other side. i would challenge my friends on the left, if you care about the future of freedom, purity of low income people, be honest that our entitlement programs are going bankrupt. host: richard in sparta, new jersey has a question about usaid, foreign aid. are you going to include the approximately 300,000 people who have died since usaid has been suspended in your transparency reports? guest: there was a fascinating interview, discussion with joe rogan and bono. some context, my boss, tom coburn, the most effective but it cut her in the modern era, he supported pepvar. preven and it's a 26 million lives, prevented i think 8 million kids from having hiv transmitted.

coburn started with the problem in the u.s. apparel to childhood hiv transmission. there is a role for that in the federal government. i would question that number but i would add the caveat that if bono iss 99% wrong, that's a 9/1 scale loss of life. -- >> we believe this to take you live to the senate were senators are considering more executive nominations. live coverage here on c-span2. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt.

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

mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. cruz. >> state legislatures are passing bills that keep students -- excuse me.

>> governors are signing bills to create entire states that become sanctuaries for children that run away from their families. they allow these children to have surgeries on their body that are irreversible. state legislatures are passing bills -- [shouting] >> state legislatures are passing bills allowed 12-year-old children to make decisions, medical decisions without parental consent. this is not a left versus right. this is a good versus evil thing. thing. the movement that fought against parental rights 100 years ago is the thinkable today that are active and alive fighting in our country today against parents and the rights to raise children. there are radical left is hiding in teachers unions. they are radical leftists are in the shadows of government bureaucracies and they're working to undermine families and parental rights.

signs like i i am your mom now adoring classrooms all across the country and today we must fight to defend parental rights. and every policy debate from school curriculum to medical decisions, parents must have the ultimate say. i have three calls of action for you today. one, join president trump and thousands of others in signing our parents pledge. two, get our parents proclamation bring it to school board. have them adopted this june. school boards should be standing with families, not dividing families. and three, get your state legislators to pass a paris bill of rights. only 18 state out of our 50 states right to have a paris bill of rights. in closing, we want to sound the alarm. once our government gets a foothold in our families and starts making decisions that parents have a fundamental right to make, your family is destroyed. and once your family is destroyed, our communities are

destroyed. and if enough opportunities are destroyed our country is at risk. and last i want to thank president trump. he is the parental rights president. he has kept his campaign promises. as soon as he got into office he kept his campaign promises to protect littoral rights come to stand with parrots come to stand with families, , and to protect children. we are grateful for him. he is a hero of the parental rights movement and he has surrounded himself with a team that will stand for parental rights. and we are going to hear from her next. with secretary fudge occasion linda mcmahon. madam secretary. -- we have secretary mcmahon. >> good afternoon. thank you, tina. it's an honor for me to be part of this event today.

first and foremost as a mother and a grandmother, and secondarily as the secretary of education. this is a day for honoring parents took in fact, it's a month for honoring parents. parents deserve a month don't you think? actually though i think parents deserve to be honored every single day. 100 is ago the supreme court of the united states vindicated and enshrined the rights of parents in education through the gears versus society of sisters case. that's what we are celebrating today. what is most impactful education related cases in american history, decided in 1925, this decision set the precedent that parents not the the states e right and the duty to choose how to educate their children. today we are here with mom for liberty and many other wonderful organizations who champion the fundamental bond that makes society work and that makes society good. the bond between parents and

their students, their children, so much depends on it. today a century after the supreme court enshrined the future of education freedom that are still attacks on that freedom. just in a state of oregon and try to force every child into one size fits all public school system in 1925, many states that seek to ensure that educational alternatives are kept out of the hands of many families. special interest in progressive activists still try to agitate to the government to override moms and dads in education. whether it's to ideological indoctrination, sexually explicit curriculum, or hiding health and safety risks from payers. the progressive left always wants to come between you and your kid. as sec of education and especially as a mama i'm here to

say no. this administration, that's right, we're here to say no to that. this administration promises to be the parental rights administration. you can already see this promise been kept to our priority. school choice, giving parents the power to give options that align with the values and their children's needs. parental rights, ensuring schools canteen parents in the dark about their child's educational information and well-being. local control, ensuring that education is an hands of those closest to the child. to oppose these priorities is to oppose what is best for our children. because parents are the ones who help children thrive, not the government. its parents. so today as we celebrate the centennial anniversary, let's redouble our efforts in fighting

to preserve the bond between parents and children. to preserve an education system that is parent driven, that's flexible, that cares about our kids. the making sure the american people are not faced with $4.5 billion tax uses you productively to mention significant savings achieved by the deficit reduction measures that are included in the bill. those are all things are part of the reconciliation bill that the senate will be taking up and ultimately voting on. we have a plan schedule in which to complete a real try to stay on that but obviously we will

take a lot of input members and make sure that as they go through this process is the way that incorporates the use of republican senators. what's interesting of course is the fact that senate democrats had said theco going to fight wh everything they've got into the leader and it's interesting to me that what they're going to be fighting against his border security, modernizing, military, making american energy, and they are going to be voting for the largest tax increase in american history, , put 2. 6.0 of the tas on people in this country making less than $400,000 a year. that's what the democrats are going to be fighting tooth and nail for. in addition to fighting against all the things that are just mentioned are republican senators are anxious to move forward and we're going to get this done one where the other. they will take sometime obvious he come a lot of moving parts as i said but we are excited to be working with the president in working with our colleagues in the house of representatives on the agenda that the, american

people elected last november. senator capito. >> thank you. i want to at the risk of being redundant i think it can't be said enough that we actually have a responsibility here. we have a responsibility to people that elected us, that the people elected president trump we remember back in 2018, i do do in 2018, 2019 as we passed the 2017 jobs and tax relief bill that we passed, we saw peoples salaries, peoples wages going up come more people working in every single different the first category of our workforce here and if it were not fore the pendant i thk many of us wonder how far should we have gone in terms of our productivity come in terms of families becoming more prosperous. i think we do have a mandate to lead to make sure our taxes don't go up, to make sure that we have our smoke and i visited small businesses while i was

home. they are very anxious for the depreciation and the expensing so that they can grow their businesses and hire more people. these are extremely essential to every small business which is really the foundational aspect of the small state like mine where most of the employment arises and where people can stay and raise their family. i'm excited about what we're going to do. we will not fail. i'll make a prediction we will not fail. we will bring forward from the senate a robust product that will protect the american people, that will unleash our american energy but also we will make sure that those flourishing days of 2018 2018 and 19 we on a roll will return for every single american. >> you criticize democrats say they will fight against this would have been thickened. that doesn't seem to your problem. elon musk seems to your problem

absolutely torching his bills and anybody who voted for that should be ashamed. >> will look at, we obviously respect everything that elon did with doge. this particular issue of a difference of opinion. i think it's rooted in the fact that he's accepting that no assumption our bill upon a static scoring assessment of the effect macroeconomic effect growth affect that changes will have on our economy. and all the modeling that we've seen suggest that changes are being made in tax policy particularly making permanent,, deductible, r&d expensing will be to significant growth and you couple the growth with the biggest spending reduction in american history and you will see a reduction not an increase in the deficit. we have divots of the penny. he's that opinion. we will proceed full speed ahead. >> are you concerned he could --

[inaudible] >> well, my hope is as he is an opportunity to further assess what this bill actually does, he will come to different conclusions but nonetheless we have a job to do. americans elected us, rivet agenda that anybody can paint on most notably the president and we will deliver on that agenda. the legislation as passed by the house can be approved in the senate can strengthen innocent in the book ways and we intend to do that but when it's all said and done they will send back to the house and hope they can pass it and put on the president's desk. as a city does everything that we set out to do the modernizer mr. trump secures a quarter, puts, extends text with the next permanent tax relief that will be to economic growth for better jobs in this country and makes american energy dominant. coupled with the biggest spending reduction in american history. those are our agenda items and thus we can paint on is also we will do. [inaudible question]

>> we are running all the traps to make sure that we have a robust of the bill as possible coming out of the senate. i think the house make good headway on a number of fronts but we think there are areas the federal capillaries and waste, fraud, and abuse that we can further identify that would make that a more robust package. and obviously with members as you point out who has it own opinions about how to do this. but at the other day about this or subvert something ise and 218 and house in order to get a bill on the president's desk. as we work through that process will have our eye on that price. that is getting 51 and 218. >> how realistic -- deadline given the different --

[inaudible question] >> and how would you describe the difficulty -- speaker johnson -- negotiating the process announced it was like trying to cross over the grand canyon on a -- [inaudible] >> that's pretty good. look, it's very complicated. we know that. i can't speak for the health schedule. what i can kill you is we will do everything we can do simple we have laid out and that is to try and work through these next couple, two to three weeks to be repaired to put that the loan the floor last week before the fourth of july. and so there's a lot of work ahead of the spirit we know that. none of this is easy.

there are as said before a ton of moving parts but at the end of the day failure is not an option. we're going to succeed and the house is going to succeed and we're going to get the bill to the president. the timing as a said is what we laid out that is our goal. i believe we can meet it but in any event it's going to get done one way or the other. thank you. [inaudible question] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

the clerk: mr. banks, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, no. ms. klobuchar, no.

>> he put on x the following. i have a right to see you all can see it. he said i'm sorry but i just can't stand it anymore. this massive, outrages . build congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. shame on those who voted for it. you did wrong, he said to them. you know it. it will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to 2.5 trillion, and burden american citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt. it's right here. he's right.

republicans should listen to him and actually to their former selves outraged about the national debt. because it is here donald trump's big ugly bill is in the senate. behind the smoke and mirrors lies a cruel andrew cohen in truth. tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy, paid by gutting health care for millions of americans. over the past few days president trump has tried to sell his bill saying people won't lose coverage, children will not go hungry, costs will go up. let's call that for what it is, lies, all of them lies. 14 million americans lose healthcare as the desmet medicaid and now tried to dismantle the affordable care act. so this isn't at the healthcare bill. not just an anti-medicaid. but an anti-healthcare bill.

20 million americans will see their healthcare costs go up. many of them dramatically so they might not even be able to afford healthcare. 11 million americans, 4 million kids could lose access to federal food assistance. hungry kids? killington to go hungry so billionaires can get and additional tax break? god bless the billionaires, they have plenty of money. they don't need tax break. our kids need to be fed. and all 40 million americans who are receiving food assistance will get less every month. when benefits are already just a couple of bucks a day. energy costs will go up. what they did to clean energy they decimated it. they just they couldn't say they're killing it out right so they strangled it to death. and what will happen? energy costs will go up for american families in both electricity and gasoline.

800,000 jobs in domestic energy and manufacturing will be cut, 800,000 jobs. and even more in hospitals and nursing homes in community health centers. that's really risking our economy, such large amounts of people losing jobs all at once. all to pay for tax cuts for the richest. and for big oil. big oil hate clean energy. also through industry hates clean energy because they know it's the future and they know it is cheaper, at least in terms of solar panels. cheaper and quicker so they want to kill it. butbu everyone knows america nes clean energy in order to meet demands moving forward. nothing is cheap and quick to build as clean energy. when a team times as much electricity to continuing our breakthroughs in ai and stay ahead of china. there bill republicans want to raise taxes on domestic energy sources that are sent to deliver more than 80% of power, of the

new part in the next year. so let me be clear. if the snow passage electricity costs are going up. look at the facts. the republican plan will increase average national electricity prices by about 10%, and total energy costs by 32 billion all to please the ideological blindness of big oil billionaires. who jeopardized $840 billion in private investment across america with more than 85% of that massive cut in republican state and districts. not theoretical. it's already happening. more than 12 billion and private investment, 13,000 jobs in clean energy manufacturing have already been canceled since january but that's just the beginning if this bill passes. so this is defcon one. there are thousands and thousands of american workers whose jobs depend on federal

support in domestic energy incentives. back about 200 solar manufacturing factories representing more than 40,000 jobs and 35 million investment our dad is republican plan becomes law, and another 100 would be at risk. getting clean energy manufacturing is not an american energy dominance. it's so ready to china. what a terrible price to pay. just to lower taxes for the ultrarich come just a line the pockets and ecological fossil fuel industry and to lose out on american energy dominance. senator klobuchar. >> thank you. thank you very much, senator schumer. to be very clear this is not a big, beautiful bill. it's a big, beautiful betrayal of the middle-class and working people in this country. it's a betrayal of seniors in nursing homes where half of those in assisted living rely on medicaid.

it's a betrayal of families struggling to put food on the table. and is a betrayal of the middle class. americans know and i been dash i'm going to focus on something i just don't think it's got enough attention, in addition to the healthcare cats that senator schumer so well articulated. this is the cuts on food assistance. in addition to a nearly $3000 trump tariff tax cut in every single film in america, and food prices going up by more than $200 $200 because of the terra facts, this betrayal when it comes to food assistance is going to be very expensive and very out of reach for a lot of people. 40% of snapped s.n.a.p. participants our kids, , 20% are seniors and 10%, 10% are adults with disabilities. this is a 300 billion, not

million not million, $300 billion cut. so you've heard about the effect it has on hungry people but there's something that sleight-of-hand agoa needs to know. and that is that over half of these cuts come from a fake shift over to the states turkish shift to the states so states can't paper because 40 of them have balanced budget amendments. how much money are we talking about? $100 million would have to go kansas to pay for just like that. when hundred $70 billion in the state of kentucky. 500 $580 million extra to be d for the state of north carolina. that is why so many governors are speaking out. governor laura kelly who heads up the state democratic governors association out of kansas, a very moderate governor she says we don't have the money. north carolina governor josh

stein says our state will be forced into perilous budget decisions. should north carolinians lose access to food, or shall we get rid of other essential services? kentucky governor andy beshear is going to leave more of her kids and teens going hungry. farmers will be losing revenue at $35 billion over ten years. look what they are already facing. market shrinking because of the trump tariff. input cost up. whether issues. cuts to the usda, veterinarians leaving, and now this. it will also cost jobs and wages for groceries. i visited a number of grocery stores in my state, independent groceries is all we need to not have more consolidation. we want to have these independent groceries and they are the ones that would be literally the roadkill if this goes through because especially

in rural areas so many of the customers use s.n.a.p. so this bill is one betrayal of families are facing these costs, of people who need health care either they are on the affordable care act and the rates are going to go way up, or they're in a nursing home and imagine, and their unmedicated. instead of rubberstamping the trump agenda, instead of just raising their hands up and dancing people will die, it only takes four republicans in the house or four in the senate to stand up and say no to this and work with us on a better budget. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. >> thank you. great to be with leader schumer and my colleague from minnesota, senator klobuchar. we are here today to talk about the reconciliation bill that makes medicaid cuts, that is literally just another attempt to repeal the advancements of the affordable care act.

american families said no before to repealing the affordable care act, and families are saying no now to repealing parts of the affordable care act. here are some of the facts from the urban institute. by covering more people the affordable care act improved access to care, covered millions more of americans and helped us lower costs. but the provisions in the house reconciliation bill will reverse those gains. and for what? to give a tax break to the ultra wealthy or to corporations that don't need it? cbo estimates that because of these changes in the house reconciliation bill that would be 15.9 million more americans who don't have insurance over the next ten years. that is more than 50%

vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 36. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider be 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 be invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of dale marks of florida to be assistant secretary of defense. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the quorum call under rule 22 has been waived, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of dale marks of florida shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. the clerk: mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester.

mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. curtis. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer.

mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. we want to keep her from subjugating others. i agree with hamilton that there is no liberty if the power of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive powers but this runs both ways. there can be no democratic accountability, no republican government with an overly activist judiciary that allows over 600 judges to wield limitless power. on particularly one particular troubling example this accord judges have been assigned, have not been assigned cases randomly or transparently. in march chief justice writer in d.c. has found himself into four major trump cases, a statistical

impossibility. he took over the alien enemies act and ordered planes to be turned around in the dead of night despite not being emergency judge on duty that night. it seems clear that as chief judge he has play, he wants to be able to have cases for himself. i've had first-hand experience with this non-random e assignment in a federal appellate court system when i was a dream journal of misery often found myself litigating in the eighth circuit, a circuit of unique makeup of the 11 judges in the circuit, ten have been appointed by republicans. yet the one democrat appointee judge jane kelly found yourself hearing nearly every political sensitive case in the circuit. time after time, case after case miracle after miracle for the democrats judge kelly would be there for nearly every

politically sensitive case. this was not due to the good luck of judge kelly. the circuit clerk's office which decides cases to appellate panels was filled with her former clerks and ideological compatriots. in practice they set the nationwide policy by raking case assignment. another issue is the universal injunction is a judicially created remedy while congress set up a procedure for group relief under rule 23. as solicitor general john sauer recently argued compellingly, the proper avenue for group relief is under rule 23 class actions. rule 23 was designed to ensure a structured and fair approach to broad legal challenges. i'm hopeful the supreme court will curve conjunction to resort proper judicial limits and respect the separation of powers. powers. a district court, district judge blocking deportations is as

absurd as directing military strategy. this is activism, not judgment, not the rule of law and then dye the voters mandate to secure our borders. enough is enough. we must act here in the senate to fix these issues. article and isn't alone in this. the judicial conference in the supreme court must get their houses no as well. does our constitution established a judiciary the results cases or set policy? in this committee do we confirm judges to take the bench or to taketo the podium? the founders clearly intended the former. it's time for a reset. american people elected president trump to secure our border and restore our nation. i look for to the testimony of the professors and art history to advance reforms that uphold the separation of powers. >> thank you. never recognize ranking member. >> thank you very much.

the concrete issues of universal injunction or farm capping are things we can address. but there is a context of all operating in and this is what i disagree with my colleagues, particularly senator cruz and his recitation of what he saw as a digital rampage. this the smaller in in a cous testing whether the separation of powers three coequal branches of government shall endure. that's really the question. we've seen and application of constitutional responsibility that the congress. it's appalling. seating to a president the ability to impound funds something that was declared unconstitutional in the nixon doctrine, ceding to the president tariffs of 40 which in the constitution belongs to the policymakers in congress. just to make examples of

congress ceding its constitutional authority. that's done willingly by my colleagues in the house and some in the senate. we should reassert our authority. the second leg of that, the transfer authority to the executive is the rapid attack on the judiciary. senator cruz gave some examples of what he thought was judicial overreach here each one of those examples as i see it was a judge doing their job. they disagree. and when you disagreed it was asserted by the president and by the attorney general that they were monsters, they were renegades, they were out of control. it was an ad hominem attack because of judges were doing their jobs. and i will say we can deal with though form shopping here we can do with universal injunctions. but the all-out assault on

judges because they make decisions, which is the job that they had to do in the decision is have the president exceeded his authority? the decision is has the congress passed a law that deviates in constitutional requirements? those are so profoundly important to keep that separation of powers, to keep the competition between the three branches so that we don't have absolute power vested in a single person and that's the chief executive. so when senator cruz you talk about a judge making a decision about keeping somebody here, it's called due process. i am for due process. we talk about judges striking down and get international trade agreement, whether the the t has authority to set these tariffs and it is a three-judge decision, one appointed by trump come one appointed by obama, one appointed by reagan and they say

the the president did never authority. i would say that is the judges doing their jobs. but what is most profoundly important for the well-being of our country is that the congress reasserts its authority to pass laws, to restrict executive or to empower the executive, but not to cede our authority to the executive ever. it's our responsibility to do every single thing we can to validate the legitimate exercise of the decision-making story of the judiciary. i look forward to the string and the testimony of the witnesses. thank you. >> thank you. i would make to make brief observations. number one, it is interesting as a democrat colleagues defend these nationwide injunctions that neither of them made any reference to the fact that the number nationwide injunctions issued in the first four months

is greater than the entire 20th century and is greater than all of the nationwide injunctions issued against bush, obama and biden combined. nor did they address the disturbing fact that of the 40 universal injunctions have been issued in the last four months, 35 of them came from the same five judicial districts. there is a reason for this. blue state attorneys general and radical leftist groups are seeking out affirmatively radical judges who they know will impose their own policy preferences. if it were simply as a democrat colleagues said, judges following the law, then you would have to keep going to the same radical judges over and over and over again because judges across the board should do that. but the litigants don't exactly who the zealots are that on the bench and that's who they are seeking out. i've also point out that the

discussion about the urgency of protecting the safety of judges, listen, i agree that we should protect the safety of every federal judge that it is interesting because by democrat colleagues were utterly silent during four years of the biden administration when you had violent mobs outside the homes of supreme court justices, unhappy with the supreme court's ruling in dobbs amended by justice department refused to enforce federal law and protect the justice of it and by democrat colleagues were perfectly happy with supreme court justices being threatened if they dislike the rulings ever come from the supreme court justices. .. the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: mr. mccormick, aye. mr. cassidy, aye. i woke for the democrats

approach. the supposedly dangerous branch district judge merchan versus trump. the idea being pushed by my republican colleagues not only the judicial branch and judges are dangerous, but they are dangerous for the simple reason that they have the audacity to hooligans president trump when the chairman in texas just talking about the number of times on the court, i have three words for them. what is on. what is on. when bana was asked what is the strategy? we are going to flood the zone. mark executive orders than any president more or challenge

history it seems pretty logical. my republican colleagues have shown is not the about policy for people issues, it's about authority and intimacy of the judiciary showing undying loyalty to the president. the latest episode in an ongoing observed by president trump and his allies to make judges dear to rule against him and the president demanded the federal judge, the rule against his administration calling him, and i will want to hear these words, the radical left lunatic, and agitator group against his administration, communist radical left judges two days ago the court somehow pulled against

us on tariffs, which is not expected that will allow to hold hostage the chairs that were used against us. these statements are not normal. it's difficult to imagine president obama for biden using unhinged child is language calling for the impeachment of the judge simply because the judge ruled against his administration. the reason is the obama and biden never did anything like this, but imagine if they had, and how republicans would have responded. they would shout about the rooftops and the only person they would consider engaging the president himself but because this president is republican and they go after anyone who dares to speak because of your of political retribution the court

of this matter world. front the public and colleagues have been silent he's made statements. they are rushing to defend the president. my colleagues in the other side making decisions against the president somehow dangerous but in reality is the attacks on the judiciary itself that are dangerous. i could go through chapter and verse of federal judges intimidated physically. the northern district of illinois, one of the judge is now retired. foster has been to a lunatic and her home. i'll make it's coincidence violence against judges on side of against the same judges in

the president's personal call march 18. judges and family members have received threats hundreds of anonymous cases. pizza deliveries, an effort to demonstrate those seeking to intimidate the judge know where they live. asking to investigate this and other threats against federal judges and the steps taken for their families. all judges showing the priorities of this administration but have yet to receive a response from attorney general or the director of the fbi. i asked my republican colleagues

to bring. threats of violence, whether on the right or the left or another acceptable. welcome to debate merits of any decision but we cannot condone personal attacks and threats against judges who rule against this administration. >> would you indulge me for a moment? >> we indulge you every moment. [laughter] >> something you said i think is dangerous and should be addressed but when judge was killed in new jersey, republican colleagues in the senate outpouring support is turned going to work together on a bipartisan bill was extraordinary shows the truth despite fiery rhetoric,

bipartisanship. how to the incidence you are talking about the together and passed a bill to support court are supreme court justice, we disagree on a lot. we studied together, the implication that there was silence when there were threats on people is absurd. the rhetoric and comments and concerns, is distinctly remember condemning those attacks on republican appointed jurists. to say things like that and sees the fiery rhetoric, it's just plain not true and i think you know that but can pull from the river for my colleagues in real time days "afterwards"

condemning. there's a lot to say here, but you would think the lack of humanity in people's homes are threatened, i think that is unfair and it concerns me that you would say that in the way you did. >> i think my friend from new jersey. facts are stubborn things. existing federal law and section 1507 that makes it a crime to protest at a judges home and the intent of interfering with obstructing for impeding the administration of justice for intent influencing any judge, juror or office in the discharge of his duty. in or nearing a building or residence occupied or used by the judge, juror, or witness or court officer or intent for a similar device or resource to any demonstration in or near any

such building or resident shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year or above, that is federal criminal law. night after night angry mobs were outside the supreme court justices homes and entire course of the biden justice prosecuted, nobody, we have the attorney general and multiple republican senators asked, why are you not enforcing the law? what they are doing is a crime in my friend from new jersey said it's a lie to say we, the democrats condone this. how would challenge my friend find is even democrat senator on this committee owing the general attorney general accountable for not enforcing this cost. because of those he or she allegedly called she was democrat senator finch his

arrest is people violating the law. i agree there was language against violence, but not a single democrat senator i saw was willing to hold merrick garland account disregarding federal terminal law because the biden's association agreed and wanted them harassed at the home. >> i appreciate you should the accusation you made earlier usa were silent in the face of protests. we join together in a bipartisan way not only to condemn that but to us legislation to extend around-the-clock security protection literally days passed the senate in a bipartisan

fashion so if you say we didn't criticize -- >> arrest a single person that is what i said. >> i'll pull the record. >> the biden d.o.j. arrest even one? >> answers no. >> the accusation the democrats on the committee do not care about the safety on federal judges -- >> i did not interrupt you, i appreciate if you let me finish. i am sick and tired of hearing heated partisan rhetoric which is one reason why we have in this country, the attacks from the president of united states of america dragging judges through or we should be talking about that put people in danger, i take issue with the claims you make of people on the democratic side of the aisle do not care about the safety and security of

judges silent after houses were protested. that is a lie. we were not silent. we took action and joined in a bipartisan way to protect the judges as was done protect a new jersey judge after the horrific attack at the home for shifting the debate to readily talk to an attorney general and taking issue is somehow we democrats are so bad because we don't call out to our judicial colleagues and that is wrong. what you said was patently not true and it is a lie. >> i enjoy the fact that my colleague raised his voice and says it's a lot and says he's doing so and defense of lowering the rhetoric. there is some irony.

i was take the entire person is mark the debate. every democrat senator on this committee were silent about it and it's an ongoing pattern for months now with no the senator from new jersey clutched his prose about language starting judges and i do not recall a single democrat senator single word when chuck schumer went to the steps of the supreme court and threatened the safety of the supreme court justices by name or suggest capital unleashed the world would and that a single cause senator how to work as a about this so their outrage is

selected. i will give my calling from new jersey a chance to answer a simple yes or no question. should the biden justice department have enforced the criminal law against protesting at a justices home? s or no? >> apologizing the next day holding standard him not your president rightfully described your running against him in the primary i would love to run the tapes of how you talked about the danger of our president but look what now, i don't you are deep into the waters criticisms of chuck schumer but the record

for his the question did not tell us whether criminal law should be enforced because he knows the answer is yes and the biden department of justice was being partisan, refusing to enforce the law because they disagree with the supreme court justices ruling. in addition to senator durbin, i have a written opening statement and bring to the record and i will not, we have three. first witness professor george blackman chair constitutional law south texas college of law in texas where he spent keeping his 2012 and although professor blackman was born and grew up in staten island he got to texas as fast as he could, and both of his daughters are proud nativeborn texans and i commend you for that.

he's one of the leading voices on constitutional law and testify before congress and a frequent voice in the new york times and "wall street journal" and was named the first of the year for law and politics. the third addition and altered books, including introduction constitutional law became top five best seller on amazon our second witness professor shaw institutional law college professor of law at the university of pennsylvania joined the faculty in january of 2024 and served as codirector

constitutional democracy. scholarship focuses on executive power and law of democracy and supreme court rights and taught courses on administrative law and legislation. in the third witness about to run the boat and then i'll be back. >> director of the gospel center

for the constitution catholic intellectual tradition. in specialized constitutional litigation. the constitutional law involved in the ongoing discussion in the scope of the judicial power both in the academy the trump administration. this morning stand and raise your right hand. this where the testimony you are

about to all cultures and so hope you got. >> we will hear. >> thank you, number white house you for inviting me to testify. this is very timely. branches of government but this is true. mike congress and the president power of the engineer judgment and deeply ingrained in our consciousness to balance the power of the elected branches.

in the executive. explained that it is a family from sentiment. in the federal district court that the lord were complex and witnessing universal injunction and make it a protective branch to function, so what can be done?

in the injunction, it is reasonable. one side of the aisle have a chance of enactment in the federal courts reform through unilateral government. any reform must be bilateral. before the collection. and the parties and judge that

last second, it's against federal government and state governments on court two circuit judges and one to squirt judge. there's some value in having an issue rather than a loan, district court judge, rather than having to district circuits, one district and focus more on law and facts. the third on the appellate process from the appropriate response in this with the judge in normal process and the supreme court has unpredictable arbitrary approach and we all

agree upon that. this can be normal again. injunctions of statute automatically not discretionary into judges go one way and the other goes the other way mandatory jurisdiction and oral arguments decided on the timeline, which congress would then read i think these three measures would have bipartisan deals will go a long way to address these between the president and judiciary. thank you so much and i welcome your questions. >> thank you, professor shaw. >> good afternoon ranking members and distinguished members of the subcommittee. thank you for the invitation to testify today. i understand the purpose today is to discuss recent judicial rulings and situate those rulings and institutional context. there's no question trump

administration has been on the losing streak in federal court. just a quote, courts have ruled against 97 cases date. that is, a large number remember best understood context and has to be viewed in the context of a president and volume executive action in the administration. as of may 24, the second trump administration issued 157 executive orders. by comparison, the biden administration issued 152, nearly the same number over the course of four years in the first trump administration issued to 20 over four years. it is not surprising executive actions in previous administrations has drawn more challenges. the second thing is, these rulings have come from judges and district courts across the country's appointed by presidents of both parties. twenty-five district courts, tensor goods and 73 judges appointed by seven presidents

ruled against this administration. at least this leads me to my third. the reason there is wide cross ideological consensus of the administration's actions because the actions have been unlawful and that is clear all strikes. again and again to administration, acting in violation of the process for making and gives congress privacy and rights to respect. some of these really against the government will be and have been reversed on state appeal, but it is telling the lord losses but the frustration has not even bothered to challenge. the lower courts unanimously ruled against the administration. if administration has not challenged those rulings on the narrative. it is asking the court to use it

as an opportunity to restrict ability to provide release and the context in which the administration is not defending lawfulness of its own executive order. rather than focus on the appellate process for remedying the defect by litigation this administration and supporters suggested the problem court judges. it's not static and there's room for debate over judicial power. different institutions and actors have increased sometimes in ways that would not be squared with the basic design of prosecution and limits on any entity power. at this moment engaging in overreach is the executive branch. the presiding officer: the yeas are 66, the nays are 28, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination,

department of defense, dale marks, of florida, to be an

on the judiciary desire for good faith to neutralize the

institution thank you again for the opportunity. >> thank you for the subcommittee speak with you. anthony injunctions controversial is a report that were never and in seattle issued an injunction for implementation

and for judges because it takes a single judge in the injunction in this policy and in charge of national policy is are a problem for both parties is not a partisan issue. it has been used at an astonishing rate which is why it

is been promised for the last few months. more injunctions were issued against the policy and in the first three years of the biden administration. the results of an emergency is throughout the first few months president trump first term. it seems like every time the president issues of policy it's immediately followed by discord issuing injunction. since the president cannot allow this policy if administration has had intervention by court of appeals in whichever party loses by the supreme court. the court has been inundated almost nonstop because of the universal injunction. forcing the court to make the decisions on controversial questions, often without the benefit of argument adequate briefing expressed by the lower court. this is not how the design was

meant to work. the core meaning to resolve disputes according to law is party of power lines why section two of the constitution extends to only cases or controversies, disputes between parties and that's why the supreme court has held and does not have standing beyond what is necessary. injunctions were understood only provided to address are unveiled until the mid- 20th century injunctions 20th century and only began in the last decade

plus to extend beyond what is necessary harm which is what the injunctions report to do. the american people ever gauge at the university injunctions and judges have ceased the end only played recently. district court judges have no constitutional authority. they have done the most damage by the will of the people represented. you just can't be right that one district court judge stop a nationwide policy that it takes to go through the normal process. courts play a vital role in our system. the result disputes between parties according to law and they say with a lot is.

none of that adds to the injunction. the courts can set beyond her limited role between parties and said result policies for the whole nation. the answer should be obvious. >> thank you for your testimony. professor blackman, prior to 1963 any federal court issued a nationwide executive policy, would you agree from the founding through the 20th century federal judiciary consistently understood its powers to be limited to the parties report courts? would you agree the universal

nationwide injunction presidential actions is a recent development of emerging in the last decade? >> yes. >> that is important history because what we are seeing now is not normal and we have over two centuries of history. and all i without input from

congress. often one judge an analogy. the federal government approves a plan to cut down and a national forest to make way. one person occasionally canceled and the judge not only grants but service lives in action campuswide and issues an order walking any tree cutting in any forest by any members across all 50 states. it is not consistent with the constitution's design for judicial relief? >> it is not. >> it is a recipe for nationwide paralysis based on single order? >> yes. >> would you agree proper constitutional remedy is to address the plaintiffs actual injury not to give one judge the

power to hold activity unrelated? >> it requires that. >> how does article three require that? the controversies of injuries cannot receive an court. >> if that is truly necessary, wouldn't that be better handled by class certification by the appellate courts or by congress, not a lump district judge merchan rewriting policy? >> absolutely. >> can you explain how this pattern not only intrudes on the president's call to powers but also undermines congress is home lawmaking authority? >> origins of happening is you file many lawsuits in many districts in the only takes one judge injunction and it's off to the races and it would immediately halt what it's doing changes the way the executive

branch operates and addresses the issue. >> your testimony outlines structural reforms congress could enact to restore balance. can you explain how requiring a three-judge panel in district court judges would deter overreach and restore legitimacy? >> they stopped in the 60s and 70s, but if you have diverse choices agree with each other judge, there is no limitation on what to do but have districts, he bypassed the review and cut out this report, let's compress

the process quickly enough so they are resolved fairly. >> and if the characterization of these nationwide injunctions was accurate, if this was a result in their view, trump repeated laws activities, one could assume panel with find the same ruling on the merits is a particular lump district judge merchan, is that correct? >> in theory. it would be a big change see how this would work out. >> and much like sherlock holmes derived from the box at the top part in this case when we hear our democrat colleagues talking about simply enforcing the law, adopted is working for widely going to the same for judges and blue districts and why will

every democrat on this panel proposed a three-judge panel for nationwide injunction they know fully well a panel with project, the vast majority of these claims and at the end of the day i think too many democrat members of his body want to frustrate the will of the voters and reelect president trump and a republican senate and the republican house impose their own policy references rather than respect the democratic will of the voters. >> it strikes me that what we have here is a team that has taken the field and engaged in unprecedented numbers of bowel and unprecedented frequent fouls and when the refs little whistle

on the unprecedented number of files from of the partisan of 15 meeting the file call out the referees for the unprecedented number of whistles that they love level this. let's try to correct on the panel yes or no. is it appropriate to call judges monsters who want our country to go to help? >> no. >> in general, no, senator. >> to call them lunatics who do not cap lead to the destruction of our country? >> anomalies of. >> no. >> is it appropriate to post judges children with the intent to incite harassment and threats? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> good, i'll take that.

professor, when you were checked, the announcement was the chair was a possible generosity of leonard leo about the freedom rest the catholic university, is that accurate? my understanding is that leonard leo directed funds that funded the chair. >> with respect to your chair, $4 million given anonymizing organizations trust of our right, you know who has the donors trust? your mike is not on. >> i appreciate the question. >> my question is to you and whether you know, do you know -- >> , i appreciate the question and i will direct these.

>> your college can't answer what you know. this is a question to you about what you know you know who funded torture. >> thank you, senator. >> you can't say this? you realize if you are an expert witness, i'd be entitled to know it was funding you bias and conflict, that's basic trial practice. >> paragraph, we were invited to testify as is my answer for today. >> okay. well, at least we know who funded he won't even answer what you know. let me turn to professor shaw. let's just say this activity

today is designed to whip up more against courts and it adds atmosphere of threats, is it 162 threats to judges? it is pretty impressive. a lot of this has an appearance at least to me, looking like it is orchestrated, instigated, looking like there are folks behind it so presumably the marshall service should be investigated, not just protecting judges and their family members but also investigating the sources of threat. can tell us what some warning signs would be that the marshall service has been directed perhaps by the attorney general or other senior officials?

these threats. >> other members of congress, there should be an active dialogue of the security of the third branch and i guess i would echo what senator was saying, there have been to reason. and security after the tragic murder of his son and the attempted justice, judicial measures on a bipartisan basis that would hope this is a moment in which an agreement could be made to do something similar. >> it appears they were part of a larger plan or conspiracy with appropriate for law enforcement to look into the question whether there was a large plan or conspiracy. >> absolutely. >> i would know in your white

house asked two of the three given to the respective law schools but somehow omitted professor shaw the guess i would ask professor shaw, are you aware of what is public to report the disclosures that your employer from 2013 to 2019 received from communist china $67,619,610, have you seen those reports? >> i'm sorry, i have not. >> there will be reported communist china, we are going to clarify the record, let's try to record across the board. >> i don't think i would -- but i don't have one. >> chairman smith. >> to further the analogy, i don't think anybody has a problem on the side with the

rough calling balls and strikes. the problem is, or if the refs dollars hires a coach? with the rough starts and has money on the game? for the people start to question the legitimacy of the refs in the game? we all know what happens people will watch anymore they take the game off support you get this question of as a reference in my opening statement, the reason the least dangerous branch relies on the other two branches, the courts should be very well aware if they lose legitimacy, they are cooked and that's why we are having the hearing because people are questioning, let me ask you -- how in the world does he get the case he's not the emergency assignment judge, he's on

vacation in the middle of the night? how can that happen? >> i do not and perhaps even more significant, he told the plaintiffs to change the case. your completed this way, good. he basically to get it the case. >> it is an impossibility and i referenced going on in the eighth circuit, ten of the 11 appellate judges appointed by republicans. amazingly, judge merchan kelly is up on all of the politically sensitive cases on a panel. it's not possible except for the works in their populated by four or so these are the things, this is a new, activism on the bench, it's just now on steroids so can

talk briefly and i mentioned it sort of with the three is a more viable option limiting the orders of the parties before the court controversy, those are ways to address this, are there any other cultural suggestions you have? i also want to propose this to professor. >> one urgent need is to think about automatic space. district court judges renting, there is this frantic race and executive branch is not capable of changing policy on the fly. i would think about universal injunctions granted, 48 hours, decide whether these should be

taken. >> i think beyond rule 23 in the enforcement of rule 23 is important address the scope of injunctions not just your the non- pa for rather through administrative procedure so to the extent that we are going to address the problem overall, we can't just address used universal injunctions outside of this action but also through the process pa sets up a challenging action. >> thank you. you recently wrote an article of may this year, you state the district of maryland, the judge that automatically blocked deportation on pond without merit review, can you explain this? >> this is unusual. the district court of maryland

factor it is automatic the president's authority. the judge did back modified and got into this, i think there is still an attempt to limit executive power. >> it was issued to the government, very unusual. >> it wasn't given in each case, there's a rule that says will on the docket can be done globally. >> one of the points of this hearing in court as a case in front of us, where it has an opportunity to rain this and i think the chief justice is key to understand the perception of the court.

it seems to be good opportunity to find a way and here. >> senator welch. >> a couple points i want to make. number one effort for the universal action, including the generals to serve on this committee. >> since you referenced it, the court declared was perhaps the biggest offense first amendment in the history of the country were there remain parties specifically joined in that case. >> and the thing is, if there is opportunity out there, whether it is a lawyer trying to get a judge he or she thinks can be the most favorable or attorney

general getting the most relief or something, faithful do it so it's up to us if we think that should change, but it is not a republican, democrat. the second thing, he mentioned how universal injunctions inhibit the authorities, what is the problem with that? what is so great about the executives having unlimited authority? >> is an force in various times and they haven't scrutinized for think we are seeing universal injunction but also authorities. >> i disagree with the executive invoking discredited law using

it to deny due process on the side of pushing back against executive authority so i don't see that is a big problem. one of the things the class action and here is my impression with it. i had a small town offer and i have people every once in a while we would give them released. his eye had to do that in a four person law firm and certified class action, i could have taken that case so this so-called remedy of using class action those folks in washington state or whatever going to a law office to take the case, what are the burdens on that offer and if they have to certify it as a class.

>> it seems to me, birthright citizenship, arguments that challenges can be maintained have to be done during class action. i'm not sure if those are being made in this case. relatively demanding requirements and rationing of the requirements the cases the plaintiffs similarly situated in a couple of weeks ago they would be back before the supreme court saying you should take a certified class so it feels to me a heads we win, tails you lose but it is not as though it is easy to satisfy the requirements and shifting from these injunctions on this regime would disadvantage those unable to secure representation for those who don't satisfy this

requirement and no relief for unlawful conduct. >> that's one of the things so hopefully for all of us for an everyday person in missouri or texas or wherever so you get lawyers willing to do it because they are neighbor and friends. i want them to be able to act bring that case the court and not have to go through this incredible expense. universal injunctions from a brother suggestions you have that would expedite or address what you preserve to be a legitimate problem that are citing with the partisan divide? >> thank you for that question. the single judge division that allows plaintiffs certainty to ensure they receive a particular judge when they file in a

particular division of the district are an enormous problem. it is not exclusive to the division but it is the most serious kind and i should say as of right now none of the orders against the trump administration issued from judges who sit judge divisions unlike orders issued against the biden administration but i do think the conference has already enforced a proposal that would essentially eliminate these divisions should be able to get behind. >> is practical questions and answers with the agree or disagree made by the court all. >> you said that high standards for certified class actions. wife will be set standards. >> the standards are demanding the court ratcheted up

satisfying them. >> why would be set standards for class actions? >> i'm not sure, the rules committee produces the rules -- >> congress about some. >> yes. you tell me, sir, there's a reason we have high standards because it should be difficult to certified a nationwide class and what are seeing a single judge is ignoring the federal rules of procedure and ignoring rules set up for class certification saying i'm going to issue an injunction to the whole country and it doesn't matter if it meets even the bear thresholds of the federal rules. >> what would any of you advise a client to defy a federal court

order? >> no. >> under most circumstances follow orders. i suppose i would not rule out the possibility in egregious for the should be some consideration. i think it's a qualified answer. >> in some cases you what. >> and an extremely narrow band of cases, i think it could be considered, yes. >> ... >> okay. do any of you think that

nationwide are universal injunctions are not being abused ? >> i am not sure. i do not think, there could be good faith disagreements about the correctness of some of them. >> i've read your stuff and i have read your writings. i have little respect. i have read your stuff. someone gets a universal. you called him joe's is acting like their politicians. judges looking like political actors. who you dislike, you think that

universal injunctions taste like pumpkin pie. that is what you are teaching. certainly senator. >> okay. your suggestion when they issue

a nationwide injunction. a right of appeal. is that right? >> yes, sir. i have not given it enough thought to have a position on it >> it depends on who is president. what if we had a rule? i was reading an article the other day. if a president, any president, issues an executive order that clearly violates settled supreme court resident that a federal judge can issue a nationwide injunction. for example, for example, if a

president issued an order that said no one in america has right to counsel, not limited to a felony case having them pay for the lawyer if you cannot afford it. in that case, a judge has no authority, does have authority to issue a nationwide injunction where the laws unclear, a judge should refrain from that. the judge would have to trust our judges, but we are supposed to be able to trust them anyway. what do you think about that? >> i think that they transgressed the limitations.

even if the underlying merits are clear. >> i happen to agree with you. i don't think that there is any basis under supreme court under nationwide injunctions. they help judges and many judges are politicians to just make it up. many of them are like professor shaw here. they are against nationwide injunctions. if they do not like the president, they are foreign. professor, let me ask you this while i have you. on april 22, 2024, you said that there are some members of the supreme court that are evil. which justices were you talking about? >> i do not recall using that word. >> talking about the majority

opinion in st. louis. you said justice, will she be able to control by her evil colleagues? probably not". who were you talking about? >> i am very skeptical. it was probably a transcription error. >> no, you said it. calling some of the supreme court evil. >> i've been very critical. >> you are an officer of the court. i'm embarrassed that you are teaching our kids. >> i do not refer to them as evil. >> april 22, 2024. you are an officer of the court and you are here advising us to

be respectful to federal judges. and you say that they are evil members of the united states supreme court. gag me with a spoon. you are part of what is the problem in all of this. >> thank you, senator kennedy. senator durbin. >> i will give the panel members an opportunity to respond to a question proposed by the justice during the oral arguments on the citizenship bill. she said, i am paraphrasing, imagine a new president takes office and decides because of the epidemic of gun violence in our country, they issue an executive order announcing they will deploy the military to seize the guns of every gun owner across the country. that would be swiftly challenged in the federal district court or more likely and district courts.

temporarily preventing the enforcement of that executive order. the mac i address that point in a blog post. that was not thought 23 b mexico , your answer? >> i don't think that it will be in the courts. >> professor shaw. >> yes. whatever the constitutional right is, second amendment, if they tried to do something whether we like the law or not, and injunction is an appropriate remedy. >> no, senator. i have written in support of the second amendment. i do not think that a judge could issue a universal injunction under those circumstances the challengers

could seek certification to try to pursue classwide relief. >> you think it is reasonable to expect every single person affected like the one i just described to seek relief through rule 33 or to file their own lawsuit. >> i do not think that that would be necessary. it would be sufficient. even if he had failures to class certification, once you get to the supreme court and the supreme court issues a binding decision, the president would bind the lower courts. not a question of whether you get to a uniform rule, just a question of whether you get to a uniform rule. those limitations matter under article three. >> there is been a lot said about the possibility or likelihood that judges have been elected for this process to review the decisions of the trump administration on a political basis. professor shaw, i am not sure if

you read this into the record. according to a recent analysis by the professor, the trump administration has launched 84% of the time before district judges appointed by democratic residents, 80.4 democrats 72.2 before republican presidents. >> that is in my written statement. it cannot be reasonably attributed to policy and to put the. this is a pretty broad consensus about many of the actions. i think democratic appointees have seen that. >> this is not a stack deck. a statistical possibility. this issue has more controversy

than any president in recent memory. i have only been to camarillo once wheng i was a younger pern i'm sure it's a lovely city. it turns out the division has gone quite a bit of publicity. turns out that there are people that havest been filing lawsuits there because there's only one judge who sits in that division. who i remember before this committee. assigned to the cases and viewed favorable as the arguments. so the argument that is being made. >> mr. president, f whom who wer homeless with housing in fields like construction, manufacturing and health care. once they enter the workforce they contribute to our economy. they learn the skills necessary

to build their lives, to build their futures. it is a great program that has helped more than three million people have a chance at the american dream since 1964. unfortunately, jobs corps centers across the country received a stop work order at the end of last week that instructed them to close their doors and send all of their students back home, including nevada's job corps campus, the sierra nevada job corps center in reno, nevada. this is going to be devastating, devastating for the tens of thousands of young people who are currently enrolled in all 50 states. the trump administration, well, it claims it supports trade schools and job training, but, frankly, mr. president, if this administration really knew anything about the job corps program, they'd know that they are trade schools.

they're centers where students go, where they study, where they work hard, and where they earn their certifications that allow them access to good-paying jobs. so why is donald trump closing down this program and taking away the opportunity for these students to work? it just doesn't make any sense. shutting down this program will also immediately evict more than 300 students at the nevada campus alone, many of whom have nowhere else to go. students like samuel, who wrote to me saying, quote, i'm a 19-year-old student who attends sierra nevada job corps. i happen to be a paraplegic who was adopted at the age of 7. since then, i've had many health issues and trials which made it very difficult for me to do all of my school clafss.

-- classes. and then i came to job corps eight months ago and i'm doing well. it has provided me than just a vocational training, it is a safe haven, and a community and a path forward. the comprehensive support allows me to focus on my personal and professional development without the constant worry of where i'll sleep or how i'll eat. for individuals like myself, job corps is not merely a program, it is a lifeline. the prospect of this closure is not just a policy crisis, it is a personal crisis. without job corps, i face the grim reality of unemployment, of homelessness and a continuation of a cycle of poverty that has been difficult to break. end quote. when rumors of the trump

administration's cruel plan came out, countless nevadans who care about job corps immediately reached out to my office, many sharing their stories of students this program helps. job corps life changing, low profile saving for young people, and since the stop work order went into effect. those students have been speaking out and reaching out to students like selma from reason know who wrote in saying, quote -- since being at job corps i've earned six credits in the three months i've been here. i've received my respirator certification. if job corps closes, i won't have any other chance at an education. i'll live with an incomplete trade and be unemployable for what i trained in. and i'll leave with no diploma. end quote.

and pamela who said -- i'm going to quote again -- i worked so hard to get where i am now. months ago i was struggling, trying to figure out life. i didn't know what to do. i was working from warehouse to warehouse until i heard about job corps. that's when i knew if i came here to job corporation, i could -- job corps, could i do something with my life and show my son it's never too late to accomplish your goals. now i'm here working with 100% of my strength and energy, but if job corps closes, i'll have no other education opportunities, end quote. these stories are heartbreaking. they're hard to hear. these young people and so many more like them have gained hope and confidence, and this administration is going after kids who want to grow, who want to learn, who want to work, who

are trying to do the right thing. students who are trying to do what they've been told their whole lives to do, get an education, work hard to get a good-paying job and to be able to live the american dream. this closure is not only going to hurt those kids. this closure is going to hurt even those looking to serve our na nation. those young folks who wish to join our military. students like anthony who wrote, i was recommended to go to job corps by my older brother who had graduated from here back in 2013. and he's now working as a contractor for the united states air force, and he believes it's all thanks to job corps. if job corps closes, i'll be at a disadvantage in my pursuit of joining the military which is my goal. without job corps, i will be unable to earn my diploma and

unable to leave with the required certifications for the career i think will be amazing for my future. end quote. so now just imagine, tens of thousands of students just like samuel, just like selena, pamela and anthony who are working on building a better life for themselves, working hard. they want to build a better community for everyone. that's what the trump administration is sacrificing, students like samuel or pamela, selena, anthony, kids who want to build a life for themselves. and for what and for who? tax cuts for the ultrawealthy, that's who. and as i share these stories, students at sierra nevada job corps are walking across the stage right now which could be their final graduation.

meanwhile, sadly, this administration is working overtime to give billionaires like elon musk more government contracts, more money, and more tax breaks, and putting the american dream out of reach for thousands of students in need. it's putting their future and the future of our communities at risk. again i say for what and for who is the sacrifice of our kids? it's to give billionaires a bigger tax break. and this program has support from both sides of the aisle. there are job corps centers in blue states and red states. and since 1964, this program has helped literally thousands of young folks build a career and build a life. and we cannot allow donald trump to end job corps and kill the dreams and opportunitieses for young -- opportunities for young

people across our country. so i urge my colleagues in both parties to join me in supporting job corps and pledging to do everything we can do to fight back against any and all efforts to defund this critical trades program. a critical program for the lives of our young students. thank you. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

i think that that is what we have been seeing.

>> i cannot remember exactly what that chart said. so far, the lawsuits that have been brought, the administration has lost i would say a vast majority of times. >> yesg , senator. >> i want to ask a somewhat open-ended question. i haveit to confess, i probably succeeded, obtaining a nationwide injunction then attorneyr general schmidt. >> is that your admission? >> more than one dozen nationwide injunctions against the biden administration and attorney general moody kidnapped and continues to hold. over 600 days after that fateful

day, they come to sing songs, to tell stories, and read the names of hostages to affirm for them and for us and for the world that those hostages have not been forgotten. that they never will be forgotten. june 1 started like any other early summer boulder sunday. cool and clear and promising the kind of blue birthday we love in -- blue birthday we love in colorado. the group gathered on the eve of the jewish holiday for their memorial march. one man, however, was thinking only of violence and hate. amid his yells of end zionists, he unleashed a makeshift flamethrower and launched molotov cocktails to burn the marchers, he inflicted his

terror directly on all -- on at least 12 innocent people, including a holocaust survivor in her late 80's who survived the unfathomable in europe only to face anti-semitic servele once again -- evil once again, only this time in the united states. if there is any doubt this was an anti-semitic hate crime and an act of terror, the attacker has told investigators that -- let me quote -- he wanted to kill all zionist people and wished they were all dead. he said he specifically targeted this group. and that he researched and planned the attack for more than a year. denot have some -- he did not have some intellectual point he was trying to make about israel's politics. he was not trying to improve the

lives of palestinians. he simply wanted to kill jews by burning them in the most painful way possible. and he knew where to find them. at the pearl street mall matching peacefully on behalf of hostages a terrorist group stole from their families. america's founders built this country on the tenets of religious freedom and tolerance. in 1790, george washington wrote to rhode island's jewish community that the america he was building would give, quote, to bigotry no sanction, no persecution, no assistance. this letter affirmed that the jewish people had a place in the united states, a rare refuge amid europe's thousand-year -- the united states like all

countries has never always lived up to our lofty ideals. but it is our commitment to try -- to strive and become the city on the hill we proclaim to be, that has long made this country a beacon to the world. and different from almost all other countries in the world. it's why my mother immigrated here rather than somewhere else in europe or the western hemisphere. it's why the world where dreamers give up everything they have to seek a better life in the united states rather than crossing the desert for china or the our racian step for russia. but in recent years, mr. president, american anti-semitism has reached unprecedented levels. the antidefamation league

tracked over 9,300 anti-semitic incidents across the united states last year, the highest number in 46 years of tracking. in 2024, anti-semites made bomb threats against and vandalized synagogues including in colorado. they assaulted congregates at jewish institutions. they targeted jewish students with anti-semitic threats. they protested israeli policy and signism at -- scionism at -- zionism at synagogues as if american jews are responsible for the decisions made by foreign governments thousands of miles away. american anti-semitism tends to spike when israeli-palestinian conflict flairs up. that's just following hamas' may 2021 and october 2023 attacks.

but we cannot forget, mr. president, that anti-semitism is the word's oldest hatred. it long predates the holocaust let alone the october 7 or the recent d.c. and boulder attacks. as the ukrainian jewish author grossman, the first journalist to see the nazi death camp, wrote in the mid-20th century, anti-semitism has been strong in the age of nuclear reactors and computers as in the age of oil lamps, sailing boat, and spinning wheels. anti-semitism, even american anti-semitism, is an ancient prejudice indeed. it is not some kind of knee-jerk response to israeli policy.

anti-semites in america do not aim to make profound points or philosophical points about israel by throwing molotov cocktails at elderly coloradans or gunning down a young couple leaving an event about middle east peace keeping in our nation's capital. these anti-semites use events in the middle east as an excuse to express their anti-semitism, their medieval hatred of jews. who they blame for some swath of society's ills. they want to harm jews to add more tragedy to the family histories of the people whose collective chronicle is already overstocked with victims, to say the least. the boulder attack, the recent

d.c. shooting, and the thousands of anti-semitic incidents across the united states over the last few years are a direct result of anti-semitic rhetoric that has been left unchecked. even before this attack, american jews wondered whether they should hide their star of david necklaces before leaving the house. whether their friday shabbat service would be safe. whether synagogues would have to hire still more security officials. this omnipresent fear of anti-semitic violence makes it impossible for jews to feel safe in a non-jewish america and in a non-jewish world. and this fear produces behaviors like hiding one's star of david or avoiding jewish events on a college campus, where a dean

says the school can't guarantee jewish students safety. that amount to what the historian simon schwama called a passive deprivation of basic civil rights. yet how else, mr. president, are american jews supposed to react when american semitism reached record levels, when a terrorist approaches congregants at a pittsburgh synagogue, when an elderly woman in boulder, colorado, can't march on behalf of innocent hostages without being targeted by fire. it is long past time that all american and political and community leaders come together to affirm that this fear is unacceptable and that we must

fight together the anti-semitic hate behind it. we must use our voices and our power, whether in the halls of congress or in our own communities, to counter anti-s anti-s anti-semitism, in both words and action. we must speak up, because we know the dangers of failing to do so. we must stand with the jewish community for freedom of speech and religion and against fear. because, as grossman knew and wrote, life can be defined as freedom, life is freedom, and freedom is the fundamental principle of life. mr. president, i yield the floor. i'd i suggest the absence of a

qu quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. the laws that allow them to do

whatever the hell mac he wants. so why don't we let them ignore the appropriations of this congress. why don't we let them stop certain grants from being issued let them go up or harbored in any other school that he does not like. why don't we let them go after law firms that take positions that he does not like. why don't we let them do that if we do not want him to get sued. i think that that is a rhetorical question. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i wanted to ask you about some of the threat that we are seeing on the judiciary. let me preface it by quoting the president who was called federal judges who rule against him communist. he has called them lunatics. he has called them monsters.

he has said that they hate the united states. he called for the impeachment of the judge. said that the court system was radicalized in a competent, his advisor has threatened to suspend if the judges essentially do not fall in line. as a result, we are seeing the judges lives threatened. let me start with a threshold question in terms of the president making these personal attacks on judges for ruling against him or the policies, against the policies of the administration. have we gotten any experience with this? deeply disappointed in judges. many of these ruling against donald trump where people were

appointed by donald trump. have we ever seen a president make these kind of sustained a personal attacks on members of the judiciary. >> i would say that obviously tension between elected officials and judges, presidents and judges who rule against them is nothing new. something different about the tenure of the rhetoric that we are hearing today. some of the specific suggestions , i do think that including family members and the attacks on judges rulings is something that to my knowledge we have not previously seen members of public office engage in. the proposals to impeach. to impeach federal judges for the substance of their rulings is also something that i do not think that we have seen. it is a constitutional remedy for misconduct. if they engage impeachment is

the remedy. but we have never seriously for the substance of their ruling. i do think that those threat represent sort of a new escalation that is deeply concerning. >> i tried one of those cases of a judge. it was for bribery and other serious offenses. not for upholding the law of the constitution are having a different view of the lower constitution then the president. in terms of the family members, it is not just the president criticism. at least elon musk for members of the judges tweeting out or retweeting content identifying

who the children are or were they work. that is just amplifying the danger to these family members. tell us a little bit about this phenomenon now with people sending pizzas to judges and the implicit threat to that. >> also something that i do not think we have seen before. there is clearly some kind of coordinated effort to seek to intimidate federal judges and their families by sending pizzas , communicating the message that their residences, their addresses are known. some of the pizzas bear the name of the murdered son of the district judge from new jersey. the message there, i think, is a very clear one a very serious threat. i think judges are taking that thread and the marshals are as well from the reporting we have seen very seriously. >> last question. if you could help the professor put this in a broader context for us, this attack on judges in the judiciary is not happening

in isolation. we have seen the president now turn on leonard leo because the altar conservative now proving right wing enough for the president. but, this comes at the context of the administration also going after law firms. it seems very much part of a concerted effort to attack the rule of law and using the law to defend people's rights. tell us a little bit about the broader context. >> attacks on judges and attacks on law firms are a piece. they seem designed to neutralize sources of countervailing authority in opposition to this administration. and, if law firms cannot take on these causes because they are scared and if judges are scared to rule against the president, then we really have lost any meaningful check on a president and, as i said, i think of the constitution is committed to a

single principle, it is limits on power. i worry that we are on a path towards few, if any meaningful limits on the president. >> thank you for your testimony today for speaking truth to power. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator schiff. also note that when it comes to rhetoric, against judges, that it was democratic leader chuck schumer who stood on the steps of the supreme court in the justices by name and one of many left-wing commentators who is amplified that messages a fellow named ian mill heiser who in the league of the dobbs opinion happening, he tweeted out "the draft role opinion appears to be as bad as expected. i am glad that it leaked because this leak will foster a and distrust within the year redeemable institution that is the supreme court of the united states.

i guess eddie decided that that rhetoric was not overheated enough because any tweeted " seriously, shout out to whoever the hero was within the supreme court who said f it, although he did not abbreviate that, let's turn this place down. that is the angry unhinged language from the left that is been directed at the court when they dislike the decisions. i want to thank each of the witnesses for joining us today. i want to thank senator schmidt four cochairing this joint subcommittee hearing. written questions for the record can be submitted by senators up until june 10 at 5:00 p.m. the witnesses are asked to respond to any written questions for the record by 5:00 p.m. jun. with that, this hearing is adjourned.

good afternoon, everyone. breaking news. elon musk and i agree with each other. the gop tax scam is a disgusting abomination. every single republican who voted for the one big ugly bill should be ashamed of themselves. they are not helping their constituents. they are hurting their constituents. that is an objectively verifiable fact. the gop tax scam is a disgusting abomination. it rips healthcare away from up

to 14 million people every day americans. across the country. hospitals will close. nursing homes will shut down and , yes, people will die. if the gop tax scam ever became law. it is a disgusting abomination. the one big ugly bill would enact the largest cut to nutritional assistance in american history. that is also disgusting. republicans literally want to rip food out of the mouths of children, veterans, and seniors. every single republican that

voted for this bill should be ashamed of themselves. this bill that republicans narrowly passed, we will work hard to make sure that it dies in the senate. this one big ugly bill, the gop tax scam hurts every day americans and rewards their billionaire donors. with a massive tax break. for the wealthy, well lost in the will connect did. and, to make matters worse, they will settle our children and grandchildren with more than $5 trillion in additional debt. in order to subsidize the lifestyles of the rich and shameless. elon musk and i agree with each

other. on this particular issue. the gop tax scam is a disk testing abomination. >> is this elon musk yelling on his way out? do you think this will move the needle in the senate schumer. >> for all reasons i just indicated, the bill is disgusting. it is an abomination. it is a disaster for the american people. as house democrats, we've been saying it repeatedly. saying at rallies. saying it at committee markups, saying it before the rules committee, saying it on the floor hour after hour after hour into the early morning. we will continue to state in the united states senate. the bill went down to the united states representative of -- united states representatives. members of the republican conference even getting this done. many of these republicans know

that they were doing the wrong thing by their constituents. we will continue to expose it. before elon musk decided to weigh in, the american people understood it. in every single pole that has come out, over the last two weeks, a republican one big ugly bill is deeply underwater. it is unfavorable. eight points, 10 points, 15, 16 points. every single pull. across this country that has come out over the last two weeks the american people have rejected the republican one big ugly bill. and, we are just getting started >> i will go. i'm sorry.

you guys were laid on the side of the room. [laughter] >> speaker johnson implied this has to do with getting rid of the tv tax credits. what do you think about those tax credits that benefit this particular billionaire in this company in tesla? >> the clean energy credits that were part of the inflation reduction act actually have had a significant benefit. vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. you never know you are a g.e..ing to find -- you're going to find these days when you're reflecting on the trump administration and our oversight administration and our oversight we are having a lot of conversations with senators and i'm very h optimistic about tha. any negativity from a physical

standpoint at all in regard to this bill. >> do they react to elon musk attacking the bill? >> not surprised with where he is on it. the d.c. watchdogs. and that they should put behind them conflicts of interest that raise questions about whether or not they're serving their own interest or their family's interest or the interest of the people of the united states. and that why ronald reagan put, i think, his wealth -- which was considerable -- into a blind trust. jimmy carter even -- i think sold maybe his farm or put that in a trust. and i realize it's part of donald trump's political charm that he wants to wear his corruption on his sleeve, but

that doesn't mean that we have to go along with it, even if some people are entertain add by it which i'm -- are entertained by it, which i'm not. and we've got a great example of thinking about our responsibility versus his complete lack of integrity when it comes to the service of his public duties and his private interests. and that is the bill -- the so-called genius act that is on the floor of the senate right now where we're considering whether or not to regulate stablecoins, which are part of the cryptocurrency universe that is new to all of us, certainly in this chamber, and across the country. and i believe very strongly that no president and no vice president, no member of congress, no high-ranking official of our government should be in the business of

issuing cryptocurrency, including stablecoins, and they shouldn't be in the business of pumping them up like some sort of speculator, which is what we're seeing happen sometimes outside the white house -- or in the white house. i saw the other day that the president was having a dinner at mar-a-lago to reward the people who had been bidding up his meme coins, and they even came to dinner, although he apparently didn't really show for that dinner. but the legislation we have in front of us would be the first regulations of stablecoins that have ever been dorgans and i -- been done, and i think as part of that, it would be very appropriate for us to say that the president should get out of this business, and that any president should be out of the business of issuing their own coins. it's a weird part of the nature of this asset, this new digital

asset, that it's very volatile, the meme coins, they rise and they fall as part of their price, and the stablecoins are used as a way of transact ago around -- transacting around that volatility. but the volatility every single day is still captured in this market, and it seems like a crazy moment. we're living in a time when a president could influence his own net worth to the tune of billions of dollars just based on pumping up the value of digital currency that he has put out there in the world with his name or that somebody else has put out there in the world with his name. that's why yesterday i offered an amendment to the bill, to the genius act, that would preclude any president -- this president or any other president, any vice

president -- from issuing stablecoins. and i hope we'll consider that amendment on the floor of the senate. i hope we'll vote to pass it, if we're indeed going to pass this legislation, and i hope we'll have other amendments that we consider as well because i think that the questions that are at issue here from an ethics point of view, from a corruption point of view go far beyond just the stablecoin. they go to cryptocurrency gin and what the president -- generally and what the president is doing to inflate the value of coins that are issued in his name, whether he's issued them or whether he hasn't. i look forward to the debate that we're going to have. i think this is an opportunity for us to say that we want to elevate the requirements that each one of us has agreed to live under as members of this body, people elected to act in

the public interest. i believe the president and his vice president should face the same standard and the same scrutiny. that's why i've offered the amendment that i have. and i hope that as our colleagues consider the debate that we're going to have that others will come to the floor with their ideas to strengthen this legislation and make sure that people don't use their -- don't abuse their public office for their own personal economic gain. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

putting forward for fiscal year 26. we are in the process of looking back in the current fiscal year. what is still unobligated and what we can do. we are certainly willing and able to send up if the congressional will is there. thanks, guys.

heads up. >> good afternoon, everyone.

breaking news. elon musk and i agree with each other. the gop tax scam is a disgusting abomination. every single republican that voted for the one big ugly bill should be ashamed of themselves. they are not helping your constituents. they are hurting the constituents. that is an objectively verifiable fact mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins.

mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. curtis. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. heinrich. it is nice to be back. secretary mcmahon, thank you for getting us off to a good start

in the next work. discussing the budget request in your priorities for the department of education. i am pleased to be joined by my friend senator baldwin. a wild trip all through her state. >> all right. as well as our full committee chair that will be joining us senator collins and vice chair senator murray. returning the fiscal year appropriations process to regular order. this is the first step in our process. thank you. the opportunity to receive high-quality education from preschools to postsecondary education.

.... mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. provided for elementary and secondary education during the pandemic. at education at amendment should be focused on sharing america's children can read and the basic level. this is critical not only for children to flourish but for us as a nation. that's why federal education spending should support state policies that afford kids the greatest opportunity to learn and achieve academically. vacation decision should be made by those closest to our students, those who know what they need to succeed. that is the local schools, local

teachers, local school boards and most importantly local parents who are right there with their students. we are a grant program like title i idea career technical education provide the crucial flexibility that states and local communities need to best meet the needs of all students and i look forward to continue to support these key programs in fiscal year 2026. madam. secretary and pleased te budget proposes to increase another important program the charter school program. west virginia is fairly new to offering charter school education but we are seeing promising results and expanded opportunities for our publics to all students. for example the wen academy in bridget kelly average valley community and technical college is an early college charter high school designed to provide a free accelerated dynamic program for juniors and seniors for the schools was started to help local hospitals address the severe shortage of nursing and

if they were so successful it's been expanded to include an advanced manufacturing track in partnership with toyota. students are gold in the college graduate and graduate from high school ready to start their careers and well-paying jobs for the school is meeting the intent of the other charter schools using the flexibility are granted to offer innovative learning opportunities to best help students but with the additional funding for the proposed budget many more students across the country would benefit from opportunities like the west virginia academy but secretary mcmahon is time for a nation student loans borrowers to navigate an exceptionally confusing for years full of bad advice and unfair promises a of the illegal loan forgiveness from the prior administration and as a result one of four student lumbar is either in default or on a late stage of delinquency on their lawns at the beginning of may. only 38% of borrowers are in the

payment and current on their student loans. after years of confusion the department must work to research us apparo spike providing clear and consistent information about payments for student loans borrowers deserve that clarity to fulfill their obligations to repay their loans. i'm grateful under your leadership the department has the difficult task of getting borrowers on the path to repayment. secretary mcmahon in fiscal year 2026 up reparations process will be challenging but i look forward to working to allocator resources to programs that help provide the best opportunity for high-quality education for all students. thank you for being here today and i look forward to your testimony and now i return it to senator baldwin for opening statements. >> the morning and thank you chair capito and secretary mcmahon thank you for being here today. we are here to talk about the

presidents fiscal year 2026 budget request for the department of education and i look forward to working with senator villenova members of this committee on developing a fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill that funds the department of education but before we turn to the next fiscal year 2026 the department is still refusing to tell congress and the american public how is spending billions of taxpayer dollars this fiscal year? the department will require to submit an operating plan last month detailing how was spending fiscal year 2025 appropriated funding and it concluded $13 million in funding it characterized as on allocated. that's flatly unprecedented and unacceptable. this committee needs to know how you're planning to spend appropriated funding and their constituents certainly deserve

to know how their taxpayer dollars are being . state and school districts need to know how much federal funding they should expect to receive starting in less than one month. this administration obviously doesn't agree. ironically the budget request for next fiscal year includes more details than a spending plan for this year. the lack of transparency combined with this budget request raises serious questions about what you're trying to hide and why. this all stems in part man and secretary because this administration seems focused above all else on dismantling the department of education to score political points. regardless of the impact of tens of millions of students including some 800,000 public school students in the state of wisconsin. it's an issue i think we would

agree our priorities such as expanding career and technical education opportunities for students undermined by this administration in the name of eliminating the department. i am very concerned on the report that you are trying to take career department -- career education programs and a mandate and in a way that could harm students who participate in these vital programs. there's no reason to take this administration at its word when its actions tell a different story. time and again the more forcefully says one thing the more it's doing the opposite. madam secretary you claim the administration is eliminating the departments about returning education to the states treat at the same time as a frustration is attempting to exert more control than ever over the

decisions in our schools and on our campuses. demand state certify they are not implementing eei which the department purposefully left so they cut off funding whenever it chooses. the department has perverse brilliance of approved spending extensions with the end department picking and choosing which congressionally authorized spending to approve or not. and it includes the unprecedented assault on some other college campuses to assert control over their classrooms and the daily operations. you claim eliminating the department is not about cutting funding budgets to be giving more flexibility to states and schools but at the same time you are proposing a budget that would cut $12 billion from funding to support students and educators. this proposal would eliminate dedicated funding for

evidence-based litters the instruction support for homeless students and girls schools. the proposal would cut the lands from programs in state and school districts that they can use to me dressing needs and in place of eliminating all these programs the budget proposes a block grant a quarter of the size of the program that replaces. the budget proposal to cut more than half a billion dollars from education research virtually shutting down production of and support for using evidence to improve student achievement. you were proposing to eliminate programs that support nontraditional students in higher education including trio, gear up and you were proposing to drastically reduce the maximum pell grant award by over

$1700 which will have a devastating consequence for our nation's lowest income students including those who need to acquire new skills to meet the needs of local employers and in demand industries. the math is simple, this budget significantly cuts federal education funding. this issue isn't just what's being proposed in this budget request but what the department is doing right now. last month the department decided to not continue $1 billion in multiyear grants for improving access to mental health care and schools. this includes funding provided on a bipartisan basis in response to the uvalde school shooting that took the lives of 19 students into teachers while injuring 17 others. madam secretary a recent survey revealed more than one third of wisconsin's high school students reported feeling depressed, sad

or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row. we need to be providing or mental health support for our students, not less. the department claims these grants were not in the federal government's interest. i repeat that, the department claims these grants were not in the federal government interest but refuses to provide specific reasons why they were continued. this funding isn't simply numbers on a spreadsheet or receipts for a web site. this was more than 200 grants in nearly 40 states actively being used to increase the number of counselors and mental health professionals and schools. that's how this administration to find providing more flexibility with schools, by pulling the rug out from under them when they are trying to

address the mental health needs of students. finally madam secretary while this administration clearly wants to eliminate the department of education congress has not passed any laws to do so, quite the opposite in fact. 2.5 months ago congress passed an appropriations bill that provided funding to the department of education to carry out specific education laws, all laws that passed congress with overwhelming bipartisan support and that direct the secretary of education to carry out specific activities to help ensure every student receives a high-quality education. i'm deeply concerned that you're planning to ignore this and will attempt to illegally impound funds and dismantle the department of education. it will also be the students who will pay the price.

the executive branch is allowed to do that and ignore the laws we have passed i'm not sure what we are doing here. fortunately i still have faith in this committee to reject that approach and to carry out our constitutional duties. most importantly i know we can do better for nation students than let this administration is planning and what this budget proposes and i look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that. >> thank you senator baldwin and i see we have been joined by the chair of the full committee. i'm going to ask the secretary to give her opening statement first and then i will turn to the chair. thank you. we'll come secretary. >> thank you very much chairman capito ranking member baldwin

and distinguished members of the subcommittee. thank you for having me today to represent the goal they i share with my boss president trump to responsibly eliminate the federal bureaucracy and give education back to states parents and educators. we do partnerships with the fiscal 26 budget and take a significant step toward that goal. we need to shrink federal brockers a save taxpayer money and empower the states. they best know their local needs to manage their education in this country. we have reviewed their programs and identified spending that's not the mandate. we have cut all contracts at taxpayer expense expanded grants for illegal dei programs and put forward a responsible budget request that reduces department funding by more than 15%. at the same time we are working

to make american education grade again and in our conversations with governor's teachers and parents across the country it calls for accountability and more local control. that is our goal to give parents access to the quality education their kids deserve creek to fix the broken higher education industry that has misled students into degrees it don't pay off and to create safe learning environments. we are holding institutions to account when they facilitate discriminatory or hostile environment on campus level playing field with limitless opportunity i think it's a vision that we all can share. i-budget reflects decisions and it cuts bureaucracy that is -- and his continuation increases represent smart spending that will help improve student achievement not serve bureaucratic interest but our goal is clear, to make education

clear and empowering families schools and states who best know the needs of their students. i'm eager to partner with you to make the vision of the future a reality and to ensure every child is part of it. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you and i will turn to the chair of the full committee senator collins from a. thank you very much madam chair. madam secretary let me first welcome you to the committee. i know that you care deeply about our students. we may have different views on how to best achieve the goals that we share but they do not question for a moment your deep commitment to education and our nation students. i have been very concerned that we have seen a drop in

performance by our students that occurred since the covent unwise closures of schools and continued in the biden administration and that something that should concern us all. i would like to turn to the trio program. i would like upper bound, that's an issue that you and i have discussed. from my experience in maine i have seen the lives of countless first generations and the link on students not only in maine but across the country who often face barriers to accessing a college education changed by the trio program. i'm naturally wearing my maine trio pin today just to emphasize

my support of that program could in fact three of my own staff members went through the trio program and tell me that they would not have pursuit higher education but for the support and confidence that the trio program gave them. presidents budget unfortunate in my view proposes to eliminate the trio program and is cochair of the congressional trio caucus i strongly disagree with the president's proposal. could you explain why the administration has decided that trio programs are not worth the investment if they make in people's lives and the robust bipartisan support that they enjoy due to its success?

>> do you want me to answer now? b please. >> thank you very much and i know this program is near and dear to your heart. we have had at least two lengthy conversations about it. trio will be funded this year so all those funds will go out but it is not proposed to continue in the 2026 budget. but we found is the programs while i absolutely agree there is some effectiveness of the program in many circumstances these programs were negotiated at very tough turns in that the department of education has no ability to go and look at the accountability in the trio programs. it specifically eliminate their ability to do that and i just think we aren't able to see the effectiveness across-the-board that we would normally look to see with their federal spending.

so while their many instances and i believe chair capito worked in trio for a wild, in her earlier years, i too think their many programs i've just not sure the total expenditure warrants. i do know however congress does control the pursestrings and i would sincerely hope that if you decide with the preparation to continue these programs that we could work with you to renegotiate those terms that we feel hamstrung by the department of education not being able to fully understand their accountability. that's a real drawback in these programs and i think all of us would agree we want to make sure anything that we are funding has attached accountabilities to it.

>> as with the job core program and the department of labor i think the answer is to reform and strengthen those programs increase accountability and not abolish it and i look forward to working with you in that regard. i want to move to another issue and that is a bill that senator kaine and i introduced called the jobs act. what it does is allow students to access federal pell grants to pay for shorter-term job training programs. a lot of times you can get a licensed in a trade to become an electrician or a welder for example or a certified nursing assistant without going through a two year community college

program. that may be the best option for some people but it isn't for others. would you support. the concept f allowing pell grants to be used for short-term training programs that result in a licensed certification for a job. >> you m are really speaking my language senator and thank you very much for that. i wholeheartedly support these workforce that will grant options because i have seen in many instances we have the 8 million open jobs in our country and our workforce is not being fulfilled by the proper workers select get a through don't even when they are in high school we should start these programs in high school leading into apprenticeship programs. for the short term you are talking about i think there

should be staffing credentials so that you can really propel yourself to be a stronger economic contributor so i'm all for this. >> great, thank you madam chair. >> senator baldwin. during your confirmation hearing when asked about spending appropriated funding we said quote if they have been appropriated by congress those funds should be disseminated." you also said eliminating the department is not about cutting federal funding for schools. now we have a budget request that significantly cuts funding for public schools and educators few days ago the ombms director said impoundment is still on the table. threatening to take funding away this year and we have your

spending plan for this year that still leaves more than $8 billion in your own words, unallocated. not spending these funds is the administration taking a decision not to invest in our children and that decision has real consequences. what you consider unallocated for this year includes $1.3 billion for before and after-school programs which support programs for thousands of students in wisconsin and approximately 150 locations throughout the state and over $2 billion to support effective teachers of which an estimated $23 million would provide evidence-based professional learning for educators and help address gaps in access to effective teachers in wisconsin. are you going to allocate all of the funding congress

appropriated for students and schools in wisconsin and across the country this year? >> senator baldwin thank you very much for that question. what we have done in putting forward our operating plan, first offering plan to show where we are making allocations and then follow it up -- that this is in the nuanced question. congress passed a law appropriating this funding. you said in your confirmation hearing that you he would funding congress appropriated. if the answer isn't simply yes, based on all the evidence before us that leads me to believe you are planning to withhold funding ander shortchange schools studes and families across america. >> we wille. continue to look at the allocations and we'd like to work with you as we continue to evaluate those programs. >> we passed the content

resolution of appropriated funding and you said you were going to spend it as appropriated as signed into law so i'm going to move on. secretary mcmahon when we met before your confirmation hearing you told me our students mental health was a priority for you yet you recently decided to discontinue mental health grants because of authorized and funded on a bipartisan basis because you determined quote they were not in the best interest of the federal government" which makes me wonder what changed since our conversation. you're offering plan for fiscal year 2025 describes this funding is unallocated this year. your budget request for next year proposes eliminating this funding could secretary mcmahon to believe and -- increasing access to mental health for students is not in the best interest of the federal government? >> we are not looking to eliminate this funding. simply continuing the funding

but will allow the states to re-bid on a competitive great -- grant basis but i think the governor in the state or local superintendent or health care professionals are working in that state have the best opportunity in looking at what is happening in their areas to make those requests for those grants. so that's what we are looking at. >> grant you discontinued for the wisconsin department of public instruction is being used to expand access to mental health care for students. we are talking about more counselors and mental health professionals and schools schools. why did you cut off funding for this grant and take away this from wisconsin students in schools. >> we have to look at it across-the-board senator and the goal really is to make sure that the money is being in the best way. >> what about training in new schools and colleges like what

you chose to discontinue at the college. if that's also not in the best interest of the federal government? and i believe they are lot of programs that are in the best interest of the government but state and local areas as the best place to concentrate for these particular programs. >> thank you madam chair. >> madam secretary and going to add my voice a concern with senator collins in you and i talked about this on the elimination of the trio programs that you mentioned that i did work in one of these programs many years ago. my state and many of our states but mine in particular think has allowed a first-time college goers in the lot of students that don't have the aspirational goals either within their family and they aren't looking at how we can achieve education or a certificate or whatever that's where these programs have been particularly useful so i want to

encourage that we look at this and we certainly will ask the committee to cuts all of us have this issue within our states in terms of the first-time college goer for that student that needs extra push the camaraderie and the community could have gone to the graduations and it's quite delightful to see how far they have come in a short period of time. i'm going to move on from that question. i want to ask on anti-semitism. the morning before our education last year there were protesters climbed the university and i asked the then secretary how many people from the office of civil rights have you had on the campus to see what's occurring there to see what kind of violations of civil rights might be occurring on the colombia university campus and apparently there was nobody there from the office of civil rights. your budget proposes to decrease the office of civil rights.

this is not a problem that's going away on our college campuses. we see it now and over the break this summer. how were you going to make sure the department is ensuring all students and in this particular case jewish students are able to learn an environment free from intimidation. >> thank you very much. i think there's evidence from the actions that we have taken relative to colombia and harvard as well in fulfilling the promise that president trump made in this campaign that he would not tolerate anti-semitism on our campuses or discrimination of any kind. i have personally met with katrina armstrong who's the president of colombia when the first issue was addressed to note the second claire shipman who is there now. he talked about these issues on

colombia's's campuses and we have worked with them i believe and how we can solve some of these issues. they have set their policies and priorities may have to enforce them. they can allow students to come dressed with masks so you can identify the students. i think we have to that the students that are coming in with the background they haven't even professors to come on campuses and are they teaching ideology? i personally have done this in conversations with these presents another presence of universities to understand what their policies are office of civil rights has opened many cases looking at anti-semitism. we are actively enforcing that as well as we have defunded some of colombia's programs for $100 billion there about $2.2 billion from harvard.

these programs and policies have to have teeth and they have to be enforced and no student should have to go on campus and be afraid to go to class. >> i agree with the substance of what you are saying. my concern is by cutting so much of that you are one person and we need support and the backup of that office to investigate these cases so i believe that. that. let's talk about literacy and i mentioned in my opening statement that test scores are very troubling i think and you want to try to figure out how we attribute this? it's not like there aren't great teachers all around this country trying to figure how to get their students achievement and moving in the right direction. my state of west virginia the state legislature recognizing this did allocate additional funds for reading teachers in grades one through three to try to move our scores up because we have traditionally lower scores.

that did make a difference having that extra teacher in the classroom to pull the child aside even that one-on-one attention does make a difference. how is the budget that you put together is the answer to push it down to the state so they can make those differences with our literacy and their math scores when we are falling behind?

for children that are learning to read and can read by the third-grader those that those that have the greatest opportunity for success. up until third grade you need to learn and after that -- we learn to read it through third grade and we need to learn after that. and thank you. senator durbin. >> thanks madam chair and welcome madam secretary. since you are the secretary of education i think it's appropriate we start the questioning with a pop quiz. am i right. >> i never have liked pop quizzes. >> i will give you the answers ahead of time and answers at eight and 30. remember those two numbers. what percentage of high school students in america attended for-profit colleges and universities. >> 8%. >> 8%, perfect. what percentage of student loans default in america come from

students and for-profit colleges and universities. >> it must be 30. >> great you just pass the test. the problem is the difficulty difficulty that student space becomes a lifetime problem. imagine ifoc you will first generation college students trying to pick a place to go to school. and the david and high school prep for-profit colleges and universities which promise the sun the moon and the stars. they learned their pell grants available for for-profit colleges and universities and they hear promises if they attend the school and graduate you up there will be a good paying job and it turns out it's all. over and over again the students are deceived. much more scam than the risk scholarship and much more hype than there is higher education. at least 30% of them end up with loans they can't pay back. they never received that java's promise to them.

and they have one last place to turn to to get their lives back on track. a catalog of the students but have you met a lot of them. >> i have. >> seeing their stories and hearing their stories living in their parents basements as they carry student loan debts in the college diplomas or a one from for-profit colleges and universities. you have a the department and the department of education and are you familiar with that. >> yes, i am. >> toga what you understand the borrow defense law to be. >> how we started the conversation not the percentages but but this is an issue as youl know not just relative to for-profit universities. we have many universities promising degrees and jobs which are not being fulfilled even those with prestigious and elite universities. the cost of college today is so

incredibly high that we have many students who are graduating thinking they were going to have a job that would pay their loan but the cost of those loans are so high even if they get that job over the course of their lifetime they may not be able to repay that loan so one of the things that we propose in looking at our fast education form is providing information on fafsa that would indicate to a student who is applying for a student loan take a look at this, this is a college you're going to end this is the job that you wanted this is how much money this job kempe henneses college the right place for you and there it these courses the right. it takes so let's give upfront more information so they actually have an understanding of what the opportunities in the working place can be. >> thank you madam secretary but i want to reclaim reclaim my times and is limited.

there's one grant of college and university is particularly when it comes to these for-profit colleges and universities. 8% of high school grads and 30% of student loan defaults in that category along stands out from all the rest. what i'm getting to be assure hollowing out the borrow defense agency within your own department. this is mostly the rescue of students who finally get back on track that maybe go to a good school one way or the other. why would you hollow out the resources under the rule we have these numbers in the education of students. >> my point is we should just focus on those schools. i totally agree with you there are some scam universities out there. >> or that you want to enforce the? i think we are putting measures in place. >> give me an idea of what you're putting in place.

>> we are talking about education upfront. >> their already living in their parents basement and have no place to turn in your telling me the fafsa application will help them? how can that help them. >> it's not in place yet but i will be very helpful. where are our guidance counselors and high school? i think they need to look at the cost of education. you're cutting the number of counters in the schools at the same time. >> counters that are doing their jobs can provide information. >> there aren't enough of them and that's the point i'm making for the situation is for the students. first-generation students have been exploited by the schools. they need our protection. they deserve it when they are doing the right thing and unfortunately you are reducing the number of people who enforce the law. i yield back madam chair.

>> thank you. senator kennedy. >> madam secretary i want to ask you about the trio program that's been mentioned and its sister program gear up. we spend $1.58 billion a year on trio? yes. >> that's $1,580,000,000 a year is my math right. >> i think it's right sir. >> how long have we've been spending $1,580,000,000 a year? >> i'm not sure the total. >> more than 10 years.

>> yes. >> that's over $1 trillion we have . and in this program is trillion dollars we have we get this money to colleges and universities to encourage poor kids to go to college, is that right? to provide some of those kids who have not been exposed to what it takes to get ready to go to college. >> to encourage for kids to go to college, right? b yes. >> and given that we have a trillion dollars how many poor kids who otherwise wouldn't have gone to college have gone to college and graduated?

b how many. >> i don't know. i'll have to get back on that question. >> madam secretary and not fussing at you. do we have that number? b i don't think so. >> do we have the? b so we have a trillion dollars and we given this money to universities and they are supposed to encourage for kids to go to college but we don't know how many poor kids to college who otherwise would not have gone to college and graduate, right? b writes. and what your audits show? >> that's the issue. >> are you able to audit. >> we are not able to audit. the other issue.

>> i'm sorry to cut you off but i don't have much time. we have a trillion bucks and we gave it to the colleges to encourage kids to go to college and we don't know how many kids went to college because you don't have the authority to audit. how do you know these universities are not just using the money to operate instead of encouraging poor kids to go to college? >> i am not sure. >> you don't know that because you can't audit. >> correct. >> you understand that hope is not strategy. >> yes, sir. >> if he told the average american we should discount a trillion dollars of your money that we gave to colleges and universities to encourage for kids to go to college but we don't know how many kids went to college who otherwise wouldn't have gone into graduated. understand the average american would ask as we -- what planet

we just came from, right. >> right. there's one other show the trio program. >> i'm out-of-town. >> take your time back then. >> let me ask you a question about her skirmish with harvard. president trump has said harvard is violating federal law and he's withholding their money, is that right? b yes, sir. >> harvard has responded we have never violated federal law but if we did we give you promise that we won't do it again. is that right? and then president trump said okay no offense but i just want

to be sure so i will give harvard the authority to appoint them monitor and pick whomever they want to the federal government has the right to veto it so to take your brother-in-law would not be fair. harvard said no you just have to trust us and accept our promise. so basically what's going on. >> i don't believe the department did respond with negotiations a lawsuit. >> if harvard would agree to moniker -- monitor that would solve the problem. >> it might serve part of it but the provost would be one of the monitors in that situation. >> i'm gone over in certain madam chair. >> senator reed. >> thank thank you very much and welcome madam secretary. i think you are talking about

$1 trillion. i believe $1.5 billion is $15 billion. that's a little bit off from $1 trillion. >> the budget cut is $1.2 billion. >> that would be $12 billion not a trillion dollars. >> okay. >> why are you recommending a audit for the trio program. >> i'm not allowed to audit it. >> legislatively have proposed it. >> we can propose that which the as i've said at the very beginning. >> you are not proposing it audit you are proposing a block grant and without any request that would come from the united states senate. >> that's exactly what i would request. >> why don't you request a madam secretary? >> i would like to if congress appropriated money for the trio

programs i would like to work with congress and part of that would be auditing. we found 90% of trio funds come to the same people the same institutions. in that could imply an order is necessary but it doesn't validate the budgetary approach you are taking. you are taking basically many are grams from an $8 billion to $2 billion for a block grant. in washington to block grant is the slow path to extinction. next year the request will probably be for a billion dollars and for five years from now it will far exceed that. that's budgeting 101. you are really out to eliminate these programs not to make them more efficient. >> that's not true. i disagree with that. they were budget cuts but we are

asking for simplified funding measure which will be single grant funding to the states for them to use in the best way possible to make sure their education is working better however if i may serve we are reducing the regulatory burden even though 47 cents of every dollar that goes into the school teachers comply with regulations of the can take away the regulatory burden and yes there cuts the cost of funding we still give the opportunity to give more dollars because we are reducing the regulatory. >> you are enthusiastic about it audit but the regulatory burden is so crippling and audit would impose more requirements. i just think it you're coming and going and we are making progress. to cut these programs is profound $6 billion to the

states are going to step up and say we can do this. hopefully what is this budget passed every state in the country would make a difficult decision. do i save my health care system for save my public education? many of them can't do both and this will be a profound shock to the education system in the country in one year into the students. have you ever taken public assistance. >> have i taken public assistance? no, sir. >> while many people do and they need the support to get ahead and education is the key mechanism. to get ahead and it's remarkable. this started with the g.i. bill

and then my colleague saw that model and increased it. by the way you are decreasing the pell grants. you are shrinking educational opportunities in the united states for a whole generation and more and shrinking our ability to compete internationally and globally because i don't think the chinese full stop their investments in education. >> senator i appreciate your comments comment so far we've $3 trillion in education in our country when the department set up in their scores have continued to go down. we are not doing something right in your numbers are a little bit off. it's about a $4.5 million cut. >> it's a significant cut. >> to be more responsible. >> to be more responsibility.

your responsibilities surrounding. we have a crisis in education and literacy and we are going to pull back funding. >> we are spending more responsibly. >> i doubt very seriously. >> that's what we do. >> let's hope that's the plan. thank you. madam secretary thank you to much for being here today but i want to start with talking about h.b. ca the nays 26. 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 presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: thank you. i rise this evening to recognize and celebrate the 250th anniversary of the creation of the united states army. i'd like to yield time to the senator from rhode island, my colleague, but the cochair of the senate army caucus, senator reed. mr. reed: first, let me thank, mr. president, the -- thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleague and friend from kansas for his partnership in recognizing the army as the co-leaders of the army caucus here in the united states senate. thank you, senator, very much. mr. president, i rise, along

with my colleague from kansas, to recognize a remarkable moment in our nation's history. on june 14, 1775, delegates from each of the american colonies met in philadelphia to convene the second continental congress. on that momentous day, congress voted to establish the continental army and tasked it to, quote, provide for the common defense of these colonies. the following day, the congress unanimously elected george washington to be the commander in chief of the continental army. it was an auspicious start for what would become the greatest fighting force the world has ever known. today -- or in a few days, certainly, we celebrate the 250th birthday of the united states army. the army has a straightforward but enormously critical mission,

to fight and win the nation's wars. today we take a moment to reflect on that mission and to honor all of the soldiers who have served faithfully in the army ranks, whether as volunteers or in response to a draft, millions and millions of men and women have answered the call to serve. they each swore an oath to the constitution, a unique feature of service to our nation. by swearing an oath to the constitution and its ideals, rather than a leader or a party, american soldiers stand apart as pat patriots, not partisans, and our nation stands proudly throughout the world. american soldiers have served on their own soil to break the bonds of tyranny and to keep our

nation united. they have served on foreign soil to defend our allies, uphold humanity, and protect the american people. and they have stepped forward to help in humanitarian crises and natural disasters, at home and around the world, when needed most. it is also fitting to acknowledge the contribution of department of army civilians who take the same oath and who bring their skills and dedication to bear in support of the army's mission. and, of course, we also pause to thank all of the families who, over the course of two and a half centuries, have stood by their loved ones in their service, families who supported their soldiers in the earliest days, with little or no

communication, to today, where families witness in real time the challenges their loved ones faced. families have and always will be the true strength of our army. the army story also is not just one of battles won but of values upheld, values of leadership, respect, selfless service, integrity, and service. and with me, deeply, duty, honor, country. finally, we pay tribute to those who gave the last full measure of devotion in service to our nation. their sacrifice is woven into the very fabric of our history and their legacy lives on in every soldier who raises their right hand and takes the oath. for me, personally, the

opportunity to serve as an officer in the united states a army, and to lead american soldiers, was the greatest privilege of my life. mr. president, i would end by recalling the enduring motto of the continental army -- this we'll defend. and i yield the floor. mr. moran: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. i thank the senator from rhode island, my colleague and friend, senator reed, for cochairing. i'm the new one to this duo, and i consider it a privilege as a united states senator to serve side by side with senator reed as we work together to promote and support the united states army and those who serve in it. i also would highlight and honor my respects of senator jim inhofe, the senator of oklahoma, who i replaced in this capacity when he, after his long tenure

with senator reed in serving in this capacity to support and defend the army of the united states. as senator reed said, 250 years ago, that's the birthday we're celebrating, june 14, 1775, the second continental congress authorized what would become the most capable and lethal ground force the world has ever known, the united states army. the creation of general george washington's army coincides with the adoption of the declaration of independence. sips our nation gained its independence, our army faithfully defended our freedoms. the warrior ethos of the army states, i will always place mission first. this is a calling that american soldiers have answered time and time again, without regard to their personal safety, security, or comfort. my state of kansas is home to fort riley, the first infantry division, and fort leavenworth,

as well as the kansas army national guard. the men and women who serve in these bases are some of the finest individuals i have ever met, living their lives in accordance with the mission of the army flag -- this we will defend. this short statement and commitment to deed fending this -- defending this nation, all americans and the values we hold dear. the embodiments of what it means to be an american soldier is symbolized in the values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage. over the years, the servicemembers of the army lived up to these ideals, putting their country and fellow citizens above themselves. no matter how daunting the conflict, american soldiers will always carry out the mission entrusted to them. today, we recognize this valor and celebrate patriotism that motivates these brave men and women who dedicate their lives to defend the land that they and we love. the united states army is the

largest branch of the u.s. military, with nearly 450,000 active duty personnel and nearly 500,000 in the reserves. as we mark the 250 years of the united states army, we express our gratitude to these servicemembers and their loved ones who support them. for two and a half centuries, 250 years, the american soldier has stood strong in the face of conflict. i am committed to continuing supporting our army so it remains the strongest lethal force in the world for another 250 years. i hope my colleagues will join senator reed and me in supporting a resolution to mark the 250th anniversary of the united states army. today in this effort, we are reminded to say to those who serve, have served, and will serve -- we tell them, those who've served and have served and will serve in the united states army, we sty them that we respect you -- we say to them

that we respect you. we love you. we thank you for your service. mr. president, i now yield the floor -- i now yield the floor and thank the opportunity for making my remarks.

mr. moran: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i move to proceed to shrivelling session. -- to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. moran: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 120. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice. john andrew eisenberg of virginia to be an assistant attorney general.

mr. moran: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 john andrew eisenberg of virginia to be an assistant attorney general, national security division, signed by 17 senators. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. moran: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 111. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report.

the clerk: nomination, department of justice, brett shumate of virginia to be an assistant attorney general. more moyer send a -- mr. moran: i send a cloture motion to the desk. . er officer the clerk will report. 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 brett shumate of virginia to be an assistant attorney general, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. moran: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 2, that at 11:45 on wednesday, june 4, the senate vote on a motion to invoke cloture on executive calendar number 119, michelle bowman, and if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be expireders and at 6:00 perjure the senate vote on confirmation of the bowman nomination. further, following the cloture vote on the bowman nomination, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on executive

calendar number 129, edward walsh, and if cloture is invoked, all time be expired and the nato vote on the walsh nomination following disposition of the bowman nomination. the senate vote on executive calendar number 144, james o'neil and in cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be expired and an thursday, june 4, the senate will vote on the confirmation of o'neil nomination at 11:30 nomination. if any of the nominations are confirmed during wednesday's or thursday's sessions, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session and -- i ask unanimous consent that the committee onvestment,s a fairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 201 and the senate precede to its immediate consideration.

the presiding officer: the clerk will reportment. the clerk: s. 201, a bill to provide for a study by the national academy of sciences, engineering and medicine on the prevalence and mortality of cancer on individuals who serve as active duty air crew in the arm forces and so forth and for other purposes. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. moran: thank you, mr. president. i now ask unanimous consent that the kelly substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. more moyer also now -- mr. moran: i also now ask for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. con. res. 24 he have received from the house. the clerk: -- use of the emans

nation hall to celebrate the birthday of king order. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: now, mr. president, i have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. moran: they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, june 4. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the senate proceed to executive session and resume calendars number 119, michelle bowman, of

kansas. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. moran: 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. t

a lot of people see it so we need to make sure our platforms as well as --