficult for individual voters. because it varies across the country in terms of what they do

if someone challenges your eligibility to vote. sometimes you can just respond pretty easily. others you have to go to a hearing. i can make voters give up and also some of the challenges are on bogus information. there orchestrated by couple of organizations that have created these websites. these algorithms that basically encourage people too post up off the internet. things are not necessarily indicative of anything wrong with someone's eligibility and then swamped the system to make it hard for these people to actually have their votes counted or create chaos. >> in legal terms of teva standing to present the inconsistencies or concerns to whatever representative it is? >> the varies across the country. in some places you have to be a boater in the same precinct. others just be a boater in the state. some states have penalties for filing these frivolous things. others don't.

others have time and you have to do 45 or 90 days before other states is right up to the election. this is the idiosyncrasies in the united states voting varies across the country the laws vary across the country. but again, it is the chaos. it is very hard to administer these elections. these people are doing it without a lot of support and sometimes not a lot of money. there is a lot of turnover because now our election officials and regular people who are managing elections are being threatened. some feel quite unsafe because of the big lie and what happened last time. so, if we get to a point where there is so much overload that they cannot certify an election properly or on time then we can get into a contested election that would really be a problem january. quickset is a strategy but as far as the why, why would they engage in this kind of practice? what is the point?

>> is hard to say. maybe the false belief there really is a lot of illegalities or fraud in the electoral system. there actually isn't. the vast majority of them which there's been more since 2020 in michigan alone at 55% increase. the vast majority once results are found to be bogus or not worthy of anything. there is a sense of vigilantes cleaning up voter rolls doing it with not good information. there's something called the election registration information center. which is a repository that election officials actually used to make sure the polls are accurate. that includes a personal identifying information like social security numbers, drivers records. these other databases i mentioned that have been

produced to create these massive voter challenges do not have access to that accurate information. there is a federal judge that recently had a trial in one of these found it was bogus. these challenges and what they were using to question the eligibility of voters. this idea was so much fraud to better fix it. or the more sinister is to keep people from the ballots it's an assault on access to the ballot to sway the election and ways that have nothing to do with the merits of these candidate platforms. more about cheating to get a results that someone might want to pay. >> a discussion of election integrity a special hundreds campaign 24 and this november select (202)748-8000 democrats for republicans (202)748-8002 if you want to ask questions about that. practice your thoughts

2027488003. this is in the atlanta journal-constitution yesterday for just a charade the headline it rated to atlantic county dismissing more than 45000 voter eligibility challenges since jan reversed up or are you surprised by that number? >> or no. as i said in georgia in the last cycle there were three and 60000 of these that were posed and very few of them make it across the finish line. again it's a less necessary but actually identifying errors in the polls and getting people to not be eligible to vote more about chaos, intimidation. people might be exhausted and afraid of their challenge that voted in the same election and a gentleman in georgia for 50 years. his chopper home to california for short part of time that created a voter challenges not registered in georgia he's registered in california if you

use u.s. postal service records people forward mail if they are on vacation and create chaos for this particular boater had to go to court to get his ballot counted for. >> a publication called the georgia recorder who expressed the concerns of one county republican in georgia it said that the republican party chairwoman requested the board boardcarefully examine how sevel counties handled boater eligibility cases per lawsuit filed by the dekalb county republican party in the dekalb resident argued the county election board had failed to address complaints challenging the status of over several thousand registered voters regarding issues of whether the residential dresses are correct or potential double registration. aren't those legitimate concerns at least buy some? >> their legitimate concerns but the electoral process accounts for that. there's a federal law that governs taking people off the rules for there are criteria for that and election officials utilize as i said the acronym

this a database. most of the challenges a lot of challenges are spearheaded by the republican there even challenging legitimacy of eric which is much more accurate than these alternatives. one is by an entity called true to vote the other is called election integrity network. that allow people to log on whatever information they have and one of them will create a challenge for them. the algorithm will simulate the challenge. it's almost encouraging people to snitch on their neighbors without any really good information to justify setting aside the processes already in place that are working to make sure we have accurate poles and voter registration rolls. >> joining us for this discussion our first call is from connie you're on with our

gas good morning. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. just wanted to say i am in mitey township and my district. i have been at the polls for the last five elections. i do not understand how anybody thanks they could cheat in the election. all these people who are complaining should actually be the people working work at the polls, see how it goes there so many checks and balances my husband has been a judge of election checks and balances along the way. everyone knows each other. you sign the ballot there somewhat from the democratic line, some from the republican that's looking at it. these people are crazy. this has been the safest election you can possibly imagine. we've gotten into fantasy in this world and that is all i have to say >> thank you from

pennsylvania. >> i really appreciate that story. i makes my heart sing a bit. it focuses on how democratic this process really is. it is our friends, fill really good about the integrity of our elections. it's not broken it is a mythology not only creating chaos to make it harder for people like the college did their job, it is dividing us. it's making us suspicious of each other. that is really corrosive and problematic. and just to remind people their criminal laws in place for fake voting in false voting. we have a system in place its it'sworked for very long time. all of these concerns aren't manufactured to think largely. very, very few cases where there's improper voting or improper registration.

>> from iowa independent line. go ahead. >> thank you for taking my call. as saying the election integrity is a great i think you're trying to pull wool over some peoples eyes. for one, here and iowa i called when both of my parents died and asked to have them removed off the voter list. and guess what, they weren't. they also voted in the last election even though they were deceased. there people voting for people that are not supposed to be voting. and you say there's all good and election integrity. what about the mayor up there in connecticut or the lady who is running as the mayor who got busted for ballot harvesting and stuffing them ballot boxes? you say there are laws against

this and people go to jail? absolutely nothing happened to her. still got to run for mayor again. even though she lost. but the point of the fact is there are nefarious people that will do nefarious things. you cannot say this is one 100% no problems during the election. if you know the people there, we know who is there working at the polls. weed out there telling the truth. >> we will let our guests respond to that. >> guest: i do not know what the callers basing these anecdotal stories on what information i'm a lawyer by trade, a law professor. it is important to me too have accurate, good information during the last presidential election, people from the trump administration said it was the safest election in american history in terms of security. that is why start from.

and until there is evidence and with a very, very challenged election the last ramp 60 plus lawsuits filed. nothing came up in court. that is what i rely on not the stories which i know are disturbing to people. but i take comfort in our system. >> as far as the electoral process, georgia has a lot of focus. they just decided the georgia election board decided to have all polling locations count ballots by hand on election night. would he think of that move? >> is hard to understand why that is necessary because have t electronic voting secretary state brad himself was not supportive of this pretty things is a problem. because hand counting can create errors. people are exhausted. it has been a long day. this is in addition to the machine and balancing if there is inconsistency people are going to where there's a problem, there's a problem, where there's smoke there's fire but this seems to be not about election integrity it's again about selling chaos, creating problems if you cannot certify

and election a particular state if you do not have 270 electoral college votes going into january the 12th amendment the election because the house of representatives. i don't that anyone should really want that. we should want the decisions made based on voters, not based on politicians. >> markets in pennsylvania or public online, hi. quick to start off this morning saying all of these objections to voters i have proof they have deliberately done this. since 2016 they've been pushing legislation in all of the states that allows noncitizen voters to be on the voter rolls. when you get a drivers license you can be registered to vote. any type of government id they allow these people to be registered. there is no other way to check if they are a citizen and less you asked of her birth certificate or some form of a green card that you are a legal citizen. in all of the states and most are swing states also, their 20 of them they pass this

legislation in the recent few years you cannot complain republicans are crazy people looking for problems. i do not know how you would even catch these people voting if they already have a driver's license and boat. you need to see the birth certificate and roof of the citizenship it specifically states in the law they are supposed to have these people separated for federal elections they are not supposed to be able to even register to vote. the states are allowing this to happen. and as a lawyer i would assume you'd be against this because it would be violating a law and also our constitution to allow w illegal immigrants to vote. i would like to hear response of that part. >> last time i checked there is no place in the country where there might be one municipality i think smaller town where noncitizens can vote. the way it works when you go to the dmv and you can register for that is a federal law to make it easier to register to vote. but the criteria for registration is determined by

the state. it is not like just because you get a driver's license all the sudden the requirements of road and go out the window and anybody if you are a noncitizen who has her driver's license can automatically vote. i do know at least last time i checked there's not a widespread legal mechanism by which noncitizens can vote. despite all of these efforts to identify voter fraud, there have not been an avalanche of noncitizens identified to be voting in many years. despite so much effort to find the fraud. and to me that is a good thing. we should be happy that we have safe and fair elections and there might be some things that fall through the crooks i really do believe the understanding there is widespread noncitizen voting is false not troop it. >> trooper. >> the thing you wrote about in the piece, if someone finds a legitimacy question to have legal recourse? >> it really depends on the

state. as i mentioned there is national voter registration act which does from a federal standpoint have criteria for throwing people off the rolls. it is difficult to do that. but state law varies around these challenges. so in some states you will just be contacted and you can make a clarification other states is more difficult to answer your question there are also due process requirements under the constitution. they can be brought to bear. all of this can take time. it can take time to go to the challenge. it can take time to prove your eligibility. it can take time to make your way through the courts to have if something goes to litigation. that is the problem. people should be given the benefit of the doubt. the citizens of the united states that the registrations are valid regards minnesota independently go ahead. >> good morning. [inaudible]

our dynamic because you have to understand it represents. [inaudible] women of color when you have any idea how scared people will be when she wins? a corsican caution it. that may be on that show. you not much more. this is going to be common theme in america. it's going to take time. for the league to catch up. >> right minnesota. >> let's make a number of important points.

demographically that youth in america under 16 art majority people of color. he does make a point we are moving, we are shifting as a country there is some anxiety around the direction we are moving. i do believe access to the ballot is foundational to our democracy. king george the third and the revolutionaries did not want a king. that looks like a triangle. the king's power comes from god the king hands out goodies and favors to people he likes and does the opposite to those he does not like. eight democracy it flips that it's an inverted triangle. the people are the boss but the only way that people can be the boss as if they have access to the ballot i personally believe west should have the constitutional amendment sink citizens have a right to vote that is not in the constitution right now. which gives room for all the shenanigans. and feeds this anxiety, this

fear that people should not be voting or voting. it should be the opposite. we should make it easier for people who who should be voting to vote for rex james at alabama democrat line. >> this guest you have got on here she's off her rocker. i do not know where she's from mars or venus for color you are audited now we've invited her as our guests what is your question please? >> she's from abc they cannot even read a debate. >> this is dan in florida republican line your next. quick sedan in florida hello? one more time for dan. >> hello. you are on go-ahead. >> just wondering. [inaudible] the end you are breaking up for it let me put you on hold. closer to the handset, do that

where we are waiting for dan a little bit about your book pardon power how the part of the system works and why but tells a little bit about that what got this interested? lex is the fourth of my series and white books they are not how-to books they are white two books i read about the constitution, voting, how to think like a lawyer to solve problems is my third book. the pardon power is a remnant of the monarchy. the president has the power to grant reprieves and pardons cover federal crimes and it is really a measure of forgiveness or mercy. there's not a lot of checks and balances on it. we have seen progressively over the last 50 years or so the park and power be used in ways that arguably our corrupt assert they are not consistent with this in benevolence it is designed to effectuate. until the book on a break sat down and explains the history of it. all the way from the new testament. jesus was denied a part in it was pontius pilate gave the

pardon to barabbas, a murderer and jesus was crucified. that idea of picking and choosing who should have mercy and who should not survives to this day. the very first pardon under american history was by george washington after the whiskey rebellion that is known as an amnesty pardon part of being lots of people to move the country for but jimmy carter did it after the vietnam war. but today, not the supreme court has created criminal immunity for presidents. basically said so long as you use your official power you can commit crimes. think the pardon power is potentially very dangerous. if you're going to use official power to commit crimes you are going to need people to execute your orders. they are not covered by immunity. you pardon them and they get really could have a criminal gang and the white house leads us back to voting and circles back to voting plates important for people in office that have integrity of a people in office of the kinds of people you trust

as your friends, your neighbors, babysit your kids beat teach your kids, your doctors, the kinds of people you know are going to make decisions based on a value system. that is how george washington operated he wrote a book of civility he was 14 years old and over 100 rules and they're all around the kinds of things they want to our children to live by going into this election a pardon power, that discussion and the book focuses on what we really should be thinking about at-large which is in putting people in office with power they're going to execute it in a way that's consistent with liberty. >> is hear from jon. jon and minnesota independent line, hi. >> hello. i agree with the lawyer the people should have integrity. and should be good leaders.

unfortunately, power corrupts. will quick statement that a quick question. there is motor problems. i am in minnesota. a non- citizen and several noncitizens are getting ballots. it is in the news. there is a lot of fraud in minneapolis of the last eight years. it is been in news and reported. my actual question is things like in wisconsin where they have 2 million more people on the voter rolls. she does not seem real curious of how that happens and is there a way to stop wisconsin from putting 2 million people allowing them to build the voter rolls? and do drop boxes. >> i am not aware of that. i do follow all this very carefully. lawyers, election, voting rights organizations but i read the cases i have not seen that. one of our challenges in