so if congress isn't going to solve this issue, that means we just throw our hands up and leave the tribes in limbo? i think we've walked away from the tribes enough. and i take it personal. because when the tribes do need assistance, where else are they supposed to go? they can't go back and litigate this in the courts, until congress acts. which is why this legislation is in fronts of us. then the congress, once we act, it can be referred to the court, and then the court can decide if the statute of limitation has already ran outs of it or not. or do they have the right to look at it. recently there is called the mcgirt decision that went back and completely changed massachusetts going on in indian -- changed what's going on in indian country in oklahoma, and unsettled something we thought was settled a long time ago. especially considering the ruling said they believe the

reservation line still exists inside oklahoma under-the-mc -- under the mcgirt decision. the statute had run out of that, because congress acted and ended it in 1906, by giving title to the landowners, in this case would be indian country, which would be my relatives, to which we still own the land that was given to us at that time, before we became statehood in 1906. congress said before you become a state you have to settle the issue with the tribes, so weger made changes. my colleague's argument is that it can't happen because it's done. i would have loved to have had this conversation in private, but you didn't give me that opportunity, so here we are. i would ask my colleague, or ask

the chair if -- if we don't work this out and congress is the only person that can't handle this, then where's the tribe supposed to go? i yield back. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, if my colleague left me a message, i'm unaware of that. i do look and see that he tried to call me earlier. i've had a million calls today, i've been in and out of meetings. he left me a message and didn't see it on my phone. i apologize. my staff has met with my colleague's staff on a number of occasions to discuss this. this is -- the concerns here should not be a surprise to my colleague or to my colleague's staff. with regard to the question of whether we should just let the court decide, i understand what he's saying, but that's lit lit not what -- literally not what this is about.

it's not about whether the court can decide to reopen the statute of limitation, that is not the court, that is for us to decide. the punitive reason for reopening the statute of limitations which has been closed since 1951 for claims going back to an 1805 treaty, the purported reap for reopening it is the alleged cloud of title on the chain of title. and what i'm saying is that is an entirely illusory cloud on the chain of title. there is a rule 19, you cannot litigate that unless the united states is a party or unless the united states has abrogated its sovereign immunity sufficiently to allow the united states to be added as an indispensable party, it cannot be litigated. thus making any claims entirely illusory. so if there's some other argument, we can pursue those on

the merits but there is no cloud in the chain of title because there can't be because the united states has not since 1951 recognized an abrogation of u.s. sovereign immunity to a degree sufficient to allow the existence of any type of a cloud on the chain of title. thank you. mr. mullin: then if there's wasn't a cloud this wouldn't be an issue. so obviously there was and there is. so you can say what you want to but there is. that's why we're here today. that's why we're trying to solve the issue. this is why the gentleman from utah isn't from indian country and not from illinois and doesn't understand the issue which is why we should have had the conversation one-on-one.

not just our staff. if i had an issue with the gentleman from utah, i would have said, hey, mike, let's talk. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senior senator from utah. mr. lee: it is december 20. we are likely on the last legislative day before we break for the christmas holidays. the first time i became aware of this issue was this afternoon. so it's not as if one could argue that there's been dilatory contact on my part in not listening to this. i did not know this was an issue, did not know what this was until a few hours ago. this is a problem -- this is a problem to bring something like this up that could have potentially an economic impact on the u.s. government of hundreds of billions, tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars. to rush something through like this at literally the final hour before the end of a legislative

year before the end of congress is not something we should do. for my colleague to suggest this is dilatory when he is bringing this up at the last possible minute under an argument that is specious and vacuous. the alleged cloud to the chain of title does not and cannot exist. the argument doesn't work, if he wants to bring this up in the next congress, let's do it. let's have it go through regular order but not at the last hour of the last day at the end of a congress. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from oklahoma. mr. mullin: eight years, it was filed in this congress. just because your staff didn't make you aware isn't my fault. that's not my fault. to say eight years which i opened with, if you listened to what i said, we have been working on this for eight years, to accuse me to say i'm waiting

until the last minute, the last day the last hour to do it is absolutely wrong. the presiding officer: the senior senator from utah. mr. lee: look, we are, in fact, the last effective legislative day of the year and of the congress. and what my colleague from oklahoma is saying is that we should call it up and pass it tonight. now, whether he thinks i should have been aware of this issue long ago, fair enough. i wasn't. but the way this is supposed to work around here, unless there is unanimity, we don't pass legislation. that is a significant issue, nor should we pass legislation that could and would expose the united states to tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in liability for light or transient reasons that have not been fully vetted on the floor of the united states senate. the presiding officer: the junior senator from alaska.

mr. sullivan: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for seven minutes prior to this vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: madam president, i was coming down here to try to pass my bill, the pay our military act. this bill would have made sure that we're paying our military, including our coast guard in the event of a government shutdown. it looked like we would have to do this. we ran the hotline on the republican side, every republican senator voted for it. it makes sense. this has usually been a bipartisan issue. if there is a government shutdown, which none of us want, we need to pay the men and women on the front lines, in other countries, overseas, many in dangerous situations, defending our freedom to make sure they're paid. well, the good news is, madam president, it looks like just walking on to the floor here, the house is overwhelmingly

passing the continuing resolution. it's not the deal i would have noerthd, but -- negotiated but it looks like it will be coming over here tonight, soon i hope, it is likely to pass in the house overwhelmingly, will likely pass here in the senate hear this evening so we will likely not have a government shutdown, which is good, and our military, who's doing a great job around the world, won't be subject to this crazy situation, which, madam president, it has happened before. the government shutdowns and the young men and women defending our freedom around the world are not getting paid. with that, madam president, i'm not going to ask for unanimous consent on this bill. i was hopeful nobody was going to block it. i'm not sure if anyone was going to block it. prior times when we've been

barrelling towards a government shutdown, the senate has taken action in a bipartisan way to pass this legislation. no troops getting their pay cut off. i was hopeful that was going to happen tonight. maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. map, what i wanted -- madam president, what i wanted to do is wish our troops a merry christmas. a lot of people will be serving away from their families, serving in dangerous parts of the world. i will tell you my great state, the great state of alaska, our military has been really, really busy. it doesn't make a lot of news in the lower 48, but we've had two russian incursions in just the last week. young men and women flying in the middle of the night going, intercepting russian bear bombers and fighters, doing a great job, dangerous work. so to all our troops, merry christmas, keep up the great

work. i am really glad i'm not having to bring my bill to pay all of you if the government shuts down, if we have never shutdown, i hope my military act will get unanimous bipartisan support. if the united states congress can't keep paying our -- funding our government, the men and women in our military should not suffer the consequences when they're defending our freedom around the world. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the scheduled vote begin immediately. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the nomination. mr. durbin: 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. sthal sthal -- mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown.

mr. budd. the clerk: mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper.

mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan.

mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. kim. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis.

see an ability they have right now to get loans from the bank and lenders to put their crops in the ground, to put the seats in the ground in the spring cilia to take care of that and we did. we are excited about this outcome tonight. we are grateful that everyone stuck together to do the right thing the last orderll of busins for the year is done and we are set up for a big and important new start in january. we can't wait to get to that point. we encourage swift passage in the senate now but they need to do their job is the house just in and we will all go home. i want to wish everybody a merry christmas and happy hanukkah and happy holidays and a happy new year and we will see you when we get back. so we, i was in constant contact with president trump throughout this process and spoke with him most recently 45 minutes ago. he knew exactly what we were doing and why and this is a good outcome for the country. i think he's certainly happy about the outcome is well-paid

elon musk and i talked within an hour ago and we talked about the extraordinary challenges of this job. does he want to be speaker of the house? i don't know. he said it's the hardest job in the world and i think it is. we are going to unify this country and we are going to bring the america first agenda to the people in january. we cannot wait to get started and i hope you all have a great holiday. 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. trump wyden. -- mr. wyden. mr. young.

senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, cantwell, durbin, kaine, kim, murray, padilla, sanders, schatz, smith, and tester. senators voting in the negative -- buzz, cramer -- budd, cramer, crapo, daines, kennedy, lankford, mcconnell, mullin, we are in the middle of taking this country back. that deserves applause i think. not because i said it. because it's happening. i remember many years ago i was in academics and in fact i was reading a k. through 12 school and i read a book by someone who has become a close friend and a great thinker and along the

lines of friendship someone you could disagree with which i still do occasionally. now in the great nation of hungary most of the time that one of his first books, i read it in two or three days. i devoured it because i thought as a lifelong movement conservative that you couldn't also do what my family was doing which was raising and most people don't know the president of the heritage foundation is a retired farmer forced into retirement. he set we all not to have the few hundred while running a school and be wary of things like seed oil than we got busy with professional things and i encountered a lot of people in the last few years including colleagues here rodger sabrina jeh richards and several others friends at the heritage like

tammy huizenga and bob redfield who are focused on this so all of that to lead up to what we are doing today which is making an important announcement. all of this culminated in a speech that robert kennedy jr. made on august 23 and when you think about this lifelong conservative ever saying he would stand heritage and be in a political coalition with mr. kennedy is something i never thought i would say and i say that with no sarcasm but with real seriousness and tremendous respect for mr. kennedy. i know that not everyone attending this part of the suffered watching this necessarily sees the si do as a matter of faith but i can't help but think as we sit here today in the waning days celebrating our savior's birth that god can get involved for the sake of our health for the sake of our movement for the sake of our

leaders mr. kennedy among them president-elect trump vice president-elect vance senator johnson all of these great men and women regardless of what the political labels they use are it tells you the fact that i start my comments if we are in the process of taking back this country.mr it isn't merely about politics and policy, it's really about our health and dare i say our souls. keep in mind rfk didn't just make an endorsement of the trump/dance ticket. he spoke pashley about the dangerous influence of big government and big pharma big food than big media cartel something going back to my reference about the book he talks about and if that collusion that's been harming our health and fueling an epidemic of chronic diseases particularly among children. millions of americans from across the political spectrum care deeply about this issue and frankly they don't care which

political party wants to take credit in which wants to lead the coalition and to the extent that doesn't happen is even better because it's more authentic. to his credit rfk has been sounding the alarm for years about the dangerous nexus of government agencies non-profits and corporations that have made americans sicker. the speech endorsing mr. trump shed light on this and the fact that it happened about the time the president to campaign was going into the home stretch i think gave it an import that ironically transcended politics so clearly we think it has a positive impact on the trump ticket. while there has long been concerned americans from across the political spectrum it wasn't until the covid crisis in 2020 that the public salt the full extent of this alliance. as you know the threat we face today doesn't fit neatly into the public versus private framework of the past.

this is very plainly that collusion among government, corporations, the media and non-profits and most of it in this town and groups that should remain separate and independent and i'm here to tell you not just on the half of heritage and to have all of our friends taking our country back means we will break the back of collusion here in the city. [applause] and the reason i can be so bold in saying that it's not because of any hubris on the happen. and certainly not any hubris that any of our panelists have. they are all great patriots. it's that the american people want this m to happen in the tie has come as we refound this country and its institution that we of course place in our sights that collusion. thinking about the lessons learned and coke would in 2020 millions of americans on a public health agency seem more concerned with nudging entire populations rather than treating

individual patients. as the lock-downs drug on many felt public bureaucracy at itself become a great threat. things only grew more concerning is pharmaceutical companies receive expedited approvals further campaign which were soon mandated nationwide creating an artificial market. meanwhile the drug companies were shielded from liability while they were skeptical of the vaccine and were censored and those harmed by the vaccine were silenced first-hand in the texas public policy foundation telling all of them to go and pound sand. big pharma reaps profits from the policies without facing the downside risk from long-term harm to people who received the shots. the silver silver lining in that heritage we always look for the silver lining and now we are living in the first phases of that is while those experiences were, they also notified half of

americans to the personal threats of our liberties. american people are open to the related truth in a massive spike in many chronic diseases of civilization in ball big government, big food big pharma and the legacy media that rely on ad dollars and medical lobbying outfits such as the american academy of pediatrics that masquerade as science crusaders. so what we are doing today is trusting the science and the science is clear, if in fact we want americans to be healthier and we want greater emphasis on medical freedom and physicians to be able to practice, if in fact we want the society to flourish not just when elections are going well or elected officials have the courage to say what is right and ensuring the american people are behind them, we might also be interested in this body politic.

what we are commencing today and a great alliance with friends, a lie with heritage in this aligning coalition is an effort that in heritage we call restoring american wellness. i was getting caught up in other acronyms. restoring american wellness is our attempt here at heritage to add some substance to this effort and the thing i want to leave you with before introducing my colleague on the first panel is that if we miss this opportunity to restore american health isn't just a missed political opportunity, it isn't just a missed opportunity to add another important chapter to this realignment, it's a missed opportunity to truly restore the health, the medical health, the physical health, the mental health of the american

populist. and that of courses the greatest moral obligation to all of us whether or elected policy members for non-elected policymakers have. it's a true honor for us at heritage to welcome those of you who are here today in spite of your busy schedules and are leaders in this effort and you have to account for the fact that heritage we are inherently optimistic. we know we are going to win on this issue so please join me in welcoming someone who's a great friend and colleague who helped spearhead this effort across the movement country vice president of the domestic policy. [applause] >> i have a confession to make. i am a fugitive. if you years ago i was standing

with my family huddled in front of a church and in acts of civil disobedience because at the time it was illegal for more than 10 people to be gathered outdoors together. my family and my six kids, there were eight of us and there was at least several family members ate pita part and we were in violation of the law. but i thought to my family we had communicated what is truly important in life for obligations to -- and state second so how did we get to this situation where a family outdoors spaced away from everybody else redeemed lawbreakers, and enemies of public health, to be scorned.

this panel will help address some of these questions and more. we lost our way during kopech and we lost our way in more ways than one in and rfk jr. has brought light to these issues, the corruption between the security state big pharma big agriculture. the american people went along with it. to discuss these issues and what's being done i have three amazing panelists. first the honorable senator ron johnson from wisconsin. [applause] he was elected to the senate in 2010 after running a successful manufacturing business in wisconsin for 30 years. he currently serves as the ranking member of the subcommittee on investigations and is a member of the budget and finance committee. he was elected to his third term in 2022 and resides in wisconsin

with his wife and their three children and four grandchildren. second panelist is an epidemiologist of biotech mission and a fellow of hillsdale college academy for science in freedom. he's been a professor of medicine at harvard university for 13 years. in october of 2020 he co-authored the barrington declaration advocating for strategy focused on protecting the voepel in lock-downs. our third panelist is dr. robert redfield. he's a virology is to serve as director of the cdc from 2018 to 2021. he's a senior visiting fellow at the heritage foundation. we met while delivering babies is a med student and she was a nursing student.

i can't go on.

>> please welcome our panel.

>> senator, we'll start with you. you have also been on a subcommittee. you cared about the corruption in public health agencies. in 2025. it's a target rich environment. so, i have to set my priorities. a lot will depend on what documents we get. a lot of mistakes were made when people investigate and interview people and holding hearing. you don't have the evidence to ask the questions to.th i have written, during covid-19, over 60 oversight

letters to the agencies including department of defense. we haven't gotten the documents. there is a commitment they would like to look forward and solve the problems. a big mess they want to make america healthy again. they will provide the transparency and access to document to congress to do the oversight. we will highlight the problems. again, there are so many areas i'd like to dive into. when it comes to covid-19. nobody was acknowledging the slack seen injured she was one of the first highlighted in a panel in milwaukee.

i'd like to uncover what federal agencies knew and when they knew it. they have documents that are heavily redacted. we know the new one in 2021 the shots caused problems. israeli officials were asking questions. they would issue on the health network. they wrote a 17 page talking point memo redacted. i'll have to subpoena the records. i'd like the last 50 pages of fauci e-mails. we have not received them unredacted yet. i'd like the 17 pages of talking points. we will try to get to the truth and reveal what

officials knew and covered up. that's the first step-in accountability. >> doctor, the video was kevin james the actor and comedian. he got a lot of criticism for it. you received a lot. speak a bit about what the declaration said and your views on evidence based science. >> early in the pandemic it was clear anyone can get effected from covid-19. from that prospective face the principals of public health you protect those at a higher risk. you have young adults so, in this

we argued that, there is actually no scientific consensus for lockdowns. before that, anyone that objected. he was only one person or in the wrong speciality. they couldn't ignore us. we burst a bubble where people thought there were concerns for the lockdowns. basically, during the pandemic, we threw away evidence based medicines for the principals of public health. now there is a lack of trust in the scientific community for good reason. there should be a lack of trust. we need to do is give back to evidence based

medicine and basic principal of public health. >> dr. redfield, what lead to the lack of trust and how it can be restored. >> i think that's the greatest harm that was done was the loss of public trust in our agencies. obviously the cdc which iran. same is true for nih and the fda. the basis for it was the lack of honesty of some of our public health leaders. i was extremely disappointed that there was not an openness to diversity of thought. science you would argue you would have diversity of thought and would debate situations, for example, when the declaration came out. turns out if you look at it objective objectively it was

right on. we had leaders showing the world these were fringe individuals off-the-wall. i think that's what is sad. there were some individuals and you know, my own view while in public life, you shouldn't be able to be in that position for a decade. you should move on. otherwise you might take yourself too seriously. there was a lack of openness that maybe you didn't v all of the answers. we have certain people dominated the public opinion. when it came to lockdowns. i didn't get to participate in that session with the president and vice president. i was never an advocate of closing the schools. i was never an

advocate for lockdowns. i was, even though i didn't call it the great barrier declaration. i was one that needed to protect the venerable. we lost public trust no doubt about it and hurts them in a big way. we lost trust in science. i think we made a big mistake when you criticize me you criticize science. that's not what we are saying. we need honest, open discussions. we didn't have it. we lost the ability to really have open discussions. we must make sure that doesn't happen again. >> senator johnson, should fauci appear before your committee again. what are the big unanswered questions that still need to be dealt with. how do we build from

that and pivoting towards reform what needs to be investigated. >> we must restore condense in science. we were warned about this. create a scientific elite.k: fauci, collins. tried to crush, they have e-mails we need to destroy the individuals that wrote the barrington declaration. he was right, i'd go farther. what public funding has done in the hands of one person in four decades is corrupted it. when you pay for research you get the result you want whether it's climate change they run the trials and expansive. they are the only

ones that can afford it. to understand the corruption it was the fda that went to court to block the release of the trial data for five years. pfizer would have blocked it but the corrupt fda did it for them. that should be completely transparent. i was concerned, one reason they lost trust is they have early treatment. okay, so, they messed with early treatment. i asked francis what are you doing in terms of investigating. spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it. send me the results and how you spend hundreds of millions. never showed it to me fast forward to april of 2021 when the harm was obvious. a few thousand deaths on the date of vaccination

within one or two days. i met with collins and a bunch of other colleagues. they finally got the test right to over estimate how many had covid-19. few thousand deaths on the day of vaccination. we only be attributed six deaths with the j and j vaccine. they said senator, people die. that was his response to it safety. we were screaming at them. someone like me, that was made aware there might be problems with the mrna plat fortunately. i evenly vilified and going on radio stations. talk show hosts are the platform on facebook and other social media. it's a complete collapse of integrity within the federal health agencies because

they have been captured by big far pharma. across the board. you have government and government has power and power corrupts. big businesses regulated. figure out how to survive. beyond that figure out how to use them to their benefit and detriment. that's in a nutshell what's going on and needs to be fixed and uncorrupted. >> doctor, tell me about the corruption in academia and research institutions? tell us about the money flows is there true academic freedom when talking about medical research in today's day and age. >> when you talk

about the pandemic. research money was controlled by fauci. he took an active role. they were hard pressed to contra debt them. their sole is not policy or public health policy if they can help against covid-19. this was at the federal level and health department. when fauci took over the public health that doesn't make

sense. he should have focused on the studies to understand the pandemic better that he didn't do and took over the policy. that was wrong. >> fauci hid behind guidance knowing full well every state in the nation except for florida. we will take that guidance and use the force of law. dr., you were there when some of those decisions were being discussed. was it known that all of the guidance would be implemented by force of law at the time? >> no, i think, traditionally, i know, my own prospective who is the director our guidance was just that. it was guidance. unfortunately it's not operationalized. for example, i wasn't an advocate of closing schools.

the public health interest of k through 12 was severed by them staying in face-to-face learning then for them to be out of face-to-face learning. very rapidly, because of public pressure in different states and governors decided we were going to close down schools. the teachers union closed down schools. i don't get one of the awards this is from baltimore but worked with the archbishop to keep the catholic schools open in baltimore. they had the highest scores they ever had in standardize testing and other schools had the lowest. there was not an open -- there was never an attempt these would be laws. i'm excited by the way some of the

proequity spectives were on positions i decided to publish all of the information we knew the usage of hydroxcy for humans. they said it sounds like you are endorsing it for treatment. they might want to use this and i wanted them to have the knowledge. if you were to their that information and we saw the opposite with vaccine bees. i couldn't agree more how critical it is that we give credibility. i practiced now two days per week and significant amount mostly long be covid-19.

a mum ber of patients never had covid-19 but had the vaccine. they are really, really, seriously injured. there was a big attitude about vaccines. i don't think there was honest information tony told people once we got to 30 bank account it was over and later told people it was 50%. maybe a month or two later is not 70%. they said, dr. fauci. what data came in between the last time it was 50% and now it's 70% that made you change your mind.

i didn't think you were ready to hear 70%. this is where i came back and tell the american public the truth. just tell them the truth. let them make the judge -- don't try to package the information and decide what you want them toul decide. that's what happened here. there was a proactive decision that the vaccines didn't work might push people not to get vaccinated. the vaccines were oversold. they should have never been mandated. i feel we really, i think,e the intent in making no lie ability for vaccines when they passed the law when it was well intended. they have to be

ability to be meld liable. hopefully congress will change that. they do have injury. people can get compensated. in a situation that was so inappropriate where they were mandated to get the vaccine even if the instincts weren't to get it. >> let me hop in here. it was more sinister. they sabotaged early treatment. they were excited about the trials on the medication. it was radio silence. we are not looking at early treatment. we went and sabotaged the horse medication. if you had an effective therapy you can't get emergency usage authorization on a vaccine. this was corrupt and sinister.

hundreds of thousands of people, doctors have said this. they lost their lives lacking early treatment. that's what we told people to be accountable to. this is for reality. >> can you repeat that. that's such an important point. the fact that it was a possible available treatment could have cost who money and in the billions correct? >> phizer and mo moderna. this was like a bad flu season. we a had them come talk about stereos. there was a study on a steroid that was

under dosaged. testifiesing in december before the emergency usage authorization. didn't realize how they would crush. again, it was that might parkway the way for emergency usage authorization. full speed ahead. don't take a look at any problems. this is what we committed to. starting to mandate. read the book worth a shot. you will get a sense of how outrageous our public response as been to the vaccine injury. it's unconsciousable what we have done and haven't done. >> let's talk about the effect on children. i fear, there is a cohort of children that will be delayed developmentally and economically because of the lockdowns and treatments. what was the state of the evidence for isolating first, just lockdowns in

general as a solution to this typee of outbreak on children in particular when the lockdowns were imposed on kids too. >> there was evidence from iceland. children didn't spread covid-19. giving it to child written but not the other way around. sam as swede den. they didn't close to schools in spring of 2020. they kept all of the schools open for ages 1 to 15. general medicine in july there was an article about school closures.

this is what happened to those ages 1 to 15 and the number that died was exactly zero. the teachers, there was no higher risk in other professions. there was evidence it was safe to keep schools open during the pandemic. >> it was absolutely no reason to keep them closed. i'm a native and used all of the swedish stuff. i tried to spread it. i put it on twitter but blacklisted because i one hundred percent trying to get this report out. i tried to publish things in the u.s. media but that wasn't successful.

it wasn't very prestigious. in august, i managed to get cnn to publish a piece on the swedish experience with the school closures. not the cnn you think but cnn spanish. our cnn was only interested. it was perfectly safe to keep the schools open. we know education is important otherwise we wouldn't have schools. it was tragic that we let down our children during the pandemic. allover them were effected but the poor children and working-class the most. i believe gavin newsom's kids never didn't go to school.

that wasn't an option for working-class students. >> let's breaden the conversation. what are the greatest publish health threats on the horizon? >> in light of the discussion we had so far just to highlight it. it's important i'd like to come back with that. mistakes made were driven by the lack of diversity of thought. some of us had a different point of view. i was rapidly defined by my colleague asmr a conspirit tor. i'm of the view this virus as a medical

professional is the worst virus. when a virus goes from animal to human it takes a while. sars and mers spread quickly. i concluded this is a virus that came from a laboratory. it was educated how to infect humans. i was immediately ousted. i had death threats and more. i even had letters for my colleagues to give an award. they said the best thing i could do is take my own life because i should keep my mouth shut about misviews. this is coming from a laboratory. when you asked what is the biggest threat right now, my own view is what lead us to this could vid pandemic

was not nature. it was gain of function research. that was done and intentionally tried. ette path again was a great argument the senator i knows. a friend colleague rand paul knows well. that he didn't do function research. the national academy of science announced this is if you start with the pathogen that's pathogenic for humans and make it more pathogenic for humans. if you start with a pathogen not pathogenic for humans and teach it how to be pathogenic for humans. they say that's not gain of function. that's crazy. it's gain of function. this research and risk we have for

creating scientific arrogance of creating these. i'm very concerned about bird flu. not from nature even though it's trying to infect humans. it's in 128 mammals in the united states. we went to dairy cows and pigs. that makes me nervous. . . .

>> all right i just think that's really stupid. okay. these are the same scientists that were involved in teaching covid how to infect humans. so i think that's the greatest threat to me. but i think before that, about the higher level threat is just lack of just you know openness to diversity of person and my pretend colleague from harvard is right. there was absolutely no tolerance for diversity of opinion. we both got austrasized because of our thoughts. >> senator austin do you know with the rfk phenomenal that this presents a unique

opportunity for legislation to restore american health to make america healthy again movement again you met with -- correct? and we're big fans of the heritage foundation unusual to endorsing a candidate but he's opened up a right/left coalition that i think is unique at this moment. chronic disease is everywhere. what do you see congress's role ink: this particular moment? >> it is primarily to expose the truth again -- i come from the private sector manufacturing. there's a process for solving a problem it starts with admitting you have one. then the most important part is properly defining. once you do that now you floork root causes we start talking about that solution. misguided because they didn't go through the steps from my stand point here's the root causes to public health problem because we

have one. we all recognize it, first of all, kind of address some things out to redfield talked about. doctors are now at the bottom of the treatment pyramid they should be the top. but they're being crushed by the agencies, i mean, guidance absolutely those guidances are going to be taken by the other problem is our third party payer system. okay we have taken the benefits of free market competition consumerism out of health care. now, i'm on center finance we hold all of the hearings on medicare every witness says we have to restore competition to health care. and yet nobody proposes a solution to that and there won't be as long as government pays for about half. insurance companies pay for about the other half. again consumers are completely taken out of the equation i think we spend about ten cents of every health care dollar from the consumer and minor stuff. so we need to re-- we need to put doctors again at

the top of the treatment pyramid. they aren't responsible to patients. again this -- shift from independent doctors to now hired hands of the major hospital associations being funded by the third party payer system it is just a problem. again this is evolved over decades and so you have to first start how did we transition from independent doctors and consumerism to the model that eve with now because model we have now is not working. we have to acknowledge that fact. we have to admit that problem but you have to go back and follow the history and how can we restore that type of -- consumerism and the premise of doctors that we don't have in the system right now i'm not interested in legislation right now. i'm about educating the public how do we get to the state talk about changes in sanitation which is really solved most of the disease problems. changes in agriculture. you know, what do we need to be concerned about soils microbiome

depletion of nutrients what is changed in food processing and dmaing medicine and change in pharmaceuticals again you have to go through that historical timeline to understand to properly define the problem before you ever start designing legislation because trust me the legislation will be misguided otherwise. i mean we do it all of the time that's why we spend 7 trillion dollars and exacerbate more problems than in the federal government i'm not a fan of the federal government if that hadn't come across. >> inert are we. so i think -- healthy accounts are one option to empower the patient -- we got the american public to just assume somebody else will pay for my health care they don't understand the destructive nature of that assumption that is taken them out of the loop. they make -- they're not sovereign they're not making decisions so until

they're willing to accept that responsibility and about only way you can do that is starting with health savings accounts somebody else is putting money and they're going to spend -- but then, you know, allow hem to use that health savings account for the requirement to spend it wisely and then again, this was what drove me nuts about obamacare is moved us in the right direction i know people hate it but that's what insurance ought to be. for a cash -- catastrophic events, you know, major illness an accident that kind of stuff. otherwise, we are consumers are to be paying for the vast majority of the health care we get. we would be far wiser and we would demanding like real evidence again -- i don't think evidence based medicine works because science has been corrupt. what is the evidence with corrupt science? again i -- i'll shut up. we've got -- like i said i've got a lot to reveal a lot to expose in this next congress. you should never shutup --

>> my colleagues -- [applause] question for the scientist so we spoke a bit about the corruption of the public health agencies. we have the captor we have the resolving door that's well known if you go into a regulatory bodies fda in particular, and you play ball, the understanding at the very least is that there will be a nice curby draw for you in big far ma waiting for you and vice versa. have you seen this conflict of interest -- and example that comes to mind and what can be done about this? >> well i think that resolving door with fda on pharma at the highest level -- at the level -- and i think every in taken money from the pharmaceutical industry

i think that's from the principle because -- i want no conflict of interest and no perceived conflict of interest. on another question that you asked before to dr. redfield one of the biggest public health issues -- there are very, very many, and one is actually has to do with family because i think the family -- the foundation of american society but it is breaking down and has been breaking down. and especially in poorer communities. and i think the big culprit for that is the family court system. we know from article studies that children are best off if they have good, half contact with both the mother and the father. there's evidence of that from public health from article studies. but that's still not in practice and we have child support guidelines that are

mathematically flawed that are actually driving -- parents away from the children for example, we have a situation where a father who spends no time with the child if they spend more time with the child they have to pay more child supports so actually benefits the parent who is completely absent from the child eetion life that's what the government is doing with the child support guidelines and we have situations where -- if the father has more child support to the richer mother than the poorer mother so taken money from the rich daughter where we have situations where -- so it is two parents have tested it -- the parent with more money spends -- pays so much in child support that they end up with less money in the pocket than the other parent so they have mathematical flaws in the child support

guidelines with also discouraging people from actually getting married because they see this problem and it is not a very publicly known problem. but it is known by everybody's appearances they see -- friends and they don't want to get married because that is public health problem. we don't think public health problem but it is important to address. >> that is fascinating. we should start thinking that the family breakdown has public health consequences that are severe and dramatic we've always known that a child in a married household does far better on all sorts of measures including health. i know i was asked by my general practitioner do you exercise et cetera -- do you own a gun in the house? what was that and from the obama era when they wanted they were antigun. but a better question would

be -- what's the family situation because that has real world implications into public health in waiting few minutes i'm going to open up the floor. we've had a wonderful discussion any final thoughts with each of you as to -- what should we be thinking about as a nation when it comes to public health web and take any direction you would like. dr. redfield. 47. this nomination of serena raquel murillo is confirmed. the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative session, and the clerk will report the pending business. the clerk: calendar number 693, h.r. 82, an amendment to amend title 2 of the social security act to --

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: majority leader. sham we just passed our -- mr. schumer: we just passed our 235th judge. it is historic. it sets a record. in a few moments, i will speak about that. first, let us finish our housekeeping and other business so we can finish the business for the senate for this year. i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar number 693, h.r. 82, an act to amend title 2 of the social security act, and so forth, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i further ask that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i have an amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 3355. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the

amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes amendment 3356 to amendment 3355. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to commit h.r. 82 to the committee on finance with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will court reporter. the clerk: the -- mr. schumer moves to commit to the committee on finance with instructions to commit back forthwith amendment 3357. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. schumer proposes amendment number 3358, to the instructions to the motion to commit. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the presiding officer: the senator from new york -- the clerk: mr. schumer proposes amendment 3359 to amendment 3358. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, as you well know, a few minutes ago the senate confirmed judge murillo to serve as a coastal district judge. she is the 235th judge confirmed by this majority. the majority has now confirmed more judges under president biden than any majority has

confirmed in decades. this is historic. we have confirmed more judges than under the trump admini administration, more judges than any administration in this century, more judges than any administration going back decades. one out of every four active judges on the bench has been appointed by this majority. let me repeat that. one out of every four active judges on the bench has been appointed by this majority. together these individuals are arguably the most qualified and historic nominees confirmed in a four-year span. i want to thank all setors, democrat and republican who supported these nominees. both parties cooperating on many of these judges shows why the advice and consent is critical to this body and democracy.

235 judges. that's 235 qualified and experienced mainstream judges. they are former consumer protection lawyers, labor lawyers, voting rights experts, civil rights lawyers, federal prosecutors, public defenders, teachers, mentors, scholars, great americans from every walk of life and legal practice. i am very proud of this milestone not because of the number alone, but because of what the number means. it means our bench is now far more balanced than its experience, expertise and qualifications than four years ago. for a long time the norm was to prioritize judicial nominees who came from a privileged pool. most of them were prosecutors or from large corporate law firms. most were male, most were white. but when senate democrats entered the majority, we cast a wider net. we turned to new individuals who would make excellent and uniquely qualified judges. for example, we confirmed nominees who represented union

workers and had firsthand experience in union negotiations. we confirmed nominees who fought health care fraud in court and cases of deceptive marketing practice. our nominees defend freedom of choice, represented victims of abuse. they have put criminals and drug traffickers behind bars. they have been teachers, they have been mentors. our nominees are also groundbreaking for their democratic diversity. 150 of these judges are women, more than -- most under any president. we confirmed the first black woman to the highest court in all the land, ketanji brown jackson. she's the first public defender to ever hold a title justice. we confirmed the most black judges, hispanic jurjs and aaip judges and native american judges under any president full time in office. all historic judges were

confirmed because they were exceptionally qualified for the job. our courts, like all our institutions, are better off when they mirror this vibrant country. there's a lot of people to thank. i want to thank at the top of the list, you, mr. president, and chairman durbin, for your diligence and hard work. i want to thank ranking member graham and the members of the judiciary committee, some of whom are here, for their great work. you recommended excellent individuals to the bench. i want to thank of course president biden for sending us such an impressive group of well qualified and historic nominees. and i want to thank vice president harris who came here when the vote was tied and helped us confirm a number of these nominees. finally -- and thank you to our republican colleagues who recommended good nominees and supported many of ours as well. finally i want to thank my great staff, especially my incredible

nominations director catalina tam. it wouldn't have happened without her diligent and hard work. a lot of behind the scenes happened to get them confirmed and so i'm immensely grateful to etch who worked -- everyone who worked tirelessly. thanks to the majority our courts is stronger, our democracy is stronger, and that is something every american can be proud of. i yield the floor. no, i don't yield the floor. i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 851. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, amtrak board of directors, david michael capozzi of maryland fob

a director. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 851, david michael capozzi of maryland to be a director. amtrak board of directors signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. it is the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 854. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, amtrak board of directors, elaine marie

clegg of ied to be a director -- elaine marie clegg of idaho to be a director. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 854, elaine marie clegg of idaho to be director of the amtrak board of directors as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. l mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, if you've ever had kids you know

how important it can be to encourage their education, but with many competing priorities up sometimes need to use creating strategies to ensure success. that is what rucker did. a teacher in the 1940's in harlem. he started a small outdoor basketball team for black youth and encouraged his players to maintain good grades and did he core rum. -- deck core rum. some sap he is the father of outdoor organized basketball for youth and p helped give thousands of kids pathways to better learning. he grew up on 141st the street and served in the army before earning a bachelor's degree. he served as recreation director for the saint phillips church community center and the city parks department. when rucker formed his youth

basketball tournament in the late 1940's, he didn't get much support from city recreational leaders, so he often paid out of his own shallow pockets to provide refreshments and t-shirts and other essentials for players. rucker would even share his lunch with his students often coming home to his wife with an empty stomach. rucker believed education and supervised recreation could make an enormous difference in the lives of his students. it's no surprise then when many of his players saw him as a father figure and credited him with helping them set them on a better path. as rucker's tournaments grew in popularity, parks department officials moved them to a more desirable location that would ultimately become the holcom be rucker park. the court attracted the city's most talented basketball players, including future professional stars like karee

mi miami -- kareem jabar. this bill would allow for an educational exhibit, a plaque and another marker to be installed that would memorialize the legacy of mr. rucker for generations to come. i want to thank senator rubio for his assistance. i ask unanimous consent that the committee on energy and natural resources be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 6852 and the senate proceed to en bloc consideration of the following bills, h.r. 8012 and h.r. 6852. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. and the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered read a third time

and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. test. test.

>> fly in the ointment could have stopped progress. but we're all here together and happy and proud. these judges are former civil rights lawyers. consumer protection lawyer, federal prosecutors, vote rightings experts, labor lawyers, public defenders, teachers, mentor, scholars. different than in the past, in every walk of life. in the past, so many of the federal judges came from a rare group or two. lawyers and fancy law firms.

prop prosecutors and fancy offices. not now. we have people who are from all across america and who resemble america. so we're proud of this milestone. not only because of the number but because of what it means. it means our bench is now. far more balanced in its expertise, experiences and qualifications. we have judges that fought for worker protections, representing factory workers, grocery store workers, taxi drivers and nurses. we have elevated nominee who is represented unions, defended freedom of choice, abuse victims, prosecuted drug trafficking, some have been teachers, mentors, our nominees are also groundbreaking for their demographic diversity, 150 of these judges are women. making the bench look a little more like america. that's the most under any president. or individuals like dale and

myrna perez who i proudly urge president biden to nominate these two are among the greatest both immigration and voting rights lawyers in the country they're now on the bench. and, of course, we confirm not just the first black woman to the highest court in all of the land but also the first public defender to have the title justice brown jackson. now all of them were confirmed because there were mook the very most qualified individuals for the job. i want to thank president biden for sengtding us an impressive group and confirm nominees and, of course, my friend and colleague chairman dick durban every tuesday at our lunch, he would get up and remiengtd remind us how important it was to get these judges done. he would import get those applications in. make sure they're qualified make sure they're good. he was a pleasant, happy broken

record on this -- [laughter] so i will also want to thank all of my colleagues here as i said it's been a great, great team. our courts are stronger, better they reflect our country, and every american can be proud of what this judiciary committee and this senate has done. senator durban. >> thanks. thanks for your kind words chuck i want to thank my committee members this is a tough assignment. rules of the judiciary committee make it essential for every member to be present if one member was ab sent we had to postpone consideration of nominees. so the people behind me and some others who couldn't join us at this moment really made made ths happen and it is very personal sacrifice it was a team effort all the way and i'll also it will you this courthouse was cooperating with us every step of the way joe biden took

special interest in this. every time i've seen him in the last four year website, he's brought up the judiciary committee and judge first and foremost on his mind because it is part of his life experience as well and he knows challenge and filling vacancies now the lead, of course, is the number 235 but i would like to suggest to you the second paragraph over 80% of these judicial nominees were approved on a bipartisan basis. democrats and republicans i agree with everything chuck has said about the nature of the people who have been appointed to these positions and serve on these courts and what they bring to the experience. but it was our job to not only find the best people and every single one of them was reviewed and found qualified or well qualified by the american bar association. and the previous four years of the president trump's first term that was not the case. but it is the case and its president joe biden. the qualifications are being any

question -- just what we need on the bench today. i'm going to close by saying that that has been an extraordinary honor stoarve on the committee one of the busiest committeeses on capitol hill and one of the best. i'm sorry we're not going to continue in the majority but as chuck said one out of every four article three judges in america has been approved by this committee during the last four years. ... the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i expect that

sometime this evening the senate will move to consideration of the social security fairness act which would repeal two social security provisions. the windfall elimination provision, pronounced wep, and the government pension offset, gop. i agree with my colleagues that the wep and gop should be im improvised so police officers and teachers and others receive fairness under social security. the finance committee did not have the opportunity to exam the wep and the gop and that would be fair to all social security beneficiaries and not hurt the social security's long-term solvency. in its current form, the social security fairness act would cost nearly $200 billion over the

next ten years and exhaust the balance of the old age and survivor's insurance trust fund roughly six months earlier for all social security beneficiaries. the share of oasi benefits that could be paid when the trust fund is exhausted would be smaller under this bill than under current law. meaning all social security beneficiaries will see their social security benefits reduced earlier and their benefits then will be even smaller than they would have been. i filed an amendment that would delay the implementation of the social security fairness act until changes are made that would offset the bill's negative impact on the social security's actuarial balance. the bill does not how it will be

determined. while there are concerns with the approach taken in the social security fairness act, at the very least this amendment needs to be adopted so we do not have a negative impact on social security solvency and impact the social security benefits of all social security recipients. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment when it comes up. that will be the crapo amendment numbered 3331. mr. president, i yield the mr. president, i yield the

that is part of our system of

government. exhale we can't control what we do, we all know that quite well. knowing that we're putting someone in who day in ask day out is going to look at the cases before them and make good decisions is a big part of fulfilling our oath so that you can't very much and i'm proud to be part of this group up here. with that i turn it over to our >> that you can't, for senator schummer and his leadership and always a pleasant happy reminder. >> will there be a vote before midnight? >> working through the amendment process. >> i just want to second what's been said about the diversity making this federal bench look

like america and it's different from the practice before and we need to be mindful that the federal courts will be a fire wall against the executive branch. >> we're not needed for another 25 minutes. i take back all the bad things i said. luckily he's not under oath. the courts are going to be a

fire wall against this against lawlessness, recklessness and sheer injustice from a lot of what we'll see in the executive branch. sadly. and that quarter of the entire federal banner that just has been nominated and confirm second-degree going to be a significant protection for civil rights and civil liberties to preserve the knock seizure disorderses. i've been in a courtroom when judges wronged against an injustice to a group against the lawlessness that often afflicts people in power.

i agree totally with the white house not only bo we need more judges in the area right now and there's a lot of judge shopping, but we need safeguards and those rules need to be turned into binding scriptures against bringing cases in how to fight against the judiciary and mismanagement of >> 235 and i'm

so proud that we cob firmed 35 federal judges and it's been said a couple of things and big thank you to the leadership for his commitment to floor time for these judges but at the risk of getting into too much detail,

first one is bounce ago 50/50 senate. it was a reminder of the name we needed in our seats and -- ust w

get up and explain why i'll be voting against the passage of the social security fairness act a little bit later today. i'm going to try and keep the volume down and maybe the frustration down maybe a little bit more today than i did yesterday, but i thought it was important to, again, explain why sometimes the tough vote is the right vote. to kind of lay the groundwork, i am from north carolina. i'm up for reelection in november of 2026. i've heard some people walk up and down the hallway and say that they really oppose the bill but they're up for election in 28 or up for election in 30 and they're worried about the politics. i'm not worried about the politics when i'm convinced in my heart of hearts that it is the right decision. let me explain why.

the social security fairness act is trying to address a problem, unfortunately it is doing it in a way that is at an expense of $200 billion out of the social security trust fund without a dime offsetting it. now, some of my fiscal conservative colleagues have said, well, no, it's not really depleting it because it's the social security trust fund. so it's not adding to our debt. but what they are forgetting is that when social security trust fund becomes solvent, the fairies don't come back and replenish the social security trust fund. we don't have trust fund fairies. what we have is a debt that is already over $33 trillion that we're going to be expected to write another check out of and

we're headed towards a debt crisis. so this bill, by everyone's agreement, even those who are going to vote for it tonight, pulls forward an insolvency that is consensus right now going to occur nine years from now, pulling it forward by six months. and so i have to vote against this bill, not because i don't ultimately want to fix an injustice for a very small percentage of people who deserve a few hundred dollars more a month, but the way that we've gone about it, it's going to be costly and it's being done at a time when we're not plussing the accounts back up. and so i feel like my vote -- and i'm likely to be on the losing side, i understand that. none of these amendments are going to pass because if they

do, the bill fails. we know that. so anybody pulling for one amendment or another, let me tell you how i can tell the future, not a single one will be passed. this bill will be voted out this evening and sent to the president's desk. and once the president signs it, he will guarantee that the social security trust fund will become insolvent -- think about it this way, eight and a half years from now versus nine years from now. it's going to pull out $200 billion causing that to occur. it is actually going to provide some benefit that i don't believe the beneficiaries deserve and it's really confusing that handful or that segment of the people who will get the benefit and casting them into a group that i think arguably don't deserve the benefit. that's what happens when you don't have a single committee hearing on a bill.

that's what happens when it comes from the house through something called a discharge petition. bypassing all the processes comes to the senate and we never even have a hearing. we're going to have a vote later today for a $200 billion rating of the social security trust fund that is going to bring insolvency forward from nine years to eight and a half years and not a single vote or a single hearing has been held in a single committee on capitol hill. now, folks, if you can't agree on the finances, if you can't agree on the fairness, can we all agree on the process, something as weighty as this? we should have given it the justice it deserves and have a hearingon it -- hearing on it. and for that reason i'm going to vote against it. then i'll be standing there reminding my colleagues i told you so when i'm also trying to help them fix the problem they're about to vote on to create. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming bar as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc

consideration of the following bills, calendar number 422, which is s. 1348 and calendar 501 which is s. 1890. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures enblock. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendments be considered and agreed to, the bills as amended be considered read a third time en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i know of no further debate on the bills en bloc. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on passage of the bills as amended en bloc. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bills as amended are passed en bloc. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the

committee-reported title amendment to the s. 1890 be considered and agreed to, the title of s. 1890 as amended be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider with respect to s. 1348 and s. 1890 be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to rise just to spend a couple of moments discussing a bill that we just passed and it's the wyoming public lands initiative. the senate passed this by unanimous consent. this legislation is very important to my home state of wyoming. something we've been working on for years. the bill would resolve the management status for thousands of acres of federal public lands across seven counties of the 23 counties in my home state of wyoming. these acres involve what are known as wilderness study areas. these are land managed solely for preservation, even though they're not included in the national wilderness preservation

system. the bureau of land management studies these areas and they study them to determine whether they should be designated as wilderness lands. or if these lands should be returned to multiple use status. until congress acts the bureau treats all of the lands as if it's wilderness. in other words, these lands currently under study are closed off to almost every use. for the people of wyoming who rely on access to the land to make a living and for recreation, this just doesn't work. so in 1991 -- here we are, we're in 2024. but in 1991, the bureau of land management released a report recommending a balanced approach for these wyoming wilderness study areas. specifically the bureau of land management recommended that congress designated some of the lands as wilderness and released the majority of the lands back to multiple use.

well, here we are over three decades later. the lands still remain in limbo. that's why some of our counties began to work with me on the wyoming public lands initiative. and i want to thank these wyoming county commissioners for their collaboration going back nine years, back to 2015. the bill which i'm proud to sponsor on their behalf generally follows the recommendations of the 1991 report. it strikes a balance between protecting these special places that people in wyoming love while expanding the multiple use areas that our state and local economies rely upon. the bill was developed by the people who live near the land and who will be accessing the land when this bill is enacted. it has been developed really from the ground up by the people who know the land the best. and this legislation resolves a decades old stalemate.

the bill is going to increase conservation. it's going to ensure that other lands can be unlocked and for uses that are important to the people of wyoming and to our economy. i firmly believe the people of wyoming, not washington, should decide how to manage these lands. so i want to thank my friend and colleague senator wyden from the state of oregon. we worked closely together. we serve on several committees together. we live near each other and where we stay in washington instead of when he's home in oregon and i'm home in wyoming. and i look forward to continuing to work with him to get these bills passed into law and through the house and in the near future. so as i see my friend and colleague from oregon on the floor tonight, i just want to thank him for his years of cooperation and working together as we have on the committee of energy and natural resources. and thank him for all of his consideration in allowing us to get this bill passed tonight. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, this is a truly historic moment for my home state of oregon because the owahis which are really oregon's version of the grand canyon really should have secured protection years ago. but finally as a result of the bipartisan support that my friend from wyoming and i have working with the incoming chair of the committee, mike lee, and the current leadership, we have been able to pass these important pieces of legislation. and the timing for my home state is really just extraordinary because just yesterday the congressman from rural oregon, congressman bence of the second district, we put out a joint statement about how next year we intend to work together and with our constituents to come up with

legislation that our whole state, urban and rural, could come together on to protect the ranching way of life in the county and also our incredible treasures. and congressman bence and i said we would work with our respective chamber's leadership to pass the bill into law and then, mr. president, overnight and to the great excitement of people in our states, due to the ending hours of congress where members are trying to find some common ground, we've been able to work with our leadership in the united states senate in this chamber to get started on what congressman bence and i told our constituents yesterday. and this did not happen by

osmosis. the incoming ranking senator martin heinrich and incoming chair mike lee said that my bill which cleared the energy and natural resources committee, s. 1890, the community empowerment for the owyhee act, that they would allow it to pass the united states senate tonight as an indication of the goodwill that all parties have pledged for next year. and as the chairman of the committee has noted, in fact all the chairs, past and present since i was the chairman of the energy and natural resources committee at one point, understand that that's the key to really making some history in this extraordinarily important committee. and in our conversations with the incoming chairman mike lee, he was particularly interested

in the fact that congressman bence and i are going to be working together to get this bill in shape so that people across oregon will support it. and when he indicated that that was a priority for him, i basically said that's exactly what we have in mind as oregonians, as i have in mind as oregon's senior senator. and i'm very happy to state tonight publicly to the incoming chair of the committee, the senator from utah, that i intend to work very closely with congressman bence to make this become law. now, so everybody in oregon understands, this bill does not become law tonight. but what it does is it sends a message from the united states senate that when you get people of goodwill and willingness to find common ground, you can make real action happen.

and the owyhee legislation that i worked for years with ranchers and hunters and fishing families and environmental folks has now passed the united states senate. that's something that after decades of debate about the future of the owyhee, nobody thought it was going to happen any time soon. in fact, yesterday people said well, we'll have to wait and see what happens. now the united states senate has acted and acted, as i say, to protect the ranching way of life in rural oregon and our treasures. and i hope that tonight's action will give all parties interested in the protection of the treasures of owyhee and interest in the ranching way of life. it should give folks at home the chance to know that we are going to be in a position to in 2025

with the leadership of the senate and the house behind this effort, we're going to be in a position in 2025 to make this important legislation the law of the land and the protection for the owyheea will be permanent and will be in the text of black letter law for all to see. mr. president, i yield the floor.

.