month from southwest border ports of entry as did the trump administration. meanwhile, all the assigned in front president biden's decision applet in mobile app, cbp one, for finding asylum claims, has helped resulted in hundreds of thousands of individuals taking up residence in our country, often for years. many of whom are unlikely ever to be approved for asylum. mr. president, needless to say, the number ofua individuals flowing across us on the board under president biden and secretary mayorkas is a logistical nightmare. the border patrol is stretched thin, and you cities of the border -- >> we are going to leave o this here and take you back now live to the u.s. senate here on c-span2. mr. durbin: mr. president, as chair of the senate judiciary committee, one of my highest priorities has been the

confirmation of judges to fill vacancies on the federal bench. since the beginning of the biden administration, the senate has confirmed over 191 highly qualified independent and even-handed jurists to the federal bench. it's my belief there will be a total of 193 in just a matter of days. they represent the best of our legal system. demographically and professionally diverse judges who respect the rule of law, adhere to precedent, and above all answer only to the constitution. we should add another nominee to that list, adeel mangi who has been nominated to the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit. what an amazing resume. mr. mangi is imminently -- eminently qualified. he graduated from oxford and harvard law school. he spent more than 20 years in private practice at one of the top law firms in the united states.

he focused his practice on commercial litigation. he has served as counsel of record in more than 30 matters before federal appellate courts as well as eight amicus briefs submitted to the u.s. supreme court. he has gone above and beyond that in his pro bono dedication devoting more than 4,000 hours to representing clients in religious discrimination, asylum, and employment discrimination cases. based on his record, you would think mr. mangi would be quickly confirmed, but i left off one fact on his resume. he is a muslim american. the treatment of this nominee before the senate judiciary committee has reached a new low in many ways. but also with historic echoes. more than 50 years ago president lyndon johnson nominated thurgood marshall who would gm the first black american to

serve on the supreme court and his -- at his confirmation hearing he faced racial questions and m{l1}c{l0}carthy-like accusations that he was a communist. if of that sounds familiar, it's because mr. mangi, the first muslim american nominated to the appellate court faced similar treatment at his hearing before our committee. committee republicans subjected him to irrel vent -- irvel vanity combatant lines about hamas war. they even asked if he celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks in his home. think about that for a second. an american coming before the senate judiciary committee of a muslim faith is being asked if he celebrated the 9/11 anniversary in his home each year. during the hearing under oath mr. mangi unequivocally condemned anti-semitism in all its forms and condemned any acts of terrorism no fewer than ten times, ten times at one hearing. he also repeatedly denounced any

form of hate or bigotry. any insinuation that mr. mangi is antianti-semitic or antiterrorism think hiezer has no place in our country or congress. the claims are simply false. he has represented a broad coalition of christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, sikh, and other religious groups. as mr. mangi said and i quote, it is distinctly american for people of so many different faiths to come together in unity in this manner. what has been un-american is the treatment mr. mangi faced since his hearing. republicans are trying to blame mr. mangi for statements by other people and events he didn't even attend. and wasn't even aware of. that is guilt by association. it is wrong. it is unfair. republicans have unfairly attacked mr. mangi for his nominal affiliation with the

alliance of families for justice. they falsely, falsely claim that he supports, quote, cop killers, that he supports cop killers. that outrageous allegation could not be further from the truth. in in mangi's own words he is, quote, not represented or otherwise provided legal services to any individual convicted of killing a law enforcement officer. end of quote. in addition he's clearly stated, and i quote him directly, i condemn any violence against law enforcement officers without equivocation, end of quote. as mr. mangi noted, it is shocking and false to suggest that he has sympathy for attacks on law enforcement. on the other hand, during the trump administration, republicans voted unanimously to confirm two judges who had personally represented individuals who had killed police officers. those individuals were entitled to the right to counsel. i'm not arguing that point. but it just shows you how far they've gone in establishing a new standard, a totally unfair

standard. the treatment of mr. mangi by republicans puts their hypocrisy on full display. there cannot be one standard for republican appointees and another for democrats. based on mr. mangi's actual record, more than 125 civil rights and human rights organizations support him. organizations representing more than one million jewish americans, including the national council of jewish women and the antidefamation league. i want to say at this point after the terrible hearing that he was subjected to in the committee in december, the antidefamation league volunteered a statement to our committee which i read into the record. in defense of mr. mangi and in criticism of the harsh, unfair criticism of those at his hearing who blamed him for being anti-semitic, nothing could be further from the truth. these other organizations have openly supported his nomination and condemned the treatment he faced at his hearing. in addition, mr. mangi has received the support of a number

of law enforcement organizations, including the national organization of black law enforcement executives, and a bipartisan group of former new jersey state attorneys general and u.s. attorneys. any judicial nominee should expect a close examination of his legal career before the committee. since first being nominated mrshgs mangi has been prepared for just that. however, he should not have to answer for baseless and bigoted attacks that do not accurately reflect him or his record in many different ways. in a wler of support -- letter of support, retired third circuit judge timothy lewis krsed his experience as a nominee to his own, as one of two black nominees to the appellate court, he noted that he was treated with respect by republican senators as well as democratic senators who held the majority. judge lewis urged the senate to treatment mr. mangi with the same level of respect that he

received. he wrote, and i quote, if people from underrepresented communities believe they will be unfairly attacked, steerp crow typed and rejected by the senate, they're likely to think twice about being nominated thus hindering efforts to make our courts look more like america very difficult. judge lewis is right. i urge my colleagues to dismiss the smear campaign against mr. mangi and to support his mom nice. -- his nomination. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mr. cornyn: mr. president, if i were to choose a title for the remarks which i plan on making here briefly, i would call the title of this -- these comments the case of the vanishing american paycheck. over the last few years, inflation has walloped family budgets. as we all know prices have grown. they've grown again and grown some more. forcing people in texas and all across america to scrimp and save just to try to get by. they've cut the number of trips to their favorite restaurant, they've made budget friendly swaps at the grocery store, trading for less expensive items, maybe the store brand rather than your favorite brand. they scrapped family vacations in favor of more affordable

staycations. in many instances they've had to make hard decisions between two competing, important expenses. for example, a couple of years ago, nearly 45% of texans said they had to cut spending on basic necessities, including food and medicine in order to pay their energy bill. polls continue to show that americans believe they're even worse off today than they were four years ago, and it's easy to see why. inflation is what has caused this basic shrinking of the great american paycheck. real wages have fallen. maybe they have -- maybe nominal wages seemed to have gone up but because of inflation, you actually have less purchasing power than you did four years ago. people who once lived comfortably are now living paycheck to paycheck.

our republican colleagues on the joint economic committee recently analyzed economic data to determine just how much inflation is costing the average american family each month. they found that the average household in texas is spending a thousand dollars a month, more today than they did in january of 2021 when president biden was sworn into office. $1,000 a month. biden economics which apparently the president is so proud of that he's named his economic policies after himself. biden economics is costing texas families more than a thousand dollars more each month or $12,000 in a year. on a monthly basis, that's up more nan $200 from -- more than $200 from a year ago, more than double monthly inflation from two years ago.

since president biden took office, he and the leaders of his administration have tried to downplay the impact of inflation, but the american people aren't buying it. after all the president gets to live in free government housing, otherwise known as the white house. he gets a nice, fat paycheck each month. the president and the upper classes in america, the elites, are doing just fine. this kind of inflation doesn't change their lifestyle one bit. but for average americans, it has a very real and negative impact. for example, last week "the wall street journal" took a look at what a hundred bucks can buy four years ago in the grocery store and compared that to what those same items would cost today. four years ago this grocery run

would have cost you $100. this includes many of the common items that families buy every week, bread and butter, eggs and milk, fresh and frozen, fruits and vegetables, laundry detergent, dish soap, chicken, bread, and whole lot more. this isn't a shopping trip for champagne and caviar. these are the basic grocery items that most people buy every single week to feed and provide for their family. over the past four years, though, the price of every single one of these items listed here has gone up. the cost of chicken which is, frankly, a cheaper cut of meat than you might eat if you want to eat a steak on a rare occasion. well, you may have to trade down to chicken, but even chicken has gone up by 40%.

the price of flour has gone up 43% and sugar has increased 52%. the bottle of dish soap costs 46 cents more, 46% more. and laundry detergent is 36% more. and a carton of eggs is up a whopping 63%. now, again, this probably doesn't affect president biden. as i said, he gets to live in a very nice house at taxpayer expense. he gets a big paycheck each month. he's doing just fine and so are most of the people who live in this area of the country. but where i come from and why the presiding officer comes from, there are a lot of people that don't -- that aren't part of that top 1% who are experiencing the negative impact of bidenomics and runaway inflation, the highest in 40

years. overall this trip to the grocery store would have cost a hundred bucks four years ago, but today, $136.89. in only four years the price of a pretty standard grocery run has increased by 36%. it's a pretty startling data point, but the truth is most individuals and families in texas and around the country don't need to see the data to know that their standard of living has decreased. because of bidenomics and 40-year high inflation. folks, i represent, come face to face with higher prices every day and it's not just at the grocery store, as we all know. families are dealing with higher costs for electricity, for rent, for car insurance is, for home in your opinion, and countless

other daily -- or i should say, everyday expenses. these costs inraichably -- invariably add up and they're having a big impact on the financial health and welfare of the people of every state, including mine. the challenges of inflation are even more severe for those living on a tight budget or fixed income. think about those folks living on their social security benefits or maybe a pension from a job they held for 30 or more years. keeping up with rising costs just keeps getting harder and harder and harder because of the policies of the biden administration. as i mentioned, people try to manage their budget. they cut down on expenses and make more budget-friendly swaps at the grocery store, and they take on additional jobs.

many americans have simply decided in order to keep up, they need to get another job. so many performing more than one. for many families, that still isn't inform to pay the bills and keep the -- isn't enough to pay the bills and keep the lights on. so many ex-hausting their savings and many have been left with no choice but to take on new debt. what -- well, they reach in their wallet and they pull out their credit card and they say, i don't have the cash to pay the bills, so i'll just put it on my credit card. well, the average credit card debt increased by 10% last year. 10%. the average credit card balance is now more than $6,500. in texas, the average is even higher, more than $7,000. so people unable to meet their

rising costs of living because of inflation simply have no alternatives other than to borrow money on their credit card. it's easy to assume that credit card debt is caused by excessive spending on nonessential sites. but that's not always the case. experia studied this credit card debt. nearly 68% of reupon deferents said they experienced a significant increase in their monthly bills. 75% said their new increased bills impacted their ability to pay down their credit card balances. we all know that credit cards ma carry a much higher interest rate than you pay on your mortgage or other forms much debt. -- of debt. folks aren't just take on new forms of debt.

the presiding officer: could we have order, please. continue. mr. cornyn: thank you you mr. president. of course, folks aren't just taking on new debt. they're also struggling to make payments on existing debt, including student loans. when borrowers take out a loan, they need -- they know they'll need to repay it. that's the deal. it's a legally enforceable agreement. but inflation has made that more difficult for many student loan borrowers. i recently read a news article about how borrowers are struggling to repay their loans, given the growing cost of living. for example, a high school teacher in pennsylvania had two master's degrees and owes more than $300,000 in student loans. she said, if i pay this $500, $600, 700 this month, how am i going to be able to afford food

for the month or for the week? well, that's a familiar struggle for many families. after the pause on student loan repayment ended, the first payment was due october this last year. the education department said that roughly 40% of borrowers still have not made that payment by mid-november. inflation is far more -- about far more than grocery or gas prices. it's a cancer that eats away at our entire economy and the standard of living of 330 million americans. inflation impacts the cost of living, as i said, student loan debt, credit card debt, housing affordability, housing planning, economic growth and so much more. this is exactly -- this is

exactly what republicans and many leading economists predicted when our democratic friends went on not one but two partisan spending sprees during the pandemic. first came the american rescue plan, which included a long list of progressive social policies. you remember back during the pandemic there were bipartisan efforts to help develop a vaccine and treatments to save lives. those were bipartisan. and then also programs like the paycheck protection program and others, which were bipartisan efforts to throw an economic lifeline to people during the pandemic. but after that had marginally subsided, our democratic colleagues could not give up spending more borrowed money. and as i said, it was primarily

in pursuit son a partisan basis of pursuing progressive social policies. backdoor funding for planned parenthood, a blank check for mismanaged union pension plans, money for climate justice -- whatever that is. our colleagues tried to brand this liberal utowia of a -- utopia of a bill as pandemic relief. but the pandemic had largely subsided. but they saw the immortal words of one former member of congress who said an emergency is a terrible thing to waste and our democratic colleagues simply couldn't give up and let go to waste the emergency of the pandemic, even though it had largely subsided, and what they chose to do then is to add $2 trillion of spending to the debt

and to an already volatile economy. it's like pouring gasoline on a fire. what do you expect? as democrats push this bill forward, they ignored warpings from leading -- warnings from leading economists that this level of spending could trigger inflation. there's more and more money in the economy chasing the same or fewer goods so naturally prices go up. harvard economist larry summers predicted that package could, i quote, set off inflationary pressures of a kind that we have not seen in a generation. he was exactly right. we could not convince our democratic colleagues to change course. instead, they chose to double down. after the american rescue act --

so-called -- a partisan spending bill of almost $20 -- of almost $2 trillion, our democratic colleagues said we're not through yet. they went on a second partisan spending spree and gave it an embarrassingly out-of-touch title. they called it the inflation reduction act. it was an inflation non-reduction act. it misleadingly suggested that somehow we had to spend another $740 billion to bring down inflation when actually spending that more money, pouring that gasoline on the economic fire actually made things worse. this bill included even more liberal priorities, including hundreds of billions of dollars for climate projects. in total, the second partisan spending bill added $740 billion

and it's no surprise it certainly didn't do anything to reduce inflation. as i said, it made it worse. all it did was drive up costs for folks all across the country and add to the mountain of debt now roughly $35 trillion that our grandchildren will inherit. and now president biden and many of our democratic colleagues want to spend even more money. they're not done yet. they want to spend more money to address the problems created by their own unchecked spending habits. well, as i mentioned a moment ago student loans are a fact of life for many, many people. but rather than try to figure out how to work through this

debt to help people actually meet their legal and moral obligations to repay the money that they borrowed, the president has proposed spending roughly another half a billion to forgive student loans. but everybody knows there's no forgiveness of the loan. you're just transferring that obligation from the person who borrowed the money and agreed to repay it back to everybody else, the taxpayers across america, many of whom either worked at a job and paid for their college so they didn't have to borrow money or else they didn't go to a four-year liberal arts college. they went to a community college so they could pay the tuition costs and not have to wrrack up bunch of debt. the biden administration has decided to pour more gasoline on the fire by effectively transferring that obligation to the taxpayer.

the bottom line is, under democratic leadership, texans and the lives of 330 million-plus americans have just gotten harder. the average texas household is spend something a thousand dollars more a month compared 20 when president biden took office. as i said, they're grappling with higher costs for food, for energy, for housing, insurance, and other basic expenses. well, here's the bottom line. for your $100 package or cart full of groceries, four years now. now you're paying $136.89 for that. that's probably the most real and dramatic and tangible impact on most texans and most

americans. but when the american people look at inflation and what misguided government policies have done to make their lives harder and to reduce their standard of living, it's no surprise that they are turning pessimistic about the state of our economy. certainly about their own economic circumstances. in a recent "new york times" poll, more than half the respondents rated the economy as poor. that was the worst option they were given. in a "wall street journal" poll found that nearly three-quarters of are headed in at wrong direction. maybe you could call that a statement of the obvious. but what is also obvious is that biden economics and biden inflation is wreaking havoc on

family budgets, and it's clear that president biden has absolutely no plan other than to continue to spend more and more money, to pour more and more gasoline on the fire. he's had three years to address inflation, three years to tamp down rising costs which are a hidden tax on most americans' income. he's had three years to return to the 1.4% inflation rate that he'll inherited -- that he inherited. 1.4% inflation when he inherited the office. sadly, he has proven himself either unwilling or incapable of addressing the crisis. i suspect he is frankly just oblivious to the crisis because it doesn't affect him living in

1600 pennsylvania avenue, collecting a large paycheck each month. it doesn't affect him one bit. but it affects tens -- i should say, hundreds of millions of americans. for the sake of families across the country who are still being crushed by the weight of inflation, we need to change -- we need a change in management, we need a change in direction. because as i said, the american people are not fooled. they know we're on the wrong course, and we need to correct that course come november. mr. president, i yield the floor. #

we talked about our accomplishments, there are many. and this week we came back to news that we've added over 300,000 jobs last month. blowing past expectations, economy is building back stronger than ever. 15 million new jobs, 50 million, a record. just yesterday, senate kelly walter lambert, present and secretary raimondo announce a deal with tsmc, $65 billion to private investment. amazing. so let the good news ring from coast to coast. chips, science act, which i worked hard to pass in the senate is delivering on its promise bringing manufacturing back to america, shoring up our supply chain, increasing our national security. just like the announcements of global foundries, intel and

others, the announcement means new jobs, new economic activity, and there's more yet to come. stay tuned about micron and its $100 billion investment in upstate new york. the chips and science act along with the infrastructure law, the ira, the american rescue plan, all show that democrats made historic investments in manufacturing and workers comp. now it's clear those investments are paying off. though house republicans has been a lot of energy attacking women's choice, calling for cuts to social security, and raising the retirement age. the contrast is glaring. we are creating jobs and wealth and new economy. they are talked about cutting back on women's rights, cutting social security, raising the retirement age. also this week, president biden announced executive action to relieve the burden of student debt to 30 million americans.

what to reduce peoples costs? reduce the debt burden. it's a huge, huge anchor around the feet of so many americans. and what president biden did is great news for everyone, particularly borrowers in communities of color who are disproportionately impacted by the student debt crisis. for too long that debt has held back borrowers from reaching the middle class. president biden giving them a chance to achieve their dream of. so we're going to continue to focus on american families. we're waiting for republicans to join us. senator stabenow. >> thank you, senator schumer. the american people send us to washington to govern, and that's exactly what democrats have been doing and continue to do. we are rebuilding america. we are bringing jobs home as essentially senator schumer talking about.

jobs that were overseas coming home. and we're taking on big corporate interests to lower costs where growing the middle class and focusing on lowering costs. and we took on one of the biggest areas of cost for americans that we haven't talked about for years, that's big pharma. we took on big pharma and we won. now senior senior still n $35 a month for insulin, and that's a big deal for people. shingles and pneumonia and other vaccines are free, and drug companies can no longer rip off seniors by raising their prices faster than the rate of inflation, if you're getting a cancer treatment and the doctors hospital or hospital, this a huge difference. lower prices are being negotiated for drugs that treat conditions including blood clots and heart failure and cancer and

arthritis. and in 2024, right now, the out-of-pocket costs totally for seniors is $3200. not 10,000, not 14,000, not 20,000 or 14,000, not 20,000 or more that many people pay. $3200, and mixture it permanently goes to $2000 a year, which is a very big deal. and that's going to save nearly 19 million americans an average of $400 every year. but big pharma continues to mr. hoeven: mr. president, i rise to talk about legislation that we are introducing today, it's called the farmer act. and farmer stands for farmer, at risk management and resilience and that's exactly what this legislation does. and, really, we think this is an

important step to getting to a farm bill, and hopefully this year, because it's all about enhancing crop insurance. i'm very pleased to be joined here on the floor by our ranking member on the ag committee, senator boozman from arkansas. he is cosponsoring the legislation, as are other members of our ag committee, including senator ernst, of iowa, senator fischer, of nebraska, senator grassley of iowa, senator hyde-smith of missouri, all senators who have significant ag production in their state, both in terms of crops and livestock. and this is all about what we've got right here, keeping the farm in the farm bill. as a matter of fact, it's about putting more farm in the farm bill. and that's going to have to

happen in order to get a farm bill accomplished this year. how do we do that? what does that mean? it means strengthening crop insurance, and also updating the safety net, arc ag risk coverage and plc cost risk insurance. crop insurance, the number one risk management tool, combine withed counter scyclical safety net. t there's been an incredible amount of input costs. when you look at fertilizer, and all the inputs, all the inputs that our farmers and ranchers are required to purchase now to raise that crop or for ranchers

to raise those animals, those costs have gone up dramatically and commodity prices has come down which puts pressure on our farmers and ranchers, and that's why it is so important that we update crop insurance and the counter cyclical safety net to make it relevant in terms of risk management for producers across the great nation. we have an ag industry very diverse across all of our states and this is fundamental to getting the farm bill done right hopefully this year. this bill focuses on the crop insurance piece. what does it do? well, it does two things. one, it strengthens crop insurance by increasing the premium support, making it more affordable to purchase crop insurance, and two, it enables our farmers to insure to a

higher level. there's two ways they do that. one is at the enterprise level. at the farm level, they buy crop insurance, this makes it more affordable to buy a higher level of coverage, say 80% or 58%, and -- 85%, and then they can get a supplemental coverage option, and that is actually based on and county-wide average. so they can buy the supplemental coverage to insurance a -- insure a higher level up to 90% on an affordable basis. it calls on the secretary of agriculture to look at the supplemental coverage and for states that have big counties like my home state of north dakota or senator boozman's state of arkansas, texas, and others, it requires that our risk management agency that provides crop insurance,

that they look at how these policies are done to make it work better for states that have large counties. those are the kind of enhancements to crop insurance that serves our farmers. it is not just farmers, we are also doing more for our rachers, our -- ranchers and livestock producers, it helps our farmers, taxpayers, and it helps all americans. let me touch on that for a minute. first, in terms of our farmers, obviously they face tre mendies challenges due to weather, they have no control over weather and prices. we have this network of family farms and ranches across this country, they are price takers, crop insurance, that's why it's their number one risk management tool because if they don't have a crop or have a substandard crop, this crop insurance enables them to stay in the game

so that family farm can continue to be around for the next year, so that rancher can continue to be around for the next year, and it's vitally important when they have no control over, like i say, whether or prices -- weather or prices. it's to keep them in the game for the long term. and that benefits our taxpayer because we have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world and this is the most effective way to keep that network of family farms and ranches out there on the land and that really benefits every single american every single day. what do our farmers do? they produce food, fuel, and fiber for nation. that is national security for sure, food security is security. we have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. every american benefits from that every day. every time you have something to

eat that you buy in our great grocery store, bought from the farmer or ranch, it is the highest quality. americans spend less budget on their food, and there are more choices, but americans spend less on their money on food than any other developed country brought to them by our farmers and ranchers. that's a remarkable benefit. that's a benefit that every american receives every single day. and that's why it's so important this we get farm policy right. that's why we've got to the get it right, okay? and here's a final point i want to make before i turn things over to my esteemed colleague, senator boozman. we can't take this network of farmers and ranchers that we have in this country for granted. we have about 16 million people involved in agriculture directly or indirectly.

but our food is brought to us by farmers and ranchers is a diverse set of family farms and ranches across this country. okay. and we can't take that for granted. if we don't have this safety net, if they don't have crop insurance that they can afford to buy, which they buy and if they can't do something about the counter cyclical safety net, we won't have farmers and ranchers and like a lot of other places, we could end up with a few big companies. all that competition you see from these millions of farmers and ranchers, that could change, so we can't take this for granted. when it comes to getting the farm bill done, we've got to get it right. we've got to get it right and that's what this is all about, getting crop insurance right. and making sure that our farmers can both access crop insurance

and the countercily kal safety net -- countercyclical safety net at the same time. they need both. this is it about getting a farm bill done. this legislation needs to be included in the farm bill and will go a long ways to making sure we get a farm bill done and hopefully done this year. i'd like now to turn to senator boozman for his remarks. mr. boozman: thank you. i want to thank my good friend from north dakota, senator hoeven, for this issue. normally we would celebrate the passage of a new farm bill by now, unfortunately we're not in yet and our farmers continue to face different circumstances. we are making progress, and i'm committed to meeting the needs of farmers and ranchers. besides the title 1 reference

prices, maintaining crop insurance is at the top of the list for our farm bill priorities. more importantly, these are the top priorities for farmers across the country. the first of many farm bill listening sessions i participated in start with a roundtable in senator hoeven's home state of north dakota. the take away from that event has been echoed across the countryside and in meetings throughout washington. we need more farm in the farm bill. this next farm bill must up date the risk management tools that farmers and ranchers need to succeed under the challenges they operate today. because here's the reality. producers are experiencing unprecedented challenges, regulatory uncertainty and historic volatility in the farm economy. all of which are projected to get worse. a producer from minnesota told

me that declining crop prices would mean she would have to harvest a record yield just to break even. that is not what farm families want to pass on to the next generation. historic inflation, rising interest rates, a record trade deficit, devastating natural disasters and global disruptions will make it more difficult for our farmers to succeed in the years to come. and with an outdated farm safety net described by a texas farmer as two inches above the concrete, agriculture's left wondering what level of crisis is necessary to compel washington to act? i commend senator hoeven's leadership in introducing the farmer's act and proactively addressing the need of farmers and ranchers who asked for improvement to the federal crop insurance program.

it includes critical components to modernizing the farm safety net for producers across all regions and all commodities. from wheat in north dakota, cotton in -- corn in illinois and colorado to apples in vermont and soybeans in ohio, producers in every state could reap the benefits of more affordable crop insurance options. the strength of this approach is underscored by 20 grassroots organizations representing the voices of farm families from across the country. we can pass a farm bill that strengthens title 1 and title 11, while also making improvement every other title to meet our shared goals. this isn't an earth or decision -- either or decision. the next farm bill provides an incredible opportunity to make things right for farmers,

ranchers and those in rural communities. working together we can provide investments needed to open new export markets and expand existing markets, build on research that allows our farmers to do more with less while reducing environmental impacts, protect our nation's herds and flocks and help our nations flourish and prosper. passing such a bill is never an easy task but it's one this body has accomplished time and time again, i look forward to working with chairwoman stabenow and my senate colleagues to pass a farm bill that achieves these goals and i very much appreciate the work of senator hoeven and his contribution to that process. mr. marshall: mr. president, ib want -- i want to say thank you to the ranking member on the

senate ag committee, senator boozman, and i'm proud to be here with the senator from the great state of north dakota, senator hoeven, and support our farmer act. you know, crop insurance is the backbone of every farm bill. when i talk to producers back home, they tell me crop insurance is their first, second, and third priority. it's important not just to producers, but it also stabilizes groceries on the other end by having a good constant supply and allowing farmers wto mrabt the -- tobt plant the next -- to plant the next year. i'm often asked why crop insurance is so important. i want to quote the late president john f. kennedy, when he summed up the plight of the farmer pretty well. this is what president kennedy said. the farmer is the only person in our economy who pies everything at retail -- bays everything at

retail, sells everything at wholesale and pays -- the cost of crop insurance is going up, and unfor tunately commodity prices don't reflect that. instead we're seeing all-time drop in farming income, year over year drop that we've seen in a decade. this bill will put the farm back in the farm bill. it takes on the cost of the crop insurance to allow the farmer to plant the next year's crop. this is the single most important program at usda. i urge that this body passes the farmer act. perhaps included on the farm bill would be a good place for it. and to protect the economic security of rural america and keep food prices stable for american consumers. i'm happy to yield back to the

senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank senator marshall. obviously, he speaks on behalf of a very important ag state, kansas, in the heartland, and to thank senator boozman and all the cosponsors. as senator marshall said very well this is the most cost-effective way to make sure we keep our farmers and ranchers out there providing this incredible food supply that benefits every american, every day. one final point that senator boozman referenced, we have the support already, the endorsement of virtually all of the major farm groups, the farm production groups, in the country, representing our great farmers. and you know, their endorsement tells you very clearly, this -- we need to have this enhancement to crop insurance in the farm bill to get the farm bill done. so, again, on beafter of our -- on behalf of our sponsor of this

legislation, i'd like to thank him. we're going to work very diligently to do everything we can to work with all of our colleagues to get a farm bill done. thank you. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the question occurs on the white nomination. mr. hoeven: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. there appears to be. and the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy.

ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer.

mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich.

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

vote:

the clerk: mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran.

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

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, smith, welch.

senators voting in the negative -- blackburn, boozman, cruz, ernst, hagerty, hawley, hoeven, johnson, lee, lummis, marshall, paul, schmitt, scott of florida, tuberville. mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye. mr. thune, no. mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no.

the clerk: mr. budd, know. -- no. the clerk: mr. romney, aye. ms. duckworth, aye.

ms. rosen, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. carper, aye. vote:

the clerk: ms. collins, aye. test :

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

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

the clerk: mr. padilla, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. mr. cassidy, no. the clerk: mr. durbin, aye. the clerk: mr. cotton, no.

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

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

mr. graham, aye. mr. tester, aye. mrs. murray, aye.

the clerk: ms. sinema, aye. the presiding officer: mr. barrasso, no. mr. wicker, no.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no. the clerk: mr. grassley, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no. ms. hassan, aye.

the clerk: mr. crapo, no.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye. hands

vote: the clerk: ms. butler, aye.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: mrs. capito, no. mr. lujan, aye. mr. rounds, aye.

mr. daines, no. mr. vance, no. the clerk: mrs. fischer, no.

the clerk: mr. ricketts, no. the clerk: ms. cortez masto,

aye. mr. heinrich, aye. mr. cramer, no. mr. sullivan, no. mr. whitehouse, aye. the clerk: mr. moran, no.

the clerk: mr. kaine, aye. mr. cardin, aye.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. young, no.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye. mr. bennet, aye. the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

mr. rubio, no. mr. lankford, no.

the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. tillis, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: mr. menendez, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye. the clerk: mr. cornyn, no. mr. warner, aye.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no.

the presiding officer: the yeas are 58. the nays are 42. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 535, ann marie mciff allen of utah to be united states district judge for the district of utah signed by 17

senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of ann marie mciff allen of utah to be united states district judge for the district of utah shall be broke the to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown.

mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy.

mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. 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: senators voting in the affirmative -- braun, brown, collins, cornyn, crapo, cruz, fischer, graham, heinrich, hyde-smith, johnson, kennedy, lankford, lee, manchin, mcconnell, moran, rounds, rubio, schatz, tillis, warner, welch, whitehouse, and young.

no senator voted in the negative. ms. sinema, aye. the clerk: mr. menendez, aye. mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. mullin, aye. mr. capito -- mrs. capito, aye. the clerk: mr. budd, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye. mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no.

the clerk: mr. marshall, aye.

the clerk: ms. baldwin, aye. mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. king, aye u mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, aye.

the clerk: mr. sanders, aye.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye. the clerk: mr. tuberville, aye. ms. ernst, aye. mr. romney, aye.

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

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

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

the clerk: mr. paul, aye.

the clerk: ms. smith, aye. mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye. mr. kelly, aye. mr. kaine, aye. mr. tester, aye.

mr. barasso, aye. the clerk: mr. casey, aye. the clerk: ms. butler, aye. mr. lujan, aye.

mr. schmitt, no. ms. duckworth, aye. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. durbin, aye.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. the clerk: mr. vance, aye.

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

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: mr. scott of florida, aye. mr. merkley, aye.

mr. markey, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mr. thune, aye. the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye.

the clerk: mr. ricketts, aye. mr. ossoff, aye. mrs. shaheen, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. mrs. britt, aye. mr. van hollen, aye. ms. hassan, aye. ms. rosen, aye.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. mr. bennet, aye.

vote: the clerk: ms. lummis, aye. mr. sullivan, no. ing.

the clerk: mr. padilla, aye.

the clerk: mr. hawley, aye.

vote:#

>> good afternoon everybody and thank you for joining us. we receive the impeachment articles on secretary mayorkas

tomorrow or next week. the democrat leader of the senate still plans on halting the process to stop an impeachment trial. make no mistake about it the vote to block the impeachment trial by secretary mayorkas is a vote to keep the borders open a book to tell lincoln riley's family that we don't care. 250,000 americans who lost a loved one is that no poisoning that we don't care. it's significant it would only take two democrats to deny tabling this process in order to proceed with an impeachment trial. but we truly don't think that's going to be the case. why? because this issue is so toxic the senate democrats, the house democrats and the joe biden that they don't want this to be the issue of the day. but my hope is the good people of montana and ohio wisconsin

and michigan, nevada, pennsylvania that they hold their senators accountable this november. let me make one thing clear before he turn it over to my colleague. tabling this impeachment article is a nuclear option. in our estimation this is a nuclear option and it will necessitate some type of nuclear retaliation. much as harry reid did in 2013 with his judges moving forward invoking the nuclear option. he came back to him and neil gorsuch and 2017. i look forward to my colleagues prosecuting this case on behalf of the merrick and people and sharing why we need to go forward but but this impeachmeno the trial of secretary mallorca's. >> thank you senator.

>> a charitable interpretation of what senator schumer is planning to do does not exist. it doesn't. he is going to make a motion to table or to dismiss the work done by the u.s. house of representatives. and our 200 plus history we have had 21 public officials impeached by the united states house of representatives. we in the senate have held trials and all but three. in three instances we dismissed the charges because the officials resigned.

the other incident we dismissed the charges because it involved the senate and we did not believe we had the authority to hold an impeachment -- now those are the facts. i fully expect senator schumer to try to muddy up the water and to try to make it look deep but. we are either going to follow senate customs, senate rules and senate history or we are not. and if he chooses and he may have the votes to do it, but if he chooses to dismiss these impeachment articles without so much as a trial as if it were just and the democrats inbox, it will be further evidence that

under this administration, the senate has been rotting from within, rotting from within. under this administration we don't do a budget anymore. the leadership just gets together and ride the bill. sometimes they cut the budget bill the omnibus and make it to many bills but it still does the same thing. this is just one more step. what are we here for? impeaching a public official that the united states house of representatives after months and months and months of investigation and witnesses and then taking the vote is one of the most solemn acts that the house can do. and senator schumer is just going to dismiss that? not even hold a trial?

because he thinks he has the votes and is politically expedient? isn't that special? and every one of you here know that if republicans were doing the same thing, you would be catatonic and foaming at the. and that's what chuck is doing and it is wrong and we are going to do everything we can to stop it. now originally senator schumer had planned to do this on the first, when everybody is trying to get back. isn't that special? i wonder why he picks the first? we have asked and i understand the speaker, the speaker because we asked him to delay sending over the article until monday, two at least give us a full week. we will see if senator schumer honors the extra time.

this is unconscionable, people. this ranks right up there with getting rid of the filibuster. we are either going to have the united states senate is set up by our founders or we are not. and that's what's going on here. >> we all know that chuck schumer is playing politics with this. he has members that are very likely going to lose their seats and he does not want them to have to take a vote on this. he also knows that the border and the lack of border security is the number one issue with the american people. i hear it in tennessee every day. so chuck schumer is trying to be devising a way to not have a trial. and here's what he had to say in 2019. prior to the impeachment of

president trump. he said and i'm going to quote him, we would do well to remember our constitutional duty to access judges and jurors and a potential trial and quote. he suddenly realizes that this is our constitutional duty. it is ascribed to us, to take up these articles, to hold the trial but he is so power hungry the only thing he can focus on is the november election and what he is willing to do is toss the constitution a side so that he can protect some of his members. it is imperative that we take the information from the house. it is imperative that we hold the trial of secretary

mallorca's who has his duty. think about it, we have a homeland security secretary that does not believe in securing the homeland. >> a moment ago senator kennedy referred to this is akin to the nuclear option. this is certainly the most violent act undertaken by the united states senate, violence against the institution of the senate and its time-honored traditions since november of 2013 when harry reid deployed the nuclear option on the executive calendar filibuster. in a sense this is even more serious. on the one hand we deal more frequently on a day-to-day basis with the filibuster but on the other hand in this respect this

effort to nuke our traditions and even more serious here because unlike the filibuster which is rooted in tradition in our rolls, this is article i, gives the house the sole power to impeach and he gives the senate the power and the duty to conduct trials of impeached officials. there had been 21 sets of articles of impeachment, articles of impeachment passed by the house of representative in the history of our republic and i believe it's 17 out of those 21 cases where the senate conducted a trial and those proceedings culminated in a verdict of guilty or not guilty and the remaining four cases the senate didn't conduct a trial and didn't reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty but only

because between the time when the house adopted the articles and reached or did not reach the senate the person died bus mooting the case in obviating the need for a trial. this is no justification for invoking those as historical antecedents here as secretary mallorca's is very much alive and very much still the secretary of homeland security. so in that material respect what they are nuking here lies not just the senate rule but a provision with the good and the constitution a time-honored duty in the united states senate to do this. they are nuking a provision of the constitution. separate and apart from how you feel about secretary mallorca's and his performance of his duties, anyone who fancies him or self institutional someone concerned about the senate as an

institution for that reason alone be willing to stand up to this form of legislative tyranny and say we have an obligation to do this. now on the merits of the thing i would ask a series of questions, questions that one way or another regardless of where he stands on secretary mayorkas need to be answered. so for example if you think secretary mayorkas has not willfully defiantly refused to enforce all the laws then let's hold a trial. you can disagree that he has allowed over at 30,000 unaccompanied minor children in recent months into the united states. then let's hold the trial but if you think it has a dangerously the restrictions and efforts to vet people entering our country from china including a whole lot of military men crossing our border then let's hold a trial. if you believe that we haven't seen a dramatic increase in

known terrorist aspects -- suspects entering our border unlawfully, then let's hold a trial. the presiding officer: on this vote, it's 97, yeas, and two nays. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, ann marie mciff allen, of utah to benited states district judge for the district of utah. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session, be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak thin for up to

all time be considered expired at 12:00 noon and if confirmed, the motion to consider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately

that following the disposition of the nomination, the senate resume legislative session and proceed to the consideration of calendar number 359, s.j. res. 61, that at 2:45 p.m. the joint resolution be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage. further, that upon disposition of s.j. res. 61, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.j. res. 98, which was received from the house and is at the desk, that at 5:00 p.m. the joint resolution be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.