Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, the Senate voted to confirm Julia Kathleen Munley to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Born in Carbondale, PA, Judge Munley received her B.A., magna cum laude, from Marywood College and her J.D. from the Dickinson School of Law. She then clerked for Judge Stephen J. McEwen, Jr., on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania before entering private practice in Scranton. During her more than 20 years as a litigator in both State and Federal court, she tried 23 cases to verdict. Notably, she also provided pro bono representation to a Ground Zero emergency responder before the September 11th Compensation Fund and helped him recover an award to compensate him for the health issues that stemmed from his emergency work. In 2016, Judge Munley was appointed to the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas by then-Governor Tom Wolf. She won election to a 10-year term in 2017. Over the past 7 years, she has handled both civil and criminal matters, and she has presided over approximately 57 trials.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Munley ``well qualified'' to serve on the Middle District of Pennsylvania. She has the strong support of both of her home

State Senators--Mr. Casey and Mr. Fetterman--as well as the Pennsylvania legal community. She has deep ties to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and her significant litigation background and experience as a State court judge will serve her well on the Federal bench.

I strongly support this nominee, and I am glad to see her confirmed.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Brendan Hurson to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Born in Washington, DC, Judge Hurson received his B.A. from Providence College and his J.D. from the University of Maryland Carey School of Law. After clerking for Judge Margaret B. Seymour of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Hurson began his legal career at Schulman, Hershfield, and Gilden, PA as an associate, where he worked on a variety of civil and criminal litigation matters on behalf of individuals, small businesses, and small to mid-size corporations. He then went on to work as an assistant Federal public defender in both Maryland and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he appeared in court routinely, litigated substantive motions in close to 40 Federal cases, and tried 18 cases to verdict. In February 2022, Judge Hurson was appointed to serve as a U.S. magistrate judge for the same district to which he is nominated. In his time on the bench, he has written approximately 77 opinions.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Hurson ``well qualified'' to serve on the district court, and he has the strong support of Senators Cardin and Van Hollen.

Judge Hurson's deep ties to the Maryland legal community, combined with his significant courtroom experience, make him an excellent addition to the Federal bench.

I thank my colleagues for supporting his nomination.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Susan DeClercq to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Born in Seoul, South Korea, Ms. DeClercq received her B.A. from the University of Michigan and her J.D. from Wayne State University School of Law. After clerking for Judge Avern L. Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Ms. DeClercq worked at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meager & Flom, LLP as an associate, where she worked on a variety of matters, including white collar defense and commercial litigation. During her tenure at Skadden, she coauthored an amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress in the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, which considered the use of affirmative action policies in college admissions. She then went on to serve as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan for 18 years, where she led substantial investigations and handled hundreds of cases at every stage of litigation, from inception to post-judgment.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Ms. DeClercq ``qualified'' to serve on the district court, and she has the strong support of Senators Stabenow and Peters.

With more than two decades of litigation experience--the vast majority of which has been in government service--Ms. DeClercq is well positioned to handle the demands of the Eastern District of Michigan from day one.

I thank my colleagues for supporting her nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Republican leader of the Senate came to the floor to give a speech relative to the issue of crime in America, and he was fairly specific as he outlined examples of violent crimes that were taking place across the Nation. He, of course, included in his litany the city of Chicago, talking about the car thefts that were occurring in that city and other felonious assaults in New York City and the like.

He concluded his remarks--the Republican Senate leader did--by saying:

American families deserve to feel safe in their homes and

in their neighborhoods and

certainly in the Nation's Capital. It shouldn't take another

assault, carjacking, or homicide to convince local leftwing

leaders to start actually doing their jobs.

I come to the floor to discuss doing your job and reducing crime in America. I come here once again to discuss the Senate's need to quickly confirm two pending U.S. attorney nominees: Rebecca Lutzko, to the Northern District of Ohio, and April Perry, to the Northern District of Illinois.

I have come to the floor three times in the past 2 weeks to request unanimous consent for the Senate to take up and confirm these pending U.S. attorney nominees who are being stopped by one junior Senator from Ohio.

Keep in mind that both of these nominees, for the State of Ohio and for the State of Illinois, have gone through extensive vetting and extensive efforts to determine whether or not they were prepared and qualified for the job--and it is a big job. They would be the leading U.S. criminal prosecutors in their area and have responsibilities that we know are substantial.

Each time I have come to the floor to ask to give the opportunity to these two young people to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office, Senator Vance of Ohio has come up with a different explanation of why he is blocking their confirmation. It appears that he is not certain in his own mind as to the issue on a daily basis.

As I stated last week, for almost 50 years, the Senate has confirmed U.S. attorney nominees, from both political parties, by either a voice vote or unanimous consent after they have been reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Just look back to the previous Trump administration. In the 115th and 116th Congress, 85 of President Trump's U.S. nominees moved through the Judiciary Committee, and Senate Democrats allowed all 85--every single one of them--to be confirmed by a voice vote or by unanimous consent.

Why would we automatically give to a President of the United States their U.S. attorneys, their representatives of the Department of Justice and the Nation? Because we understand the critical role that U.S. attorneys play in our justice system.

Just take a look at the law, title 28 of the U.S. Code, section 547. It states that ``each United States attorney, within his district, shall prosecute for all offenses against the United States of America.''

Leader McConnell regularly comes to the floor to assert that Republicans are really tougher on crime than Democrats. The obstacles that Senate Republicans have created to confirming Federal prosecutors, and especially Senator Vance's actions over the last 2 weeks, show what an empty argument that is.

Senate Republicans are literally moving the goalposts in the Senate and blocking the confirmation of law enforcement officers who lead our Nation's efforts to prosecute violent crime and protect our communities from drug traffickers, gun violence, terrorism, and so many other crimes.

Is it important in the State of Ohio, where the junior Senator hails from, as it is important in Illinois, to deal with fentanyl deaths? It most certainly is. We understand that thousands of Americans are dying each year because of this deadly narcotic.

Who is fighting them? Leading the fight is our Federal Government and the Department of Justice. We are dealing with an international drug cartel hailing out of Mexico. We are dealing with an effort to take over drug and narcotics control of the United States, Europe, and beyond. Certainly, we need more than local law enforcement to deal with it.

So whom do we put on the case? The Department of Justice. Why is that important? It is important because we need to have the men and women serving in that Department of Justice who are doing this job every single day.

Earlier this year, the Senator from Ohio explained why he is doing this, why he is stopping the appointment of well-qualified and vetted criminal prosecutors in the Department of Justice. Here is what he said:

I will hold all Department of Justice nominations . . . we

will grind the Justice Department to a halt.

``Grind the Justice Department to a halt''--really? Is that what you want to leave as your legacy in the U.S. Senate, that somehow you managed to diminish the Department of Justice's effort to keep America safe, to keep neighborhoods safe, to stop the spread of narcotics? Is that something you brag about back home? I don't think so.

The average American hopes and prays that someone in Washington is working late at night, lights on, trying to make sure that there is less crime in America. They trust us to do our jobs, and one of them is to make sure the Department of Justice has the men and women they need to be led properly and to be effective.

The junior Senator from Ohio campaigned for this job in Congress, in the U.S. Senate, on the fact that he was tough on crime. He said:

Americans deserve safety. They won't get it if politicians

. . . keep attacking police officers instead of violent

criminals.

I would think he would recognize that U.S. attorneys are too important to be used as political footballs to make some headline or make some tweet, or whatever it happens to be. I would think he would recognize that he is blocking highly qualified nominees who have significant experience as Federal prosecutors and who have qualifications and leadership abilities to serve with distinction.

According to the junior Senator from Ohio, the Justice Department has been ``weaponized''--a favorite word of the right--simply because former President Trump has been indicted for multiple felonies. So this is retribution. In order to punish the Department of Justice for any part of it--prosecuting or indicting the former President--the Senator from Ohio wants to stop prosecutors--criminal prosecutors--from going to work in Chicago and Cleveland.

What is he going to do about the pending case in New York? There has to be a way for him to stop the Department of Justice, the work by the State of New York, the work by their attorney general. The former President is being sued--I can use the term ``prosecuted,'' but sued-- in court for his business dealings in New York, and he has a case pending in Georgia. What is the junior Senator in Ohio going to do to punish Georgia for having the temerity of indicting the former President as well?

There is simply no basis in reason, fact, or law for what he is doing. The Justice Department under the Biden administration has made a point of demonstrating its independence, focusing on investigating and prosecuting criminal activity, regardless of an individual's political affiliation.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has even appointed special counsels to handle the investigations of the current President and the former President to ensure their independence.

Last week, Senator Vance came to the Senate floor and stated:

[M]y objection is not specific to the qualifications of the

particular individuals that have been nominated.

He explicitly said this in reference to both these nominees. So he is not questioning whether they are qualified for the job; he is just angry because the former President has been indicted by the Department of Justice.

In response, I offered the junior Senator from Ohio the opportunity to end his obstruction and to keep his promise to support law enforcement by allowing us to schedule confirmation votes on four pending U.S. attorneys--exactly what he said in the Congressional Record he wanted. He agreed to it. He released his objection to all four nominees on the condition that we hold rollcall votes on them. He did this publicly in the Congressional Record and privately. He had said that while he couldn't speak for his colleagues in the Senate who may object to some on the floor, he would no longer object.

Last week, we held votes on two of those U.S. attorney nominees. But then Senator Vance changed his mind again. Overnight, he decided he actually does object to even holding a confirmation vote on the two nominees--Rebecca Lutzko to be the U.S. attorney in Cleveland, OH, and April Perry to be the U.S. attorney in Chicago, IL.

Over the last few weeks, Senator Vance offered explanation after explanation on why he is doing exactly what he promised not to do when he ran for office. He promised he would ``fight the criminals--not the cops.'' He has introduced a resolution in the Senate that calls on ``all levels of government to

ensure that law enforcement officers receive the support and resources needed to keep all communities in the United States safe.''

Now he has the chance to support law enforcement. Instead, he comes to the Senate floor three times to undermine the U.S. Attorney's Office--even one in his own State that he represents here in the Senate. These are officers responsible for prosecuting drug cartels, sex traffickers, and other violent criminals.

Senator Vance himself has said that Americans will not be safe if politicians keep attacking our law enforcement officers. I fear he is proving that as right.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 314 and 315; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Can you imagine what the family in Chicago who is concerned about narcotics and fentanyl deaths in their neighborhood thinks about this argument that somehow there is a grievance and people are mad about some of the things done by the Department of Justice?

Trust me, under the previous administration as well as this administration, as an attorney and a Senator, I can find things to object to. But to deny to the city of Cleveland and the Northern District of Ohio a U.S. attorney to lead their office to stop sex trafficking--that is a political statement this Senator believes is appropriate, that he is going to stop a nomination for someone to move into the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago and lead the effort to stop the narcotics in our community or the trafficking of thousands and thousands and thousands of guns each year from neighboring States, and he is going to hold up that person because he objects to the way they treated former President Trump? For goodness' sake, that is what is wrong with this country, and that is what is wrong with this Senate.

When one Senator can stop the appointment of a well-qualified individual with no questions asked about her ability to handle the job, either in Cleveland or in Chicago, and to do that because he has a political grievance--I hope I never get to that point, and I hope other Members of the Senate will think twice.

We need to function as a government that is effective and provides safety for the people we are sent here to represent. Having this snit over some political grievance and holding up the effective appointment of prosecutors to do their job is inappropriate.

I will continue to come to the floor and plead the case for safety in the neighborhoods.

Before anyone else decides to come to the floor in the future on the Republican side and criticize crime in the city of Chicago, for goodness' sake, try to explain to the Senator from Ohio that there is a connection between criminal prosecution and crime.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is my honor to represent the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago. I cannot tell you how many times Members of the Senate and the House in the other party have gone to the microphones to condemn the city of Chicago and its crime rate.

Let me tell you point-blank, there is too much crime in the city of Chicago, but it is not the only city in America that suffers from that problem. Cities large and small have problems every single day with violent gun crime. My hometown of East St. Louis is a tiny little town of 20,000, 25,000 in comparison to the large metropolis of Chicago. Yet the rate of gun violence there is even higher in East St. Louis than it is in Chicago.

We have to do everything we can to deal with it. Let me tell you what ``everything we can'' means. It means we have to look at the flood of guns coming into these cities from out of State, primarily, without background checks, that are getting into the hands of criminals, who are turning around and killing innocent people. To ignore this flood of guns in the United States of America and condemn crime is to basically take a position that you are not going to look at reality. And that is what we are faced with.

We have to have a sensible policy when it comes to background checks, universal background checks, to make sure guns are not ending up in the hands of people who will misuse them. When they confiscate thousands of guns every year, which they do in Chicago, they find that they come from the surrounding States, which have lax laws, if any, when it comes to checking the background of purchasers. That is a critical element. If you raise that issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate, you will have the whole side of the aisle--the other side--coming here and waving their arms about Second Amendment rights.

I want to tell you, we need common sense when it comes to guns and gun safety. I want that to be part of the conversation on making our cities safer.

The second thing I want to really raise is personal to the Senate. If you want to stop crime in the streets of Chicago or any city--Cleveland or Chicago, for example--one of the first things you need is a competent, aggressive criminal prosecutor, a person known as a U.S. attorney who works as part of the 85 U.S. attorneys across the United States enforcing the strong Federal laws we have enacted.

So why don't we have a U.S. attorney in the city of Chicago? Why don't we have a U.S. attorney in the city of Cleveland? Because of the objections of one Republican Senator who has come to the floor over and over again to stop these appointments from taking place. The nominees have been cleared. They have gone through background checks. Both sides, Democrats and Republicans, have approved them. They are sitting on the calendar, and they cannot move because one Senator from the State of Ohio, a Republican Senator, refuses to lift his hold and give us a chance to vote on them.

So you can give all the speeches you want on the floor of the U.S. Senate from every Member on the other side about how we have to end crime in the city of Chicago, but do me a favor. Speak to this one Senator and convince him that a competent, aggressive criminal prosecutor as U.S. attorney in the city of Chicago is one step toward that goal. To ignore that and to let him hold up this nominee is just unfathomable and inexcusable.

Mr. President, another point I would like to make is that over the weekend, we managed to avoid a government shutdown with a 45- day extension, a bipartisan continuing resolution. Keeping the lights on is a win for the American people. It used to be considered just normal procedure around here. Now it is a reason for celebration and victory because we have such a discordant and dissident group heading up Congress on both sides of the Rotunda.

I am disappointed that, unfortunately, the continuing resolution did not include critical funding for the war in Ukraine. It is impossible to explain to my constituency why, when the Ukrainians are in the midst of fighting and dying every single day for their nation against the war criminal Vladimir Putin, this Congress somehow or another managed to pass a spending bill for 45 days and not include more funding for the Ukrainian cause. This assistance is absolutely essential to make sure we stop the aggression of Russia against this tiny country.

A small group of isolationists and Russian sympathizers--largely MAGA extremists in the House--threatened to hold the entire country, the United States, hostage over this funding despite the overwhelming bipartisan support for Ukraine. Ronald Reagan and John McCain must be turning over in their graves.

I am glad that after the vote on Saturday, Senators Schumer, McConnell, Murray, Collins, Coons, and Graham released a joint, bipartisan statement reaffirming the Senate's commitment to supporting Ukraine and addressing the funding in the weeks ahead. I couldn't agree more.

Let's keep this in perspective. The American people have been generous to Ukraine, but this critical assistance that has halted and reversed Russian aggression accounts for only about one-half of 1 percent of all the Federal spending in our country. So for a modest investment by U.S. standards, we are keeping hope and freedom alive in Ukraine while they are offering their lives. Our European allies have stepped up and provided even more assistance than the United States, and I am glad they have. It is a joint effort.

Quite simply, Putin is willing to keep sending Russian conscripts to their death in the hopes that we in the democratic transatlantic alliance will get tired of his war of tyranny. I hope we never do.

Putin is counting on the West, NATO, the United States to grow weary of his Ukrainian war of attrition. We cannot let him prevail by this approach. We have to be organized and unified in our effort.

Mr. President, on a separate issue, I would like to address the announced retirement of U.S. GEN Mark Milley.

On January 17, 1961, 3 days before he was to leave office, President Dwight Eisenhower addressed the American people. His political farewell to the Nation surprised a lot of people. They expected him to give the ``old soldier's speech,'' like Douglas McArthur. Instead, Eisenhower surprised many by

issuing a strong warning about the dangers of the ``military-industrial complex.'' He described that complex as a ``conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry'' and ``[w]e must not fail to comprehend its grave implications'' of that alliance.

His words were a warning to his successors of one of the many dangers they could face in the coming years. The words are often quoted because they were so surprising.

I thought of President Eisenhower's warning just last Friday when I heard the parting words of another military leader who served our Nation with wisdom, courage, and unwavering devotion--GEN Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In his farewell address, General Milley spoke of those in uniform who have died defending our freedoms, of the many who have shed blood and sacrificed limbs in that cause, and of brokenhearted Gold Star families who have lost loved ones.

Then he said that the U.S. military exists for one purpose, in his words: ``to defend democracy.'' ``Our military,'' he said, ``is unique among the world's militaries.'' Why? Because, in General Milley's powerful words, ``We don't take an oath to a country. We don't take an oath to a tribe . . . to a religion . . . to a king, or queen, or a tyrant or a dictator. And we don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator.'' We take an oath, he said, to the Constitution, to the ideas, ideals, and values of democracy. That, he said, is our ``moral North Star.''

Obviously, General Milley has a sense of history. He realizes that despite the strength of our military, the real strength of America is written in the Constitution, which we have all sworn to uphold. He rose to the occasion time and again, particularly under former President Donald Trump.

I had private conversations with him over the years. The question I had to ask him was very carefully scripted. I said to him: If you were given a choice between Commander in Chief or the Constitution, which one prevails? He said: That is simple--the Constitution. That was the North Star he lived by as general of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He served our Nation in uniform for 43 years. He was a combat infantryman and Green Beret. General Milley served 5 years in combat zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan. He knows the meaning of service and sacrifice, and he knows the value of offering your life for this country and its Constitution.

He was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by former President Trump and continued in the post under President Biden. His four years as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were some of the most tumultuous in recent history. They included many successes. They included helping Ukraine to defend against Russia's illegal invasion and helping to unite NATO. The NATO alliance has never been stronger. And we can thank President Biden, but also General Milley and all those in uniform who made that possible on our side of the Atlantic.

We need to make sure that that security alliance is stronger in the years to come to stop war criminals like Vladimir Putin. There were also grave dangers, including an armed insurrection against the government of the United States right here in this Chamber, under General Milley's watch.

I know he measured carefully exactly what response we could bring to the occasion; that insurrection mob was a total surprise to so many. But his greatest test may have been containing the impulses of a former President who didn't understand the role of the military--and I have to offer, I don't think he basically understands the Constitution--a President who reportedly wanted to use troops, American soldiers, to suppress legitimate demonstrations by the public, exercises of their right to speech, and who prized loyalty to himself over loyalty to our Constitution. That was the force General Milley was up against.

In recent days, that former President has told his followers that in times past, General Milley's actions would have resulted in execution. Can you imagine he said that, former President Trump said that of General Milley? Once again, a thinly veiled exhortation to political violence from the former President.

As members of this Senate, we take an oath to protect and defend not a party or a President, but the ideals and values of our Constitution. May we all honor that oath with the same dignity, courage, and strength of character as General Milley. And my parting word is gratitude to his family, to his wife Hollyanne, his son Peter, and daughter Mary. I thank the family. How many sleepless nights must have been a part of that household, wondering if the father and the husband would come home safely. Well, he did, and thank God he did, because he brought America home with him. He deserves some time off. He said he is going to try to get some rest. But I am sure he is going to be in demand. A man of his character and reputation deserves it.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Michigan (Mrs. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, we mourn the death of a trailblazer, my colleague and friend Senator Dianne Feinstein.

I have been privileged to have known Dianne throughout her entire career in this Chamber and my entire time as well. She was my friend and seatmate on the Senate Judiciary Committee for over 20 years. When you are that close to someone politically--day in, day out, week in, week out--you pick up on the things that mean the most to her. Certainly, her family was the highest priority to her, over all things, but her life experience created what we know as the legacy of Dianne. How many times she told the story of serving on the pardon and parole board for the State of California--the cases that she remembered in detail that had occurred decades ago stuck with her and inspired her when it came to her service on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I think that situation also inspired her when it came to legislation, where she was looking for fairness. We certainly all know her efforts in dealing with the Violence Against Women Act. That was an extraordinary effort by her, on a bipartisan basis with Senator Murkowski, Senator Collins, Senator Ernst, Senator Patty Murray, and so many others.

In addition to that, she recounted many, many times that terrible, unimaginable tragedy when the mayor of San Francisco was killed along with Harvey Milk, a commissioner. She was there at the bloody scene afterward. She recounted that so many times in the midst of her debates over an assault weapons ban.

Think about that assault weapons ban. It was almost the holy grail in politics. So many people said that is the one thing we absolutely have to do; it has to be done. She did it. She, along with Senator Schumer, who was then a House Member, put together the bill that established an assault weapons ban and reduced the number of deaths in America by gunfire. They did it, and she was the leader, inspired by that terrible tragedy with Mayor Moscone.

I can also remember, there was a time, years ago, when we engaged in debate in this Chamber on stem cell science and biology. It was a complicated debate. Many of us liberal arts lawyers were lost as they went into the detail. Dianne not only led that debate; she had mastered the subject. And time and again in the caucus, when we would discuss it, she would be the one to stand up and straighten everyone out on the basics. She was a gifted person in that regard.

But I do want to say that there is one thing that Senator Collins noted that I noted many times. Members of the Senate, in the committee hearings, were given a notepad in front of them--the Senate Judiciary Committee was no exception--and a pencil nearby to make notes in the course of our business. Sitting next to Dianne all those years, I can't tell you how many flowers I saw her draw on those notepads. I asked her for one, one time. She signed it, and I have kept it. But it is an indication of the sweetness and the elegance in her life; that, on the one hand, she could be arguing the most serious life-and-death issues in the committee but, on the other hand, show that kind of dignity and determination to bring the human side to the debate.

She was one of the best, and I was honored to call her a friend.

There were many times that she made the rollcall in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the last year or 2, when I know it was an extraordinary sacrifice. She was going to show up because that was her responsibility. I respected her so much for that. And the committee divided 11 to 10, I needed her. She knew it, and she was there. She answered the call.

She served California with such distinction. She often talked about her beloved Golden State, but we all know that she was also a treasure to the Nation.

Dianne Feinstein inspired many, particularly many women, to public service. She served California well, and she served our Nation, and it was my honor to serve with her.

I yield the floor.