a confirmation vote on president biden's nominee to be general council. cia has been scheduled for 11:45 eastern this morning. this is live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. let us pray. p. the chaplain: eternal god, we know that you exist. every time we hear a baby cry or touch a leaf, we are reminded of your presence in our world. lord, continue to look with favor upon our senators. enable them to go from strength to strength as they strive to live in day-time compartments. guide them around the obstacles that hinder them from living for your glory. as they strive to please you, empower them to stand for right and leave the consequences to you. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, july 14, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jacky rosen, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, central intelligence agency, kate elizabeth heinzelman of new york to be general counsel. mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday's c.p.i. report told americans what they already knew all too well. the disastrous effects of washington democrats' he spending binge last year still have our economy in a vice grip. year on year, inflation has hit 9.1% for the first time since the fallout of the carter administration. and the signs are inescapable. price hikes on everything from food to fuel to housing are setting new multidecade highs. a shopper out in oregon told a reporter recently she doesn't buy beef anymore. here's what she said. we kind of try to eat what we have while we have it. yesterday we learned exactly what she and millions of americans are up against, this fastest-rising grocery prices since 1979. in nevada, the owner of a local diner says, quote, my concerns are that my food costs have escalated dramatically. i used to gut wrench about raising menu prices 2% or 3%. now it's way more than that just to keep my doors open. yesterday's report says he's not alone. nationwide prices on food outside the home haven't risen this fast since back in 1981. and this new reality is especially frustrating for those working to help. as the head of one south dakota food bank put it, quote, the donation load has seemed to lighten up. when we give out food boxes, they are not as full as they used to be. right as working families are struggling the most, so are the organizations trying to help them. just one more cruel twist of washington democrats' runaway inflation. one of the first and most painful consequences of the biden administration's failed policies has been the soaring cost of energy. remember on their party's watch, the cost of heating a home rose by double-digit percentages last winter. electricity prices climbed at their highest rate since 2006, and prices at the gas pump have doubled since president biden took office. one pennsylvania woman said that ever since her heating bill skyrocketed last winter, she's had to scale back her spending big time. here's what she had to say. i need to hide under my bed and save every dollar i can. and in maryland, one retiree reports that skyrocketing gas prices means that visits to the local library, about five miles round trip, no longer feel free. from day one, the biden administration has worked overtime to make it harder to produce the most affordable and reliable forms of energy americans rely on right here at home. now as their radical climate agenda takes its toll on domestic production, millions of americans are facing the possibility -- listen to this -- of summer blackouts. the heartland, the west, and the southwest face the highest risk. the people of arizona and nevada, for example, are already at what the experts call elevated risk for the summer. for arizonans and nevadans clamoring for a new gas hike on top of everything else? i doubt it. are they destined to double down on the green sources that set us on this path in the first place? i don't think so. our electric grid is overburdened already but democrats apparently want to strain it even more by eliminating the most reliable sources of energy we have, all the while spending hundreds of billions on schemes that depend on chinese minerals, components and supply chains. trading american energy independence for less reliable sources that depend on forced child labor and foreign producers with questionable environmental standards. is this what our colleagues think will usher in a big transition to green daydreams? washington democrats are the only ones who would define higher energy costs and lower reliability as a victory. we would like americans to know riezing costs are the result of a failed leadership pushing failed policies. working families are still reeling from the time democrats decided to spend us into inflation. they have no appetite for being taxed into recession. ongoing another matter, all -- on another matter all week long i've been discussing the historic supreme court term that wrapped up last month. over the course of several month the textualists and originalists majority had the most consequential decisions since plessy v. ferguson with brown v. board of education in 1954. it was the best supreme court term in generations. the court corrected one of the most moral and legal mistakes of the 20th century and returned power to the american people to implement commonsense protections for unborn life and bring america back inside the global mainstream. the court handed down two historic wins for religious liberty, rolling back decades of infringement on the rights of americans to worship and to raise families as they choose. the court strengthened the rights of law-abiding americans to p defend themselves outside the home in resounding reaffirmation of the second amendment and the court took a huge bite out of the unconstitutional administrative state and rolled back a big part of the obama-biden administration totally illegal clean power plan. electricity prices skyrocketing on democrats' watch, experts warning abouti am penning summer blackouts and pain at the gas pump the last thing americans need is a war on fossil fuels that congress never authorized. the court's decision in west virginia versus e.p.a. is a reminder that the power to make laws rests with elected representatives, not on elected bureaucrats. but today i want to talk about something that runs even deeper than these historic rulings. as in any high-profile term, last month the court arrived at rulings that some politicians in some -- and some citizens like more than others. goodness knows i have been disappointed in my share of supreme court rulings over the years, including some extremely consequential cases. going back decades, there have been countless times when the federal judiciary has left conservative citizens feeling every bit as i did pointed in a particular -- every bit as disappointed in a particular outcome as far left activists seem to feel right now. after all, the courts don't exist to enforce any one political ideology or policy agenda. the justices' sacred job is to follow the written text of our laws and constitution wherever it may lead them and let the chips fall where they may. but there's something funny, madam president, if. i can't recall anytime when our side, the right of center side of america, engaged in prolonged mob protests outside judges' private family homes. the attacks on the judiciary, on this fundamental institution of our society, seem to only run in one direction. a few weeks ago the speaker of the house and the senate democratic leader teamed up to issue a frankly unhinged statement. most of the top democrats in the country followed suit. the reckless statements did not stop, indeed barely even took a pause, when a disturbed left wing person very nearly tried to assassinate a sitting judge. frankly, the inflammatory tone of all these attacks echoed the furious attacks on the court, ironically from the democrats on the day after brown overturned plessy back in 1954. we're hearing absurd calls from the far left to have congress politically persecute individual justices because of their view of the law. they want to take off lady justice's blindfold and scare the court into becoming politically partial. well, this didn't start now. sadly, it's been years in the making. along the path to this moment, the far left has stoked reckless rhetoric, and we've heard it from democrats in elected office. like the amicus brief from several senators that declared the court unwell, unwell, and warned it to, quote, heal itself before the public demands that it be restructured. in other words, do what we want to do or we'll change the makeup of the court. or the main threats from the democratic leader himself that sitting justices would pay the price for ruling in ways that he didn't like. said that over in front of the supreme court. so, madam president, we've spent a year and a half now hearing democrats say over and over and over again that a core principle of democracy is accepting the legitimacy of an outcome when you don't like it. sound familiar? our colleagues need to practice what they preach. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, the republican leader comes to the floor regularly, with heartfelt concerns about the burdens facing america's families. i share those concerns. i think all senators share those concerns. inflation is a tough thing to deal with in the family budget. i go home to illinois to see the price of gasoline at the gas stations, i shop in my local stores and see what it costs for the basics, and i understand that although it's an inconvenience for me, for many people it's a hardship. for the republican leader to come to the floor and remind us of that problem which we're facing in our economy is certainly y understandable. yesterday, the bureau of labor statistics released consumer price index for june, higher than anticipated, prices rose 1.3% compared to june last year. up 9.1% since 1981. when you dive into the data you see that the prices jumped in categories that affect almost every household. food, energy, rent, gas. we know for many american families a break can't come soon enough. what are we going to do about it? give speeches? there are a lot of opportunities for us to do that. republican leader, democratic leader. are we going to do something? democrats think it's time to do something, and we picked one category of cost that is particularly important to american families. it's the category of cost that not only is the life and death issue, but it determines the cost of health insurance for families. we know that because we're told by the largest health insurers in the united states that the cost of prescription drugs is driving the cost of premiums for health insurance. democrats have decided to tackle this directly. credit should go to our democratic leader, senator schumer, who's in negotiation now on prescription drug pricing, with senator manchin of west virginia. i have been skeptical of the outcome of that negotiation, but i'm beginning to be encouraged by what i hear from senator schumer and from senator manchin, that in fact we can give relief to american families on the life or death inflationary cost of prescription drugs. wouldn't that be a breakthrough? wouldn't it be something if this 50-50 senate could ends up doing something on a bipartisan basis that american families actually feel? that seniors in our country would be able to say there's a limitation on how much i'm going to be asked to spend for prescription drugs. and beyond that, i won't have to pay. that's amazing, breakthrough. would it make a difference when it comes to the cost of living for families? of course it would. you would think that the senator from kentucky, who comes to the floor every day to give a speech on inflation, would be the leading cheerleader on our effort to contain the cost of prescription drugs. wouldn't you think so? no. no, he's announced that he would oppose the increase in pre-- the increased effort to lower the cost of prescription drugs, because it might raise taxes on the wealthiest people in this country. hard to imagine, isn't it? his sympathy for millionaires and billionaires gets in the way of his caring for working families. i think he should set it aside and he should ask his colleagues on the republican side of the aisle to join us in a bipartisan effort to contain the cost of prescription drugs. we recognize how these price increases are squeezing household budgets across america, and we take it seriously. we have plans to lower prescription drug prices, decrease the price of gas at the pump, help families with the cost of child care, and increase the supply of housing. all of which will address inflation. but item number one, priority number one, is prescription drugs. the senator from kentucky has said he will oppose that. i hope he changes his mind. i hope as he tells the stories of working families who tell him of the burdens they face with inflation that he will also ask them a question, how about drugs? how about prescription drugs? are those expensive to you, create a hardship? you know they do. it's time for us to do something, and we would certainly like to have the republican leader on our team to deal with one of the serious problems of the cost of living in america today. on a related topic, the majority leader comes to the floor and characterizes the supreme court as the best in history. he refers to decisions they've made and compares them to brown vs. board of education. for those who have forgotten, in 1954 the supreme court in brown brownv. boa board of education d separate but equal does not work in america anymore. we're going to provide real equality, real opportunity when it comes to eggs ca. it was an historic -- when it comes to education. it was an historic decision. the senator from kentucky compares it to the dobbs decision on a woman's right to choose. there's a critical difference. brown v. board of education expanded the constitutional protections of americans. it expanded the constitutional rights of americans. those are historic, and those are consistent with the most celebrated decisions in our supreme court's history. dobbs did just the opposite. for the first time ever in regarded -- in recorded history, the united states supreme court removed a constitutional protection for its citizens. what was that protection? the right of women to make their choices on their own reproductive health. so there's very -- it's very painful to hear a comparison between brown, which extended the constitutional protection and rights of individuals, and dobbs, which in overturning roe v. wade, went in exactly the opposite direction. it's interesting to me to hear the court described by the senator from kentucky as a court that is originalist. they just look to the constitution, they just look to history. well, they also look to something else. every single nominee on the supreme court installed under the trump administration, with the facilitation of the senator from kentucky, had to check one important box -- approved by the federalist society. what is the federalist society? you can search the constitution, you will see no reference to it whatsoever. but it's very real. president trump made no bones about it. he wouldn't consider a federal court judge, particularly for the supreme court, who'd not been approved by the federalist society. federalist society is an extreme right wing conservative group that approved judges during the trump administration, the three judges that were approved for the supreme court. so the loyalty of these justices may be to the constitution, but it's also to the federalist society agenda, and that agenda applauds, of course, the dobbs decision overturning roe v. wade. i also want to make a point about attacks on supreme court justices. unacceptable, unforgivable, and we should do something about it. now, here's what the senator from kentucky failed to mention -- the senate judiciary committee, which i chair, has enacted a law and sent it to the floor, which would extend the protection of the federal judges in the act so there are more resources put into their protection. it passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in the senate judiciary committee. and you would think with all of the speeches we're hearing on the floor about the safety of judges and how we should take care that they are not endangered, you would think we would have passed that law on the floor of the senate immediately, right? wrong. that bill, which gives more resources to protect federal judges, has been stopped by one senator, and he's announced publicly that he's done it. could you guess where that senator is from? the same state as the minority leader, kentucky. senator rand paul has held up this bill for additional resources to protect federal judges for weeks on end. why? why don't we want to protect them? he objects to the way we've done it, and he's held up the bill, won't even let us vote on it. so i would say to the minority leader, from kentucky, if you really care about the security of judges in the federal system, pick up the phone and call your colleague from the state of kentucky and ask him to withdraw his hold on this bill. we should pass that bill this week. if something terrible happens to a federal judge, god forbid, how in the world can we explain that one senator from kentucky has held up the bill that might have created the resources to protect that federal judge? that's the reality. so when you talk about judicial safety, start at home, start with the state of kentucky, one senator for it, the other senator blocking it. if both of them would be for it, we would do it this afternoon. madam president, i'd also like to address one of the aspects of the dobbs decision overturning roe v. wade, which will be addressed by our colleagues a little later this morning. our nation is in the midst of a health care crisis because of this dobbs decision. in the weeks since the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, erasing the long-standing constitutional right to abortion, pregnant women across america have been thrust into chaos. from the moment this decision came down, abortion was declared illegal in nearly 12 states. some of these state abortion bans make no exception, even for cases of rape and incest. and even when exceptions are made to save the life of the mother, they are confusing and leave medical professionals uncertain of their legal status. the sad reality is that these laws will most certainly result in pregnant women in danger. especially women of color, who are more likely to experience severe and even deadly complications as a result of the pregnancy. earlier this week, the senate judiciary committee held a hearing examining the damage that's been create bid overturning roe. during that hearing we heard from colleen nicholas, she is a gyn doctor and performs abortions. she told the committee, and i quote, when th