marketing and advertising? what you do in terms of stock buyback? is there executive compensation? i agree we had to have transparency. i remember under the last president when we had our confirmation hearing secretary cesar came out of the pharmaceutical industry and i shared with him a letter from a constituent to diabetic sons talking about the cross every month not just of insulin is what i tell this dad about the high cost increased significantly, it's complicated. i can't tell my constituents

that we can address this because it's complicated number years ago (overnight my constituents told me what a burden this was. >> we are going to leave this world if coverage of the senate. if you continue walking on our great c-span members will provide foreign aid to israel, ukraine and taiwan and humanitarian relief to gaza. live coverage on c-span2. ...

.. ority leader, i have presided over more amendment votes than the senate held in all four years of the previous administration. for the information of senators, we are going to keep working on this bill until the job is done. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kelly: mr. president, the federal government has failed arizona and other border states for decades, and for decades congress has done nothing about it, and we've lurched from crisis to crisis. arizona and other border states have always been hit the h hardest. this humanitarian crisis is bad for asylum seekers, bad for law enforcement, and bad for communities. the problem gets worse the longer it is ignored. and yet, for decades nothing has been done. i see it every time i go to the border. so have my colleagues, who've traveled to arizona to see it for themselves. i hear about it every time i talk to border mayors and sheriffs, and we talk about it

every day here in the senate and over in the house. in fact, there are few topics we talk about more, while nothing changes. this week we had a real and rare opportunity to actually do something about it. there was a real plan, a real bill, ready to be passed and signed into law by the president. we got here because for months senators sinema, murphy and lankford worked together on a bipartisan agreement. almost every single day, for months. if we passed it, we'd get more border patrol agents, more technology to stop fentanyl, more asylum officers to quickly screen asylum claims, and more judges to bring down this massive backlog of cases.

that would make a real difference. if we passed it, we'd have an updated asylum system, authorities to prevent the border from being overwhelmed, and more visas to keep families together. we'd have a more secure and fair process at the border. that's what all of us want. and it should be no surprise that we got this plan thanks to republicans and democrats just working together. it was a product of tough conversations and compromise. in other words, the way legislation is supposed to happen. and it came together in an agreement that was not going to just address the border, but also the biggest challenges in our national security. mr. president, this is a perilous time.

the decisions we make here, now, will shape the world that our kids and grandkids grow up in. as hamas and other iranian-backed militias threaten stability in the middle east, this agreement included support for our ally israel and aid for civilians in gaza. as china expands its influence in order to offset u.s. power in the region, this agreement included support for taiwan and other partners in the pacific to strengthen their own se self-defense. and finally, as putin wages this illegal war to an ex ukraine and -- to annex ukraine and destabilize europe, this agreement included desperately needed weapons and ammunition to support ukraine in their self-defense. mr. president, i've traveled to ukraine twice since russia invaded nearly two years ago.

as someone who has fought in combat myself, i was struck by the bravery of their citizens and soldiers in this existential fight that they're facing. over the course of the last two years, armed with support from us and our european allies, they have decimated the russian army signi significantly, degrading their combat capabilities. this is a huge benefit to our own national security, and it came about without putting a single american in harm's way. but our previous aid package to ukraine, that ran out last year. so this week we faced a choice -- either provide ukraine with more support to keep beating back russia or leave it without the weapons and ammunition it needs and invite russia to regain

momentum. if that happens, putin could set his sights on another target, threatening a wider conflict that will be much more costly for the united states. that would be a disaster. so, mr. president, i'm relieved that we found a path forward to prevent that by advancing these national security priorities on their own, but i'm baffled by how we got here. we took a pair of votes this week. one that included border security and support for allies and one that was just support for our allies. it was a lack of support from my republican colleagues that meant the first vote with border security failed. this after months of working on a compromise to finally do something about this issue. every senator faced a choice, an

up or down vote. that's why we are here, to make tough choices in service of our country, and to make easy choices when they're right in front of us. supporting our allies is an easy choice. securing our border is an easy choice. i understand the politics. i know some politicians see more advantage in shouting about problems than solving them. well, i'll tell you this, if you come back to my state to do tv interviews at the border, you better be ready to explain why you chose politics over addressing this crisis that's staring you in the face. if you can't do that, don't come back. because this isn't just a political talking point for me

or for senator sinema or for my state. it's the reality that we live with every single day. that's why, even after this setback, i won't stop working to fix this issue at our border and fix our broken immigration system. but make no mistake, mr. president. this is a shameful week for the senate. the american people are watching. they were hoping that congress could overcome political divides for once and actually deliver. that didn't happen. the senate failed them. i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, there are pivotal times in our nation's history when what we do in this chamber really matters.

how we vote may well determine whether people live or whether they die. whether men and women live under the dictates of an authoritarian regime or as free people in a democrat nation. whether terrorists continue to commit atrocities, kidnapping children, kill our troops or are defeated. mr. president, this is such a moment. this week, general carilla, the commander of u.s. central command, told me that this is the most dangerous security situation in 50 years. 50 years. the defense supplemental bill

before us would strengthen our own military. it would send a strong message to putin, that his goal of capturing free, democratic nations will not be allowed to succeed. it would reassure our closest ally in the middle east, israel, that terrorists will not achieve their goal of wiping that nation off the face of the map. it would counter chinese aggr aggression. and, mr. president, it would rebuild our own defense industrial base. mr. president, i urge our colleagues to recognize the perilous times that we are living in and vote for this

national security bill. it is critical. thank you, mr. president. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, it should never have taken us this long to move forward on this aid that so many of us are saying is necessary, but i am so glad that we are finally here making progress on this crucial package. we have more work ahead to get this passed in the senate and house, and ultimately signed into law, and we frankly do not have a minute to waste. so i hope this vote is the start of moving this package now in earnest, because this is serious. as the senior senator from maine just outlined, our allies are at war, civilians are in harm's way, dictators are watching closely to see what we are going to do about it. so, really, the stakes could not be higher. how we answer this moment will define america's future on the

global stage and could well redefine the balance of power in the world. so, i hope today is truly a breakthrough for bipartisanship, that cooler heads will prevail from here on out, and that we can move this forward in a reasonable, bipartisan way. we will be doing everthing in our power to move that forward. i stand ready to work with my vice chair, senior senator from maine, on any amendments senators want to bring forward, and as the leader just said to everyone, we will stay here until this is done. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

macroeconomic director and thank . >> various positions looking at the economy, how would you describe it? >> the labor market is quite strong unemployment has been below 4% for two years. two quarters solid growth, 4%. again pretty remarkable given how far along. this is a huge challenge and receive his countries over the last three years in the last six or seven months come down to

close to the feds target. markets are anticipating when the vegetable moved to a less restrictive date between march and the summer all and all the economy in a solid place given the challenges of the last three years. >> riesling about the growth 3.3% in the last quarter when the u.s. economy, your take on what the economy looks like considering the numbers. >> recent headline numbers have been good and the question is the underlying parts of the headlines and people are so concerned about the direction of the economy and people say the country is on track and also headline inflation is cooling off, it's a good thing unfortunately keeping up with the rising prices and real wages

are down about 4%. in recent months. headlines and job growth in the official, a lot of thought and the federal and looking at the numbers. >> we want to see real rate growth and by the inflation over time and it's out of the way for the most part economy.

and they are still going on 4% and inflation has come down to 2%. obviously people have sentiments of the last several years and it's a huge turnout the last few months and one of the biggest increases, employment is hard to slice the limit numbers to make them look bad. there's a great upscaling in the workforce and more people are working in higher wage jobs than businesses and professional services, record numbers of job growth and business in terms of innovation.

the challenges have been global, real and we are finally getting on the other side and hopefully everyday people can start to feel less stressed and more comfort. >> the biden administration taking credit for turnaround in the economy particularly now, how much credit does the administration have? >> making sure we stabilize household balance sheets and we did not have huge layoffs or cascading problems put us on a path for solid growth in comparison to the uk, canada, australia, no import rather. inflation challenges not just in european countries, a stable path getting to pandemic problems on track to one of the best growth. you look at projections for

employment pretty wild think about. >> making strong investment seem to supply chains and critical problems doing strategic petroleum reserve to help counter the global energy crisis. making sure this task. >> how much should the administration get for this? >> i do think the biden administration to take credit for high prices. and a trillion dollars more.

and prime age workers in the labor force for the most part and it's something we should celebrate and it is concerning to me that younger workers, people who should be starting up there earlier from other employment population ratio 2.1% and those are people at the beginning of the careers in the labor force. in careers potentially.

in going to the grocery store, these are powerful things with the economy and look at those things purely. already compounded by huge ships and people working from home a quarter of the workforce working from home from acute demand shifts and structural shifts in ukraine, but basket about global price in turmoil, they are starting to normalize in the housing market has hello quite a

bit the campaign started in energy prices and food prices are more stable and in line with growth rate and a lot of policy and getting a chance to come to this huge shock we went through. it's been about time in a lot of ways but hopefully things normalize a little more and there is a chance to get a more stable growth path. >> the congressional budget office and the economy, what are you looking for as you look at the state of the economy? >> the cbo is coming with the new baseline projection the next ten years tomorrow. director reviewed the numbers last week before the house budget committee and one of the headlines will be coming out and

it reduces the deficits and it's not the total picture there because we are going to see 300 billion higher deficits based on policies that will not be incorporated and increased discussion and the responsibility act and the $118 billion supplemental appropriations bill under consideration in extrapolating out over ten years could add one to one of the have trillion dollars and that's not going to

be incorporated. we also think they are going to show it will be growing faster than the economy over the tenure window so congress will have to deal with that. >> what you think about the warning signs? >> the ten year down over the past year recovered quite a bit given the situation. there's long-term fiscal challenges, the amount of revenue down compared to where it because in the healthcare commitment so we need to look at revenue, ten or 20 years.

and a little bit of what he had to say, any response to it? >> how do you assess national debt? we mostly tried very hard not to comment on fiscal policy and instruct congress on how to do their job when they have oversight over us. national debt and danger to the economy your view in the long run, the u.s. is on an unfavorable fiscal and that just means that is growing faster than the economy. over the long run it does, we are borrowing from future generations, it's time to get back to putting a priority on fiscal stain ability and sooner is better than later. >> with the idea of putting us back on track, what you think about this idea of

sustainability? >> the next ten or 20 years the actual level of revenue and spending. one thing i would say this or that appropriation bill, structural fundamental things in society and right now i think it's too low relative to what other people expect so when you look at it that way, that's what you think over the next decade or two, this or that minor thing happens in society. >> i agree with chairman powell and it's good to see the need for fiscal responsibility and in 2021 cheerleading fiscal stimulus and inflation so it is

important congress helps the federal reserve control inflation by not continuing to add deficits and we do have to think about the growth of spending and matching with level of taxation overtime because driving spending faster than the economy over time will never be able to match the so the only way to get back fiscal responsibility is to make sure it's faster than the economy. >> the economic policy a little bit about that for our audience, what is it? >> a relatively new organization, former administration official want to look at the big challenges facing the country in the next five to ten years.

we know the federal government and people are facing challenges and how to deal with the economy. the innovative solution the more prosperous and better future for families. >> your organization using the fdr presidential library and progressive policies to create more democratic. >> off in washington d.c., you're on with our guest, go ahead. >> my question is more for him, i'm pretty surprised at his testament how we are going, two years running unemployment and

4% -- excuse me, our economy is growing. we look at the stock market hitting record numbers in the last few months. i would like to ask how he feels about the trump administration extending indian relation to spending. >> it's something good and we should celebrate in the underlying details about the economy or good and the headlines, we do see strong

demand in the economy about the bureau of labor statistics says is 9 million dog openings and they are tittered unemployed. there are so many people outside of the labor force choosing to not work or even look for work and that is not good for families. they can have a more prosperous future in the color made good points about overspending during the administration and it is germany sustainability fiscal future. >> it's not sustainable and we do see a big inflection in 2025, major fiscal cliff coming and

it's mostly expiring and there will be a massive tax hike and we are going to see spending cap and the statutory pay as you go and it's better for the american people and put spending on a better path forward. >> the rates are higher which is pretty wild given everything we've been through. right now how we finally got inflation but the last thing i want to do is a major tax cut the president trump is up, i would think, industrial policy targeted toward restoring and national security across the

board. and it is shockingly bad from the campaign trail. i'm very nervous for those put in place. >> the plan to carry over the element. [laughter] >> another is commitment via tax cuts but it is tough to know what the political environment will be but anything could be they agree and it will be an important time. >> tom from south carolina line. >> yes, good morning, sir. i wanted to make a comment about

the budget bill they supposedly have up for voting and i think this ties in with what these gentlemen are discussing. i looked at -- the presiding officer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla i ask that we dispense with the roll call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. padilla:i rise today with the bittersweet task of saying goodbye to our office's departing chief counsel allison sinkavich. whether it was her time as a public defender or fighting on behalf of immigrants at the american immigration lawyers association to cutting her teeth in the senate with former senator tom udall and my

colleague, senator tim kaine, allison has been exactly the type of public servant we were looking for when i joined the senate in 2001 and was handed the gavel to the senate judiciary subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, and border safety. from the earliest days of setting up shop in the subcommittee to the tireless fights during rekolgs and -- reconciliation and vote-a-rama to helping me prepare for the nomination of supreme court judges ketanji brown jackson to the contentious markups in committee, but also overseeing the confirmation of 30 judges to the federal bench in california,

she's done a lot. she's helped guide my team of counsels on the judiciary committee while we've taken on the dark money influence of the supreme court of the united states. we worked together to protect reproductive rights. in particular, in the last few months defending against some of the most extreme and cruel republican immigration proposals. she's fought for dreamers, for farm workers and essential workers and for keeping the asylum system serving asylum seekers and immigrant communities who too often lack someone who's watching their back while in the room where decisions are being made and proposals are being negotiated. and in this most partisan of times, she's constantly reminded

all of us about the human impact of what we do and who would be most affected by the decisions that we make here in washington. through her tireless dedication and her unrivaled expertise, she's also helped guide fellow immigration counsels in other offices, serving as a moral conscience of the senate on immigration and an invaluable resource for staffers and senators alike. i want to acknowledge that alyson has spent countless hours, many late nights -- not just long days, early mornings, long days and late nights and weekends committed to the work and to the fight that doesn't always show up in the box score, may not always make headlines the next day. and through it all, she's always kept her cool.

unless the situation calls for a little bit of fire, which actually oftentimes it did. and finally, speaking not just as a senator but as a parent, i know just how hard these jobs can be. to navigate those long days with the emotions running high in the office, not just at home, and to still make sure we're picking up the kids, putting kids to bed at night, attending to those, that kid birthdays on the weekend and, yes, making sure that the dinosaur doesn't go to school. alyson has essentially managed three years of around-the-clock immigration negotiations or entire senate subcommittee and still made time to be a good mom

and to bring her kid to the hart office building on halloween for trick or treating. to her kids sienna and jude who may be too young now to appreciate this but watch this video in years to come, please note just how important your mom has been, not just helping build a future for your family, but for millions of families across the country. to her husband, adam, and to her entire family, thank you for sharing her with us. the senate is a better institution. the state of california is a better place, and our future is stronger because of the work that alyson has done. and to alyson, thank you for all that you've done, for angela and me, for our office, and for the

people of california and the nation. we're going to miss you. we know you're not going too far and you'll be back often to visit, but we're going to miss you in the office. but we thank you so very much. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla:i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the clerk: ms. baldwin.

less than ten years in an automatic conflict 24%, is unacceptable. those who propose doing nothing are taken the road to bankruptcy of medicare and find solutions for these programs for americans in the 20s, 30s and 40s. >> one hundred do? social security applications and change general funny revenue. you have to make the decisions on the try to address this. it's been a question for a while. >> is a powerful way to make these changes people goodbye into? >> social security and medicare have been around for decades in

and nearly 100 years now and the way they were created or not sustainable and we don't have enough workers and about 10000 people. how do we get better results for seniors and taxpayers? >> windy in maryland democrat line. >> good morning, thank you for taking my call. fiscal responsibility and economy i saw matthew nitpicking the data she has a right to do that but i'm almost confident if a republican president had these

numbers they would be putting billboards up talking about how wonderful and great this economy is. it would not nitpick the data. it would be cartwheeling all over the place. i don't hear them talking about spending when there is a republican spending like crazy. with can contribute look at our

tax policies and the could be more contribution. the judicial conference has been doing to help clean up the mess at the supreme court. i suppose i should start with, what is the judicial conference? the judicial conference is a body created by congress around a hundred years ago as the chief governing and policymaking body of the federal judiciary. it basically supervises the administrative side, not the adjudicative side -- the administrative side of the judicial branch of government. it is chaired by the chief justice, and its membership is composed of the chief judges of each circuit and of the court of

international trade. so it's a very distinguished group, a very -- of very senior apell yacht judges and a district judge in each circuit, typically a chief judge or a senior judge. again, it's a pretty distinguished group. the conference is responsible for, among other things, enforcing ethics rules and overseeing financial disclosures and set something other policies across the federal judiciary. which it mostly does through committees, and it has committees on issues ranging from financial disclosure to things like courtroom security. the judicial conference has a very important role enforcing judicial ethics rules. ethics rules are within its ambit of responsibility. now, bearing in mind the recent

propublica story concluding that the judicial conference has -- to quote the story -- often protected, not policed, the judiciary, i wanted to share my experience as i've conducted this investigation and how we've been able to work with the judicial conference. first let me say, as a general matter, that the judicial conference is very reticent. very reticent. getting very basic information, like which junk serves on which committee is a very uphill struggle. last year a list was sought and the conference initially denied the request. saying that the names of the members of the committee are not public, which is kind of a strange position to take when they're paid by taxpayers to do that work and all you're asking is who they are.

but thankfully later, the conference reversed course. i have requested that the judicial conference disclose information like who sits on its committees and what rules they opt by by so -- they operate by but so far i have not received a response to that. i very much hope that the members will make this information public. transparency is not a bad thing in this area. anyway, through all of its established reticence, when i have brought issues to the attention of the judicial conference through correspondence or through remarks that i deliver at the conference's twice-annual meetings in washington, which i'm inviteded to in my capacity as the chairman of the senate judiciary courts subcommittee, the conference has generally produced positive results. my requests have covered four areas and i'll give you a quick

overview of where those matters stand. first i'll talk about the disclosure rules for amicus curiae beeves, friend of the court briefs. front money groups send flotillas of amicus briefs to the supreme court. the justices and their clerks read these briefs. they often cite them in their official decisions. but it's basically judicial lobbying. and the problem is that this flotilla of amy can a briefs does not -- amicus briefs doesn't have to disclose the full source of the funding behind the briefs. so neither the justices nor the other parties nor the public gets to know who's really paying for these arguments to be presented to the supreme court. nor do we know the interconnections among the front

groups, to what extent with they a single web of front groups masquerading as individual entities? we know there was a brief filed under the fictitious name of another organization. it wasn't even a real entity that filed the brief. it was the, quote, fictitious name under virginia law of a completely different group, and that was done without disclosing the name of the actual group to the court. that means it's left to offices like mine to track these groups and then explain to the court, which we do in our briefs, how all this flotilla of briefs is coordinated. very often we see common dark money donors. very often we see the fingerprints of the right-wing billionaires' court fixer, leonard leo. time and again dark money groups pay huge sums to support

right-wing justices' confirmation onto the court and then turn around and file amicus curiae briefs to signal to those justices who they help get on the court how they should roll. so since 2019 i've asked the supreme court to strengthen its amicus disclosure rule. after much badgering, the court, to its credit, sent this matter to the judicial conference for consideration, where at the judicial conference it was in turn referred to an advisory committee. although that advisory committee hasn't yet formally proposed a rule change, things look promising. these judges who make up the judicial conference well recognize the importance of, as one judge said, knowing what she called the real power behind the throne in these flotillas of amicus briefs. it is also encouraging to hear

judges on the committee recognize that there is a broad agreement, which they said on the need for better disclosure. as always, a the devil will be in the details, but thus far the judicial conference is on the case. it has announced that it is examining the matter. another issue that i have raised with the judicial -- excuse me, with the judicial conference is what i call the scalia trick, misuse of the personal hospitality exception in the financial disclosure rules. justice scalia got this trick named for him by taking dozens of high-end hunting trips for free, and he used this rule to avoid disclosing them. he pretended that a personal invitation from a resort owner whom he had perhaps never met made it, quote, personal

hospitality protected by the rule. senator graham and i first sent a bipartisan letter to the supreme court about abuse of the personal hospitality exception back in 2021, and i'd ask unanimous consent to have that letter appended at the end of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: after that i sent several more letters asking the court to address the scalia trick, and i'd ask those -- one, two, three letters -- to also be appended at the understand of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: the good news is that at march of last year, the committee said it would clarify its regulations on personal hospitality. i'll quote that word again. clarify, because it matters later. and sure enough, when the

clarification came out, the judicial conference slammed the door hard on the scalia trick. so no more secret flights to and from hunting trips across the country on someone's else's -- someone else's dime. no more personal secret hospital at that timement talent paid for -- no more personal secret hospitality. i count these clarifications as a win, so i will put that into the win column. there is a related question still pending from that. justices thomas and aalito claimed last year this same exception let them accept their secret gifts of jet and yacht travel from right-wing billionaires without reporting it. in his most recent financial disclosure report, justice

thomas claimed that he could keep those past gifts secret because what he'll called the committee's new rules -- his description -- didn't go into effect until march 20236789 -- 2023. and there i disagree. the disclosure law was always clear. it was the judicial conference's guidance that hadn't headed off the scalia trick, likely because nobody imagined that any judge would be so bold as to have intermediaries ask resort owners to send them invitations for free travel and then call that personal hospitality. anyway, the judiciary's letter to me said that the change was a clarification, and that word choice matters a lot here because, if it was in fact a clarification, then justified thomas and all the rest of the supreme court must amend their

past filings to comport with the law. because it had always been that way. and they'd have to disclose all the freebies kept secret in previous years. so pending at the judicial conference is my request that the conference clarify whether the revised guidance constituted a clarification or a rule change a i do not have a response to that yet, but the end of the scalia trick was a considerable win. i've also contacted the conference about how omissions in justice thomas' financial disclosure report were mannedled by the q back -- by the conference back in 23011s i would ask unanimous consent that that correspondence be also ache pended at the conclusion of these remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. back then justice thomas failed to disclose $700,000 that the

far-right heritage foundation had paid his wife over several years. justice thomas' undisclosed jet and yacht travel paid for by the right-wing billionaire harlan crow also being public for the first time. so members of congress and a watchdog group sent the 2011 omissions to the judicial conference committee on financial disclosure for review. under the law, the conference is required to refer the matter to the attorney general for further investigation if there is reasonable cause -- reasonable cause to believe that the violations may have been willful. last year my court's subcommittee heard testimony from a judge who was then on the judicial conference who raised serious concerns about the conference's reasonable cause inquiry. there was actually no indication that a reasonable cause inquiry was made so in august i wrote to

the administrative office to find out more about what really happened. the administrative office acknowledged my request, but i have not yet received a response to my questions. the judicial conference is also considering justice thomas' more recent financial disclosure omissions. congressman hank johnston who is my coordinate as the top democrat on the court subcommittee on the house side and i wrote to the judicial conference several times along with other members of congress asking for review of these ethics violations and a determines whether re -- determination whether referral to the attorney general is required for this second round of yacht and jet travel from republican billionaire harlan crow, for the real estate sale from thomas to crow, and for various gifts from other ultrawealthy individuals,

including paul navelli and i would ask those be ap pended to the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: the current matter has been sent to the committee for disclosure. we don't know how the committee review is going but the judicial conference' report on its september meeting, its most recent meeting, included this interesting note on the committee's activities. the note said the committee was, and i'll quote here, updated on the status of the ongoing review of public written allegations of errors or omissions in a filer's financial disclosure reports that were referred to it since the conference' last session. so it seems like that it is this matter and it seems like that investigation is an ongoing

review. the final issue ifrp' raised with the judicial conference is my complaint against justice alito for what i thought was a pretty blatant ethics violation last summer. i addressed this complaint to chief justice roberts in his capacity both as chief justice and as chair of the judicial conference. and i'd ask unanimous consent to have that letter ap pended also at the conclusion of these rocks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: the supreme court unlike every other federal court has no procedure for receiving or investigating ethics complaints. so that's why i sent it to him wearing both of those hats. the first thing i asked chief justice to do was to change that. there should be a place where with a complaint like that i could go and file it and somebody would pay attention. i also asked that either the conference or the court conduct its own investigation into justice alito's comments in "the

wall street journal's" editorial page made in an interview with david rifkin where justice alito offered his legal opinion that, and i'm quoting, no provision in the constitution gives congress the authority to regulate the supreme court, period. well, seems to me that's a slam dunk ethics violation for a couple of reasons. first, justice alito was opining on the constitutionality of my supreme court ethics bill, which the senate judiciary committee had recently advanced. and the legitimacy of related oversight requests from the senate judiciary and finance committees. we have heard time and time again from supreme court nominees, including justice alito himself that it is improper and a disservice to the judicial process. those are justice alito's words in his nomination hearing -- for them to express opinions on a

matter that might come before the court. well, boom, this was a matter that might come before the court and indeed it was likely to come before the court and will he was opining at will in the pages of "the wall street journal" editorial page. but it gets worse. he made his comments in the context of a specific ongoing legal dispute, a dispute involving the court fixer leonard leo who had arranged for an undisclosed free jet trip and fishing excursion for justice alito and himself. when the senate judiciary committee requested information about the gift alito arranged, we got a letter back from his lawyer, david rivkin, the same person who conducted the interview who included the comment from justice alito. justice alito's comments in "the wall street journal" echoed the

exact argument that rivkin had made when he refused to give us any information, i.e., that congress has no authority to legislate on or oversee supreme court ethics. which is a weird position to take when you consider that the judicial conference which oversees supreme court ethics was created by act of congress. anyway, the cherry on top of this whole mess which i flagged also for chief justice roberts in a follow-up letter which i'd ask unanimous consent to ap pend at the conclusion of these remarks -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: -- came a month later when another billionaire also alleged to have provided justice thomas with undisclosed gifts, cited justice alito's comments as support for his argument that his billionaire didn't have to answer our questions about those gifts. i sent that letter toll chief justice roberts -- to chief

justice roberts as an addendum to my complaint, and i have not yet heard back. but it really does seem wrong that a justice of the supreme court would offer an opinion on a matter that might come before the court, that actually relates to a specific ongoing legal dispute in which the lawyer for a party in that ongoing legal dispute is doing the interviewing, and that the person that lawyer represents is a friend and an associate of the justice himself and that the result of that activity is that gifts to that very justice are kept from public view orchestrated by the client. it's a mess. the last thing that we have is a letter that senator wyden and i just sent to the acting director of the judicial conference related to the recreational

vehicle loan that justice thomas received. it appears from the finance committee's investigation that the principal on the loan was not paid, interest stopped being repaid. when you stop paying both principal and interest, that amounts to an act of forgiveness of the loan and yet the form giveness of that loan was never declared on his judicial ethics filings suggesting that it might not have been disclosed even in his tax filings which could lead to a whole second set of legal concerns. so i ask unanimous consent that the letter and the attached report be also ap pended at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: so it's not fair to expect the judicial conference to have done anything about that because it just was sent to them. but with respect to the other

things, i'd sum it up this way. the score at the judicial conference so far is one clear win on getting rid of the scalia trick, major progress on disclosing who's really behind front group amici. ongoing review of the billionaire gift program at the court as it relates to justice thomas in particular, and so far no response on the alead to "wall street journal" mischief. so like i said, it's a very reticent place and they move very slowly and it's a lot of process. i'm just going to continue to press along bringing information before the judicial conference so that they and the public can get clear answers on these issues. certainly the american people deserve transparency when it comes to fairness and gifts from interested billionaires to chief justice -- to justices, i'm sorry, justices of the supreme

court. and with that, to be continued. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: for the last three years, my republican colleagues and i have spoken out about the crisis on our southern border. of course, you can imagine coming from a border state like texas, we have 1200 miles of common border with mexico, and we are at the epicenter of it crisis. i can't tell you how many times i've come here and tried to convince my colleagues that we needed to do something in order to stop the flow of humanity coming across the border along with the drugs, the criminals,

the people on the terrorist watch list, the whole -- the whole enchilada. i explained that the record breaking number of illegal crossings was something that is not normal. this is an extraordinary and unprecedented wave of humanity coming across the border. it's making the criminal organizations that pay by the head or get paid by the head for smuggling people akcross the border from around the world and the ones who smuggle the drugs that follow on closely behind, it's making them fabulously wealthy. i've criticized the biden administration's policies day in and day out because they send a clear signal to the migrants that keep on coming. in other words, the border patrol likes to talk about the push factors for immigration. those are poverty, violence, things like that, a desire for a

better life. but they also talk about the pull factors. and the biden policies of releasing everybody who comes to the border illegally, either claiming asylum or granting them something called parole two years in the country plus a work perp mit, this is an -- permit, this is an enormous pull factor. it's like a giant magnet telling people come to america. forget illegal immigration. forget the fact that people who come here eggly have to wait in -- legally have to wait in line and have to meet certain legal requirements. i want to make clear america was built on legal immigration. legal immigration has been one of the greatest blessings our country has ever encountered. no other country in the world is as generous as the united states of america when it comes to welcoming people from other

countries. but we expect them to follow the rules which allows us to control the numbers, which allows for reasonable assimilation of those individuals because we want everybody not to be a hyphenated american but to be an american. that means assimilation into our society. and it also means keeping criminals out. it means keeping terrorists out. it means keeping the drugs out that come with illegal immigration. so the biden policies have been a flashing green light and a welcome mat for people from around the world. 300,000 a month now. unbelievable. as many as 13,000 a day.

jeh johnson, the former secretary of homeland security under barack obama said 1,000 illegal border crossings a day was a real problem. and we are seeing 13,000 under president biden. i've tried to share the stories of my visits to the border and what which i've learned and, in fact, senator cruz, my colleague from texas, and i have hosted numerous senators and asked them to come to the border so they can talk to the same people that we talk to -- the border patrol, the nongovernmental organizations, the federal government employees, community leaders -- who are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of people

showing up. it wasn't that long ago in the little town of del rio, texas, population 35,000, that 15,000 migrants from haiti showed up. can you imagine the impact on that town of 35,000 people, that 15,000 people show up at the same time? people who needed food, shelter. they couldn't provide that sort of just simple necessities of life to these migrants. they were overwhelmed. well, these migrants had actually been living in south america. they actually didn't come directly from haiti. so they didn't have any credible fear of persecution coming from south america, but the biden administration said, come on in. and they do, and they have, and they will.

i've highlighted the link between the migration crisis and the fentanyl epidemic, which killed 71,000 americans last year. this incredibly powerful synthetic opioid has taken too many young lives. in fact, it is the leading cause of death for americans between the age of 18 and 49. you know, if we were having car accidents that killed -- was the leading cause of death between -- of americans between the age of 18 and 49, we'd say, something's got to change. but we've become anesthetized to these numbers. they're so huge, it's hard for us to process those. but anything that's the leading cause of democrating for 18 --

the leading cause of death for 18 to 49 in our country you would think would be something we'd all be concerned about and want to do something about. i've raised concerns over the increasing number of potential terrorists. now, we know that -- my memory is at last count we saw last year roughly 170 people on the terrorist watch list detained at the border. and you might think, well, that's great. we got all of them. we stopped them. well, there were 1.7 million got-aways. you think there were people on the terrorist watch list among those 1.7 million got-aways? what do you think those got-aways were doing? evading law enforcement. well, they certainly must have had concerns because anybody without a criminal record who is not engaged in a crime, they're turning themselves in, either

claiming asylum or being released by the biden administration. so the people who actually are running away from law enforcement, i think common sense would think you, they're running for a reason. either carrying drugs, they have criminal records, or worse. i've also talked about the negative impact of this crisis on lawful trade and travel. you know, i saw an article this morning, madam president, that now mexico is america's largest trading partner. it used to be china. but now it's mexico. and actually nafta, the north american free trade agreement, now the suck successor is the -- the successor is the u.s., mexico, canada -- the usmca trade agreement -- legitimate trade and commerce across our border supports millions of jobs

in america. and our -- represent essential supply chains for our manufacturers, something we became acutely aware of during covid because we found out that if you're depending on taiwan, for example, to make advanced semiconductors, well, in any event of another pandemic or war or a natural disaster, we might not be able to get those and made us start to think -- what do we need to do to make our supply chains more reliable? well, part of that is the businesses have moved to mexico. but many times, because the border has been overwhelmed by migrants, they've had to shut down the bridges and the ports of entry. and recently one of the railroads that transits the u.s.-mexico border that's essential for trade and to maintain some of these supply chains was shut down completely, costing billions of dollars in

lost revenue. because the biden administration does not control the flow of migration across the border. for me, this is not a political cudgel. it's something my constituents care deep lay about. -- care deeply about. it's an issue that my state has battled every day that president biden in office. we are at ground zero. it's also sucking up taxpayer dollars, endangering children because 300,000 of them have been placed with sponsors who came -- children who came unaccompanied to the border are placed with sponsors in the interior. there have been 300,000 of them placed with those sponsors since president biden took office.

and the biden administration can't tell you what's happened to them. "the new york times" documented children in forced labor. dangerous jobs, illegally forcing children to work in these jobs. but we don't know whether these children are going to school, whether they're getting the health care they need, whether they're being fed properly, or whether they're being trafficked for sex. or recruited into gangs. and the biden administration can't tell you. that's what the status quo of the last three years has given us. well, it would be an underestimate of the century to say that our democratic friends have been less concerned about what's happening at the border. two years ago president biden

visited a semiconductor plant in arizona while the border crisis was raging. the president was asked why he wasn't visiting the border since he was so close, and he said, because i have more important things to do. more important than visiting the border and seeing for himself what damage that the biden border crisis was creating. that month, the same month that the president refused to go to the border because he had more important things to do, 250,000 migrants crossed the southern border. but the president couldn't be bothered to go to the border. the vice president, the secretary of homeland security, the white house press secretary and other administration officials have repeatedly downplayed the severity of what's happening at the border. they've lied.

they've lied to the american people, some of them under oath, like secretary mayorkas. time and time again he's said the border is secure. he does think we're so gullible as to not see what's happening on tv or online with our own eyes? the caravans of migrants making their way to the border and then being released into the interior, and the secretary says the border is secure? that's outrageous. but the majority of our senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle weren't bothered by that. during president biden's first year in office, the senior senator from montana threw cold

water on the idea that the congress should act on the border. he said, i don't know you need legislation -- this is our senior senator from montana. he said, i don't know you need legislation. i think we need -- what we need is to make sure we get the people and the technology down there to stop it. close quote. he said, we don't need legislation. well, i guess in one sense he's right because if president biden would just enforce the law, everything could change and would change. but now we're seeing a different tune. our colleagues are saying, well, because there's been disagreement on a border -- border changes in the context of the current discussion on the

emergency national security supplemental, they said, we care about the border and the people who disagreed with the product that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis don't care about the border. well, the american people are not stupid. the american people are smart. and they can see through that sort of fig leaf or that attempt to try to mislead them from what they've seen with their very eyes over the last three years. the following year after the senior senator from montana made those comments, the senior senator from ohio tried to minimize the impact of the security crisis on the border. he said, i don't hear a lot about immigration from voters except from people on the far right that always want to gain

political advantage by talking about it. well, i wonder what he's hearing from his constituents these days? you know, this is not just conservatives or republicans. how about he listens to the mayor of new york city, a self-styled sanctuary city, or the mayor of chicago or any major city that's seen migrants make their way in a their jurisdiction. there's no better example of our colleagues' intransigence when -- than the lack of action by the senate judiciary committee. i've severned on the judiciary committee -- i've served on the judiciary committee my entire time here in the senate. it is a great committee. but it has jurisdiction over

immigration matters. but the senate judiciary committee hasn't had a single mark-up on an immigration bill. -- in the last three years, not one. we've asked the chairman, the senior senator from illinois, please schedule a mark-up. we're not even saying, you know, it's my way or the highway. we're saying, bring an immigration bill to the judiciary committee. let the senators on the democratic side and the republican side offer amendments, and let's let the chips fall where they may. but the very committee in the united states senate that has jurisdiction over immigration and border matters has done nothing in the last three years -- even longer than that. now, we've talked about the issue. we've advanced a couple of

narrow bills that touch on the edges of what's happening on the border, including bills to combat human trafficking and support law enforcement. but under the children's leadership, the senate judiciary committee hasn't made a serious honest attempt to tackle this issue head-on. to be clear, it wasn't for lack of bills to vote on. just a few months into the biden presidency senator sinema, the senator from arizona, and i introduced, a long with our colleagues in the house, henry cuellar and tony gone done cal he, a bill to try to reduce the surge in immigration. the theory is, here is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that maybe, just maybe the biden administration would be willing to work with us on. maybe if things got so bad, they would look at this as a lifeline

to begin a conversation on immigration. that bill would have increased staffing levels for law enforcement and immigration courts. it would have enhanced protections for unaccompanied children. these were commonsense measures. they were modest measures that had bipartisan and bicameral support. and it would have allowed us to at least get started to meaningfully address the probable policemens we faced at that time -- problems we faced at that time, before they spun completely out of control as they have today. still, the chairman of the judiciary committee won't schedule a hearing or a mark-up on that bill. now, we're not saying this has to be the final product. we're saying let's start the conversation. we've been asking, over and over again, for the chairman to have a hearing, have a mark-up, but

he's refused. he's refused to engage at all. had that bill been signed into law at the beginning of the biden administration, it could have prevented some of the chaos we've endured over the last three years. but instead, the leadership on the democratic side has buried their heads into the sand, until the situation has become so dangerous and untenable that it has turned into a political liability for president biden. it's not lost on me that here we are, february, looking at a november election, and president biden says we got to do something about my terrible poll numbers when it comes to border insecurity. you would think if it had been serious, that he would have

engaged earlier, but this is what we call an election-year conversion. once the shift happened, the rhetoric from our democratic colleagues has changed significantly. last month, the senior senator from montana, who once said we didn't need any new laws, wrote an entire op-ed about the need to act on the border. in it he wrote, the lack of urgency from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle is, frankly, disturbing. this is from a senator who said you don't need new laws. earlier this week, the senior senator from ohio, who once said he didn't hear much about immigration from his constituents, advocated for a border deal, saying ohioans cannot wait any longer. and yesterday, the chairman of the judiciary committee, who for

three years has refused to use that committee, the committee of jurisdiction, to advance any bills to deal with the crisis, stood here on the senate floor and he blamed, you guessed it, former president donald trump for lack of progress on the border. we should wish for the numbers of illegal crossings that occurred during president trump's time in office, because it was a fraction of what we've seen under president biden. as a matter of fact, we've seen more illegal border crossings in three years under president biden than we have in 12 years during the obama administration and during the trump presidency. but that's what people do here in washington, d.c. this is a city in which the

blame game is like an olympic sport. people are vying for medals by telling the biggest whops w whoppers -- the biggest whoppers. it's completely disingenuous for senate democrats to blame anyone but themselves and president biden for the lack of progress on the border crisis. despite this shift in rhetoric we've seen, president biden's comments have once again taken the cake. earlier this week, president biden made the most bogus, delusional claim about the state of the border, somewhere he hasn't been in a long, long time. now, i remember he did come to el paso for a drive-by. but he said the only reason the border is not secure is donald trump. and his maga republican friends.

you know, at some point when you hold elected office, the most powerful office in the land, maybe on the planet, you ought to accept some responsibility. not just blame other people. but that's not what president biden did. these are the words of the current president of the united states, the man who has the power under existing law to detain and deport illegal border crossers, but has chosen not to do so, on president biden's watch u.s. customs and border protection has logged more than seven million migrant encounters, and the biden administration has released 2.3 million migrants into the country. and president biden thinks that the american people are gullible enough to believe that we're in this situation because of former president trump?

give me a break. for three years, we've within beating on the -- we've been beating on the door, begging and pleading our democratic colleagues and the white house, work with us. we're not asking for perfection. we're asking to do our jobs, and do your job. but president biden has refused to engage. our colleagues across the aisle have pretended like there's no problem. and the chairman of the judiciary committee won't even schedule a mark-up. now, because republicans voted against a single bill that was negotiated by three members, including many policies that republicans have been on record opposing for years, the american people are supposed to buy this argument? that our party is to blame for the border?

well, i for one am still ready to engage with my democratic colleagues, if they're sincere, but it's hard to believe when this rhetoric occurs in the context of upcoming elections. it really does feel like an election-year conversion. in the past few days, our colleagues have proven that this was never about solving the border crisis. it was about giving president biden a new talking point on the campaign trail, in order to cover up the disaster of his own making. this is a manmade disaster, and the man who made that disaster is president biden. i yield the floor.

mr. kaine: madam president, i rise to discuss the supplemental emergency security package that is currently being debated in this body. yesterday, the comprehensive package that included the bipartisan border provision was voted down after republican colleagues did a 180 and chose to oppose it. but there's an urgent need to move forward with a supplemental package. and so, what we are now working on in this body is a slimmed-down version that would still do a tremendous amount of good. humanitarian aid for gazans and others around the world who need it, state disaster relief funds for states that suffered flood, hurricane, drought, wildfire, support for our alleys in the indo-pacific -- our allies in the indo-pacific to promote regional stability there, support for defense aid to is israel, and support for defense

aid for ukraine. and we're in the process of trying to find how we can move forward together on that package. in my view, it's very important we do so and we finish this before we recess. it is my hope when we do, we'll be able to do it in a way that carries a significant bipartisan vote, because that will increase the likelihood that it will be acceptable to the house of representatives. i want to talk about one particular aspect of this discussion, an amendment that i am filing, together with 28 colleagues, that frankly should be a no-brainer except on a voice vote by all 100 senators. it has to do with the provision of military support for the defense of israel. the proposal that president biden made, which is now more than two months old, to the body, included a recommendation of defense support for ukraine,

for israel, for taiwan, and then also potentially other nations in the indo-pacific, some of the funding is to implement the aukus framework between the u.s., australia, and the u.k. defense aid given by the united states to other nations traditionally carries with it a congressional notification requirement. and that requirement, to kind of short-form it, works in a very system way. even when we voted to allow the defense aid to go forward, and we've appropriated money for it, when an administration of either party is ready to transfer the aid, they give a notification to congress about the transfer so that congress can review the aid and make sure it's the kind of military aid that was intended when the bill was passed. to give an example, if we're doing transfers of foreign military aid to egypt, we've done that in the past, the purpose is to enable egypt to

fight terrorism, we often want to see what the weaponry is so we can determine, wait, is that weapons useful in counterterrorism or weapons that can be misused against civilian protestors, for example? so the congressional notification requirement is an important way that congress can check to make sure that support we have voted for is actually being provided in the way that we intended. the notification requirement isn't onerous. it requires congress be given a certain, not lengthy but short period of notice to analyze to determine whether the aid is the kind we intended. if it isn't, we don't necessarily have the ability to veto it, but we can ask additional questions of the administration. this is what oversight's about. this is what congress needs to do. and this is tradition with respect to arms transfers to any nation.

in the request that was delivered to congress two months ago, there was a small provision in the request that puzzled me, and it said that the traditional congressional notification provisions under the supplemental bill would not apply to any of the defense aid to israel. i support defense aid to israel, and i've supported it during my entire career in the united states senate. but i don't support this administration or any administration bypassing congress and not providing us the notification about this aid. in the supplemental bill, the notification would still apply to aid to ukraine. it would still apply to aid to taiwan. it would still apply to aid to other nations, but not to aid delivered to israel. i reached out to the white house nearly immediately to ask why this was done, and the answer was, we'll have to get back to

you. and i have not gotten any answer, much less an acceptable answer, about why we would want to bypass congressional notification of this aid. why should congress vote to bypass ourselves? why should congress say, yes, you can bypass us and not give us notice of this aid, as is traditional? the congressional notification provision does have an exception for emergencies, in the event of emergencies the administration can say this is an emergency, we need to do it right away, and that emergency power has been used twice in the last couple months to do expedited aid to israel. i would not propose to take that power away, whether for israel, ukraine, or any other nation. but why would we want to allow congress to be bypassed in nonemergency situations? and so the amendment that i have filed with 28 colleagues, many of whom are standing on the floor with me today, would

simply say that the same standard should apply to aid to israel as applies to ukraine and the other nations. that yes, we're supporting this aid, but when an administration transfers it congress should get notice so we can ask questions, if we determine that we need to. i endeavored to get this provision in the base language of the bill that we'll hopefully be voting on soon, and i failed in that. i was told the reason is that my republican colleagues did not support it. why wouldn't republican colleagues want a democratic administration to give them notice about arms transfers so they can ask questions about it? i don't get it. but that's the reason it's not in the base bill. yet, it is my hope as we get into this debate, and i know there's significant discussion about the extent of amendments, if any, that will be offered, i would hope to be able to bring this up, and i would think it should get an overwhelming vote in this body. i have colleagues here to speak,

and i want to just say one last thing as i conclude. this is not a box-checking thing. congress, having oversight offense war, peace, and diplomacy, is critically important. we see what's happening more broadly in the middle east with the u.s. engaged now against the houthis in the red sea and yes, ma'amen, with the u.s. -- and yemen, against iranian-backed militias in iraq and syria, with escalation of hezbollah firing rockets into israel. and i think many of us worried -- are worried about the u.s. sliding, slipping, stumbling, into another war in the middle east, which in my view would be a disaster. the united states should be providing support for allies but in my view it would be a disaster for the u.s. to be engaged in another war in the middle east right now. it would be vladimir putin's dream. it would be xi jingping's dream. it would be others' dream to have us entangled in the middle east right now, but i think it

would be a horrible thing for us to do that. but if that is to be a possibility on the table, let it be debated here. let it be debated by congress in full view of the american public. let's see what the stakes and consequences and the risks and benefits would be, but let's not stumble or slide our way into an escalating set of military hostilities in the middle east with u.s. troops involved. the provision about congressional notification on arms transfers is part of this very thing, to make sure that important matters of war, peace, and diplomacy are not just done by any executive, but that there is full buy-in by congress lest we find ourselves in a war that we shouldn't be in. and so i'm going to work to see if i might be able to get this as part of the package that we're negotiating. and again i would think any member of the article 1 branch should not casually accept an

evisceration of its oversight powers over arms transfers. and with that, madam president, i would like to ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellows, hanna coffman and angelica perkins be granted floor privileges for the duration of their time with my office. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: thank you. i now yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i come to the floor this afternoon with my closing senator bennet and we'll be joined short by by others, senators blum and peters and i'm not sure who else, but we're here to register our strong support for the legislation that we just advanced with the vote earlier, the 66 positive votes for the security supplemental. this bill would give critical support for partners like ukraine, israel, and taiwan.

it would provide humanitarian aid for gaza and other populations. and equally important for us in new hampshire, it would curb the flow of fentanyl into the united states. so make no mistake, our adversaries and our allies are watching how we respond to the war in ukraine. if we allow vladimir putin to continue his unprovoked attack on ukraine, who knows where he's going to stop. what we do today is going to determine the strength of tomorrow's autocrats because when dictators like putin are not held accountable for their aggression, their threat to the world grows. and if we don't act quickly to support the ukrainians, all the battles that they've won, all the land that they've reclaimed, all the progress that they've made to win back their country could be undone. we must not deny ukraine the

resources and weapons they need to defeat putin once and for all. right now ukraine is just 20% of the ammunition and artillery it needs as russia continues its advance. and 85% of russia's missiles are now foreign made. and iran supplies 70% of its drone capabilities. for anybody who's worried about iran and i'm on that list of people who are concerned about iran's threat, not just to the middle east but to ukraine and to the united states, defeating ukraine, defeating russia in ukraine is one of the most important things we could do to stop the threat from iran. the threats we face are so interconnected, and so our response to our adversaries must also be interconnected. this bipartisan supplemental funding agreement follows through on our promise to stand

by our friends in ukraine, in israel, and in the indo-pacific. we must not abandon them now. how will we convince our allies in the future that we're going to be there to support them if we abandon ukraine? and say sorry, we can't help you now? i recognize that for a lot of americans, including some in my home state of new hampshire, many of the problems that this bill addresses seems like it's about far-off issues. but i want to be clear that what happens in ukraine doesn't stay in ukraine. putin's illegal invasion is directly targeting american consumers. his obstruction of ukraine's grain imports in the black sea threaten the global food security crisis. it's caused prices to rise around the world.

it's caused the threat of famine in parts of africa and other countries. america's support and coordination with our allies has helped to ensure that ukraine can restart those exports that are needed to feed the world. with the support of the united states and our nato allies, ukraine put russia on defense in the black sea. they've reduced russia's formidable black sea fleet by 20% over just four months. and much of the supplemental funding for the defense department to support ukraine is going to be spent in the united states. it invests over $25 billion in the american defense industrial base. that expands production lines. it strengthens the american economy. and it creates new jobs. these funds also ensure that our own military can back-fill our

own stocks and maintain u.s. readiness. perhaps the most important piece in all of this, putin's expansion of his agenda could lead to an attack on a nato ally, and that could draw the united states into direct conflict with russian forces. we don't have to talk to too many of the country's that -- of the countries that border russia, or that were under former soviet control to hear their concern about what happens if putin is not stopped in ukraine, the potential for him to go into the baltic countries, to go into poland and moldova. i have four grandsons. i don't want them sent off to fight in europe or asia years from now because article 5 is invoked from a nato country because we didn't take the action that we should have taken today to support ukraine.

no. in the months after russia's unprovoked invasion, i met with a ukrainian soldier named andriana. she said to me something i will not forget and that i've said to people in new hampshire who ask me about this war. she said give us the weapons to fight the russians so that you don't have to. well, last year i saw her again as she recovered from a traumatic injury that she sustained on the front lines and temporarily paralyzed her. and you can see the challenge. this is andriana as a soldier. and there she is in the hospital bed. but her sprirpt was not -- but her spirit was not broken. i got a chance to see her again as she was recovering. and she reminded me that ukraine has a motto that's much like new hampshire's motto. it's freedom or death.

that's not so different from new hampshire's motto live free or die. my constituents understand what it means to stand up for our freedoms. we have a lost history of doing that. and it's people like andriana who we're supporting, brave defenders of democracy in ukraine and every corner of the world who are standing up for democracy, for us in america and democracies around the world and it's critical that we support those brave ukrainians so that they can win this war, so we can say to vladimir putin and autocrats across the globe, we are not going to let you get away with taking over other countries. we are not going to let you get away with the human rights atrocities that you've committed for our whole history, the united states, has been on the side of freedom. we cannot waiver now.

we must pass this bill. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i am very pleased to be here this afternoon with the senator from new hampshire and the senator from maryland to talk about our commitments in europe, our commitments to ukraine. i want to thank them for their leadership on the arms services committee and the foreign relations committee here in the senate. they are a team that i wouldn't want to tangle with. and i'm glad they're out here on

the floor today as allies in support of this incredibly important mission. mr. president, i'm also very glad that after four months of an endless, almost seemed endless and painful set of negotiations, we find ourselves in a place where we've actually had a sign of bipartisan cooperation to fulfill our obligations at this really, really critical moment just in the nick of time. and i want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for that strong vote. and i hope as we go forward in the coming hours, that that's a bill we'll actually build on. because there are some people who are saying this will never pass the house of representatives. we never will unless we can figure out how to pass it here. and we can do it in a bipartisan way, and we're off to that start. mr. president, when russia invaded ukraine just two years

ago, the world expected kyiv would fall in 72 hours. that putin would depose ukraine's government and that he would install a puppet government in that capital city. but the ukrainian people astonished the world. practically bare handed the ukrainians fought off putin's army saving kyiv and their -- and its democratic government. and since then, with our help they have liberated over half of the territory that putin stole from them. they have won battle after battle after battle that nobody ever thought they could win. as the senator from new hampshire said, they basically pushed putin out of the black sea opening up the seaways to

get wleet out to the rest of the -- wheat out to the rest of the world and africa. they don't even have a navy, mr. president, the ukrainians. they are a nation -- i've been talking about this in colorado. it's like it is an entire nation of macgyvers and every day they're figuring out some new way to defeat vladimir putin or to push him out of the black sea. just last week ukraine salving another one of putin's warships. and since the war began, mr. president, putin has killed 70,000 ukrainian troops and nearly a hundred thousand ukrainian civilians. our military support, our intelligence support has been critical, but it is really important to remember that it is only represented less than .4% of our economy. of our gdp.

and that we're spending less as a percentage of our economy than many of our european allies. i know it's fashionable around here for some people to say that the folks in europe aren't doing their part, but many of them are actually doing more. as a group they're doing more than we've done. we have -- in fairness to us, we've provided more military aid than they have, and that's been really important. but they put in more humanitarian aid. and combined we've stood up for ukraine and stood up for each other. but because of the delay that we've had here on capitol hill, europe has already committed an additional $55 billion to ukraine just a week ago or ten days ago, i think. waiting for us to lead. they said we're out of time. ukraine's out of bullets. and so we're going to do what we need to do is what our

colleagues in europe said. but listen, it's not just countries that are in putin's backyard that are doing this. it's not just countries who think well, if they can do it to ukraine, they might do it to us. our coalition includes australia, includes japan, includes south korea. in fact, japan just pledged another $4.5 billion for ukraine. that is a lot of money for a country that's as far from kyiv as japan is. from ukraine. but our partners know what the stakes are from democracy in this battle p they know that supporting ukraine means standing with people that are willing to fate -- fight to do whatever it takes to live in a free country like ours. but, as i said, ukraine is running out of bullets. and putin may be having a tough time on the ukrainian

battlefield, to put it mildly, compared to what anybody would have reasonably expected, but the battlefield he's counting on winning on is the battlefield here on capitol hill. he knows how divided we are. he knows that this capitol is filled with self-defeating division. and the question he's asking, and the question we need to ask ourselves, is whether we're going to allow that division to stand in the way of our support for ukraine. he can read our newspapers. he knows how to troll us on social media. and just in the four months that we've been having this debate -- by the way, i think we should have passed this in october. just in the four months we've been debating this and that

we've consumed debating this aid, putin has taken back territory that the ukrainians spilled blood to gain, and his soldiers have killed or injured over 1,500 ukrainian civilians. russia is killing can or badly wounding over 30,000 ukrainians every month. as we gather here today, putin -- right now, today, putin is amassing 30,000 soldiers, 650 armored vehicles to conquer yet another ukrainian city. and ukrainian troops are digging in, as they have all winter long, to fight back. but they're outgunned. they're outmanned. they've got to ration their ammunition because they don't know whether the bullets are coming again. they don't know whether they're going to get the support they need. and putin -- putin thinks he can

beat ukraine, not because he thinks the ukrainians are weak; because he thinks we're weak. he thinks we're weak. and it's not just putin who thinks that american democracy can't meet the challenge; his autocratic allies across the world believe the same thing, and it's important, as the senator from new hampshire was saying, senator shaheen, to see how interconnected these things are. russia's illegal invation of ukraine connects directly to iran's aggression across the middle east, to china's saber rattling against taiwan and the philippines, and north korea's missile launches. putin is killing ukrainians today with iranian and north korean missiles in this very war, and china supplies critical

components to moscow to regenerate russia's defense production, and it helps keep the kremlin able to avoid or escape our sanctions. and for its part, hamas used weapons from china, iran, north korea, and russia to murder 1,200 people in israel on october 7. and as everybody in this chamber knows from what's going on just this week, iran is backing militants in iraq and syria, who just killed u.s. soldiers in jordan. iran is bankrolling the houthis, whose attacks in the red sea have caused shipping prices to jump, inflicting higher costs on americans. and of course china is funding billions of dollars to the dictator in north korea, who supplies weapons to fight this

very war against the ukrainian people. the threats these powers pose are connected and overlapping. from putin to xi, these dictators have made it clear, and they've said it at the negotiating table over and over again in the last decade that they believe that democracy is ex-hausting and that totalitarianism is the best that hum humanity can expect. this congress's failure to defend ukraine, if it comes to that, will send a powerful signal to them that they are right and that democracy is in decline, at least in the united states of america. and that despite all of this, despite all of these stakes, i've heard people in both this chamber and in the house of representatives question whether this fight really matters to the american people.

failing to support ukraine means showing the world that the united states, long the leader of the free world, is no longer capable of standing up for the proposed world war ii order, our values and for our partners. we can't accept the implications of that for our future or for our children's future. and, fortunately, we have an amazing example in front of us right now in the ukrainian people because their courages, their ingenuity, their stamina have reminded us that humans will actually die for democracy. they will fight authoritarianism until it is destroyed, until it is dismantled, and they have fought and inspired people all over the world to support them in their fight, not to send soldiers or to sacrifice our

lives, but to send arms and to send intelligence. are we willing to say, after all of that over the past two years, are we willing to say that we have no stake in this outcome, that we are indifferent to putin's aggression or the meaning to the free world, if he is successful in his illegal and criminal invasion of a free country in europe? if we fail to fund ukraine, it's not going to end this war. that's an invitation for putin to continue this war. and he will impose his will on the ukrainian people and dictators everywhere will see that they have a green light, that they can inhabit a world where might makes right, where people don't have the benefit of

freedom or the rule of law but get up every day just to fight off the kind of may hem that the ukrainian people are fighting today. that world would be a lot more dangerous than the one we're in today. and we do not want to embolden putin or his allies to believe that they can do to other places what they did to ukraine, as the senator from new hampshire said. putin could march into nato, like his allies have said -- estonia, lat -- will the -- latvia, lithuania -- and then we're involved and our people are involved s and if he actually won this war, putin could use his leverage over ukrainian wheat appeared ukrainian energy to dictate terms toss people all over this

world who rely on those important commodities. and met me tell you something -- and let me tell you something else. this is not some totally hypothetical parade of horribles. we look at this every day on the intelligence committee. xi jinping is watching this. and he's considering what this means for what he intends to do with taiwan, whether he wants to plunge the indo-pacific into war, shocking the global economy and drawing american soldiers into that theater. letting putin win, giving putin the green light is going to take us down this road. it's as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow. and that's why, let me close because i know the senator from maryland is here. let me close by saying this -- and i want to say this especially to the people in this chamber who have sort of taken a

more isolationist tack than the one we're taking today, who may not believe that the united states has the same essential role to play that i believe the united states has, partly because of my family's own experience and my mother having been born in warsaw, poland, in 1938 and what that maintains to me about american leadership. but let me say, if you are somebody that believes that the united states should be less entangled abroad and more focused at home, you ought to ask them if you can vote for ukraine twice -- twice. because the world is going to be less safe for the american people if we fail to do this. i know that most -- many of my senate republican colleagues understand the historic nature

of this moment, and democrats as well. and believe that we should extend our support for ukraine along with our partners, including israel and taiwan. and they're right. and let me say, no friend of israel or taiwan should turn away from ukraine. ukraine's battle is their battle. ukraine's fight is their fight. and i hope our colleagues in the house will come toll appreciate that as well -- will come to appreciate that as well and they will have a big bipartisan vote here and a big bipartisan vote in the house, and we will recommit each other maybe to overcoming the dysfunction that we've had, surprise ourselves on the up side for once around here, and send an important signal to the rest of the world. i i'll finish with this -- in his first meeting with us, mr. president -- and i know my colleagues remember this. this was still covid when this was happening.

president zelenskyy was on the computer, just like any zoom call that any of us had had during covid, and he said to us, we are fighting to live our lives the way you live your lives. the last time he spoke to us, you know, it was in person this time he came here. he met in the old senate chamber. the last time he spoke to us, he said, we need your help. we need your bullets. we need your support. but if you fail to support us, we will never stop fighting. because, as senator shaheen said, our entire enterprise is based on the idea that we're going to fight for freedom. we're never going to stop fighting. he did say we'd lose.

we can't beat putin without your help. but we will never stop fighting for freedom. i thought that was a very honest thing for him to say. i thought that was -- i thought he could have said easily, we'll give up. instead, what he said was, you may decide not to stand for freedom, but even if you fail us, we won't give up. we can't -- we can't fail ukraine. this is no time for congress to play politics with people's lives, no matter where they live, they live in denver or in kyiv or in the middle east or new hampshire or maryland or connecticut or taipei. we won't get a second chance, mr. president. this is a test of america's resolve, and this is a call for

american leadership, and we cannot fail. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the distinguished senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank senator bennet for these comments. senator should happy, thank you for organizing -- senator shaheen, thank you for organizing this. i must tell you, it's been a long road. there were times when i think we thought we would not be able to get this aid package to the floor of the united states senate. and the senator from colorado was one of the strongest voices that we had to make sure we never gave up. we were disappointed many, many times over many months. and senator shaheen has been in the forefront serving both on the armed services and senate foreign relations to make sure, again, that we kept the momentum moving forward to get this done.

even last night when we thought that there was an impediment that we could not overcome, we looked at the votes on the board and said, it doesn't look like we're going to get there h we said, senator shaheen said, senator bennet said, who are blumenthal said, we can't give up. i had the honor of chairing the senate foreign relations committee. there is no more important foreign policy priority than getting this bill passed and signed by the president. it is our number-one priority for our national security. you've heard my colleagues talk about the fact that this is not about russia versus ukraine. that's what this war immediately is about. but it's about the free world democracy versus autocracy. and, yes, two years ago how many

of us thought that president zelenskyy would still be alive, let alone president of a viable country, ukraine? they will, in fighting spirit of the ukranian people, is to be admired. their leadership has been incredible. and they are the ones that have been able to hold back the big russian army. but they couldn't do it without our support. yes, they'll still fight, but they can't hold back that type of force unless they have the ammunition and the weapons and the support that they need in order to carry on this battle. and when i said it's not a fight between russia and ukraine, we have the, a coalition of the democratic powers of the world all working to help ukraine. europe and throughout the global community.

and i think sometimes it's lost because our constituents think this is just the united states domg ukraine's aid -- coming to ukraine's aid. europe collectively provides more help than we do as a nation. we are the largest single contributor. they can't do it without our expertise, our help, and our resources and our equipment. we know that. but look who's on the other side. who is supporting russia? it's iran, it's north korea, and, yes, it's the people's republic of china. they are the ones supporting russia's efforts. yes, this supplemental is interconnected. what's happening in the middle east, what's happening in the carolina seas, what -- in the china seas, what's happening in taiwan all related to whether democracies can prevail. we have so much at stake. yesterday i was so disappointed because of the vote that took

place. today i see some light here. but let's take advantage of this. we have momentum. let make sure we get this bill passed. and why is it so important? there is no question in any of our minds that russia will not stop its military operations at ukraine's border. russian troops are already in moldova and georgia because of earlier incursions similar to what happened with crimea, ukraine. does any of us think that they are not going to try to take over those countries as they did ukraine? and then take a look at the baltic countries, latvia, lithuania, estonia. it used to be part of russia. at least they claimed. we never recognized that. they are now nato allies and great nato allies. mr. putin wants to take over

those countries. poland, he wants to take over poland, the countries that border. and he doesn't stop there. this really is an alignment of the world. and it's so critically important that the united states is the leader in this effort on behalf of democracy. it's not only the money that's important. it's not only the ammunition and the munitions that are important. it's u.s. leadership, because it's a clear signal that we are going to triumph, that ukraine will triumph and democracy will triumph. we really need to understand the importance of this action. mr. president, i've been honored to be a member of this body now for 18 years. this is my 19th year in the united states senate. this is perhaps the most important bill i will cast, vote i will cast as a united states senator. that's just how important this issue is for us to get done.

and i'm proud of many of the issues that i've up, that we've taken up during my years in the united states senate. that's how important it is for us to get this done. and, yes, we need to make sure that we stop the iranian proxies in the middle east, because they are all part of this. yes, we could be drawn into a conflict because of the, what's happening on the red sea or what hezbollah is doing on israel's northern border or iran's activities and proxies in iraq. we know that. got to act with d urgency. in ukraine, cases they don't have enough ammunition. they're rationing ammunition today. there are ukranian villages as we speak on the floor of the united states senate that are at risk of being taken over by

russia forces because they don't have the munitions they need and the support they need, including for the united states of america. this has been a great investment. how many of us thought that the moneys that we invested over the last two years would lead to blocking the russian military? but it's done that. and, yes, it's real that the alternative to money could be u.s. military. our sons and daughters over fighting in europe once again. look at history. look at what happened in the 1930's. look what led up to world war ii. you see some dangerous comparisons that are taking place. we need to be on the right side of history, and the right side of history is to be make sure the supplemental is passed with dispatch. there are so many other issues in here that are critically

important. we need to make sure that humanitarian assistance is there, and we need to make sure that at the end of the day russia is held accountable for what they have done -- war crimes. they've committed genocide. they tried to wipe the ukranian culture off the face of the earth. sound familiar? world war ii. they have to be held accountable. they have to be held accountable financially for the damage they've caused to ukraine. i am proud of the bill we were able to pass in the senate foreign relations committee known as the repo bill. i congratulate senator whitehouse and senator risch for their leadership on that. it also includes the global center. it also includes atrocities prevention. we need to make sure that we have a comprehensive way to make sure russia is held accountable for what they have done. but it starts with supporting ukraine to defend itself and to

win this war of aggression that russia started and make it clear that we're there in the middle east. there is no future for security of israel or the palestinians with hamas in control. they have to be eeliminated. the proxies in iran have to be neutralized. and, yes, in the indo-pacific, we must stand with our ally taiwan so there is no military action taken by the people's republic of china against taiwan. all that's in this bill, and that's why this bill is so critically important that we get to the finish line. so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues, we had a good vote a little while ago. we're not at the finish line in the united states senate. the next step is let's be reasonable and find a reasonable path forward to get this bill done. i hope within the next day or

two. send it over to the house of representatives and hope that our colleagues in the house will follow the lead of the united states senate, democrats and republicans working together to get a bill done for our national security. and then, mr. president, i hope we can get back to border security because we know our immigration system needs that and we need border security. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i'm grateful to my colleague, senator shaheen of new hampshire, as well as senator bennet of colorado, senator cardin of maryland. and i will be followed by senator peters of michigan. we are among a group, but we are hardly the only ones who feel so

passionately about this issue. for anyone who has visited ukraine -- and i've been there four times over the last couple of years -- seeing and hearing are so powerfully inspiring, so deeply moving. i will never forget my first visit after the invasion when i went to president zelenskyy's office, really a bunker, and spoke to him about what it was like to have the russians literally ten minutes away by car from his door. and then i went to buca, where i saw the remains of russian tanks, where they were stopped

by ukrainians using hand-held missiles in the snow against these huge weapons of war. by simply by dint of their courage and in -- spirit they stopped the russians. president zelenskyy told me then and he's told me since, we will fight with pitchfork if we need to. we don't need your soldiers. we need your help. we need the military equipment that you can provide. he told us they needed more javelins, and we provided them later than we should have. he said we need hi mar artillery. he said we need a tacum and we

provided them later than we should have. bradley and striker vehicles. again, we provided them later than we should have. and of course abrams tanks and f-16's. they are there or on the way. later, but we did the right thing. winston churchill once said america always does the right thing, after it tries everything else. an exaggeration, but there is a kernel of truth in winston churchill's comment, which is we are often late in doing the right thing. and now we have no more margin of error in ukraine. deliveries of weapons are one-third of what they were only

seven months ago. and the failure to appropriate funds here means that that supply of arms will be at 10% of what it was. i've met those veterans, ukranian soldiers who have fought on the front, who described to me what it means to be fighting against the entrenched russian forces. land mines, their artillery pouring on to the ukranian troops. shells and drones that keep them at constant risk and force them back when they have sought to make advances. and they have made advances, and they have been successful on the front both in the east and in the south. it has been yard by yard, mile

by mile, moving forward, sometimes pushed back. and the russians lay waste to whole cities. i've also visited buca and irpin. we know what happened in mariupol. the killing in buca was an atrocity that the world should never forget. men and women and children, hands tied behind their backs, shot in the head and then buried in mass graves that i saw. talking to people who live in buca whose memories will be seared forever, and their children traumatized by these russian atrocities.

vladimir putin is a war criminal. there is a warrant for his arrest rightly from the international court of criminal justice. there should be warrants for arrest for all of the russian officials who have participated in taking children from ukraine by the thousands, tens of thousands, and then indoctrinating them. reeducating them in russia, or belarus. russia has launched an unprovoked criminal, murderous attack on a nation that constitutes genocide. those people in bucha and in many other places around ukraine were killed for one reason alone, they are ukrainian. the world's outrage is

well-founded. many of my colleagues have expressed that same outrage. senators are good at summoning outrage, in words that are far more eloquent than mine. but we will be judged not by our words but by our action. we will be rightly judged by history as to what we do or what we fail to do here. and we have missed oortunities in ukraine before. the senator from new hampshire will recall well our efforts after the first invasion, when russia seized a huge part of ukraine, and a bipartisan effort was made in the armed service committee to provide more lethal aid to ukraine, so that it could use it before this second invasion, to push back the

russians and show that we could deter them. after my first visit to ukraine, which was a little bit before the second invasion, i came back and i said to anyone who would listen, including the president of the united states, the only way to deter putin is with force, delivery of what ukraine needs to defend itself. vladimir putin is a thug. he understands only force. and unfortunately, we missed that opportunity. the second invasion occurred two years ago, and the effects in ukraine are visible again to anyone who would visit. bombed-out buildings, transformers for power devoid --

destroyed, ukraine's delivery of grain to a world that needs more food blocked. these effects are not abstract, and they are not limited to ukraine. there are a lot of people in the united states who watch what they see on tv, and the images are horrifying. and their reaction is, of course, thank goodness it isn't here, and thank goodness it doesn't affect us. well, the fact of the matter is it affects americans. it affects all of our allies. it affects the supply of energy and the cost of it and the effect on the world economy. it affects the availability of grain. ukraine is the breadbasket of many parts of the world. and the cost of food. it affects the diplomat relations of nations.

and ultimately, it will affect our men and women in uniform. right now, president zelenskyy can fight and win without men and women from america on the ground. but if he keeps going, and he will keep going, if he wins, he's told it to us, we have only to listen to him, it will be poland or romania or mole doefsha or -- moldova or finland or sweden. is does anyone have any doubt why finland and sweden want to be part of nato, after years of neutrality? it is simply fear of russia and vladim vladimir putin's savage, indom national appetite -- indomitable appetite for more territory, and his long-range vision for restoring the russian empire and

the old soviet union. so, anybody who thinks that what happens in ukraine has no effect on america, you are in denial. anyone who argues that we should be repairing our roads or building more schools or providing more food and heat for people who need it in america, you are right, but not at the expense of our national security. we can do both. we have done both. and throughout american history there have been people who have said let's pull back, let's care only what happens within our sh shores. and they've been proved wrong by history because of their denial, and ultimately america has done

the right thing, as it did in world war ii, as it has done again and again and again by defending freedom and democracy. this imperative is a moral obligation, it is a political nece necessity, but it is also a national security imperative. the arms that we deliver to ukraine -- delivered to ukraine already have helped degrade the russian military by one half. talk to our military leaders about the effect on russia's military of ukraine's defense. it has degraded the russian armed forces by one-half, and we've invested less than 5% of

our military budget without a single american casualty, not a single american in uniform killed or wounded. that is an investment that we need to continue, because the alternative is for us to be putting our troops on the ground there to defend, under our nato obligation, those countries that will be invaded next, whether it's poland, romania, moldova or finland and sweden. let me say finally, i was very proud yesterday to vote for a supplemental that served our national security. our national security in ukraine, our national security interests in israel. it is tee fending itself -- it is defending itself against a terrorist organization that wants to eradicate israel and

annihilate the jewish people, and it is doing so at our underinging, with -- at our urging with pressure from the united states, with reduced civilian casualties, more humanitarian aid, and maybe most important working toward a pause to bring home the hostages. some are american. and our security interests in taiwan, in the southeast, where again an aggressor threatens the rule of law and the order that we've established. and of course, national security at the border. we need to control the border. our immigration system is broken. we need comprehensive immigration reform, but we need steps now to reform a completely shredded system at the border. but this cause of ukraine should

bring us together, and has brought us together. when we first started, ten years ago in the armed services committee, one of our leaders was john mccain. i've traveled to ukraine with senator graham. we have been part of a bipartisan movement. it should bring us together as republicans and democrats. there should be no red or blue part of it. and i know, let me just say finally, that the people of america at heart are with us. i know that the ukrainian community in connecticut has stood steadfast, has been such an example. when i've told president zelenskyy about the strong support from our ukrainian community, his eyes have lighted up, and that is true throughout

america. ukrainians have remained steadfast in their loyalty to the freedom of their country. and they have been inspired, as have we. vladimir putin is counting on us to fail. he believes democracies are dec decrepit and corrupt. he thinks that an autocratic dictatorship is superior, that everyday people don't know how to govern themselves, that he can continue to divide us by misinformation and d disinformation. he's wrong. let's prove him wrong. let's do it without delay. let do the right thing without doing everything else first. i thank my colleagues, and i'm

proud to stand with them today to urge that both chambers pass this supplemental as quickly as possible. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. peters: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, yesterday the senate considered legislation that would have provided critical aid to our allies and provide resources and authorities to secure our northern and southern borders. the legislation was forged by good faith, bipartisan negotiations. but instead of coming together to advance a vital border security bill, my republican colleagues blocked it, blocked it from receiving any further debate and potential modification. my republican colleagues voted against advancing legislation that would make meaningful changes at our border for the first time in decades.

it would have provided the personnel, the resources and authorities needed to secure our borders, address regional migration trends, and support lawful trade and travel that drives our economy. i serve as chairman of the homeland security and government affairs committee, and i've worked to advance several bipartisan bills to secure our borders. the legislation we had yesterday was rejected by my republican coll colleagues, which would have addressed some of the most pressing challenges at the southern border and actually take them on immediately. the bill would have allowed us to hire more cbp officers and agents, the men and women on the ground protecting our national security and managing our border crossings. it would have provided resources to install more advanced screening technology, tools that help identify illegal cargo and stop dangerous drugs like fentanyl from reaching our

communities. terre would have helped the federal -- it would have helped the federal government go after criminal organizations that traffic harmful drugs across the border. the bill also would streamline the process for asylum seekers arriving at the southern border, while assuring individuals who do not qualify are quickly removed. it would have helped to ensure that unaccompanied children who arrive at the border, some of the most vulnerable people in our immigration system, have ac session to counsel. and it would have established a p pathway to permanent residence for afghan allies who risked their lives in the defense of our national security. now, the bill wasn't perfect. it was not meant to be a comprehensive immigration reform. but it was a bipartisan effort to address the challenges that we are now seeing at the southern border. that's why the national border patrol council, which represents fr frontline border security

professionals, fully supported it, and they urged us to take action. they 23450eded these tools. -- they needed these tools. they were crying out, please give us these tools at the border. the conservative editorial board of "the wall street journal" put it simply in the headline, it was, quote, a border security bill worth passing. republicans in congress initially demanded border security measures to be part of this bill, but in the minute that we actually had a strong, bipartisan security bill on the floor, they decided to walk away. maybe it's because they have been listening to former president trump, who publicly fought to sink this bipartisan effort. he doesn't care about making our border more secure or supporting our cbpation on the -- cbp agents on the front line or keeping fentanyl out of our communities. he only cares about his chances in november. he thinks that if we solve this problem it's going to hurt his

election. clearly, republicans in congress agreed, and they have made it abundantly clear they would rather campaign on this issue than actually pass legislation to fix it. they would rather play politics and see themselves on tv and on their favorite network talking about it, rather than rolling up their sleeves and actually solving the problem. my colleagues who worked on this comprehensive bill set a much needed example of bipartisanship. i'm proud to work alongside senator murphy in our caucus, and i'm grateful to serve as chairman of the homeland security and government affairs committee and work closely with both senators sinema and lankford. these are three committed lawmakers, people who did actually roll up their sleeves and actually work to get things done in a peaningful way. and i certainly appreciate their hard work in negotiating this

comprehensive bill. we are all aware of the challenges we face at the southern border, and it's a shame that a vast majority of my republican colleagues have decided not to act. we can still take a critical step to help our allies, howeverment, who are now -- however, who are now facing existential challenges. our international partners are fighting for democracy. ukraine is standing up to a reckless dictator and protecting its people from his violent campaign. in october israel weathered the deadliest terrorist attacks in its history. taiwan continues to face aggression from the chinese government. in order to help preserve democracy and stability on the global stage, the united states must stand at their side. we can send help to our international partners when they need it the most. it's been almost two years since

putin initiated his unprovoked war aggression against ukraine. in response, the ukrainian people have shown incredible bravery and resolve. they've stood up in the face of this dictator to defend their sovereignty and their democracy a democracy. they are fighting a courageous battle not only to protect their own country but to show the world the importance of protecting liberty against an author authoritarian regime. for months ukraine has needed the united states to help in this fight and provide more military assistance as they push back on russian forces. and now we have an opportunity to move a bill forward that would send this critical aid to our ally. it will help the ukrainian army get the weapons, the intelligence, and the training resources that they need to win this war. it will also include significant humanitarian aid, money that will go directly to those most

immediately affected by this conflict. my home state of michigan is home to a vibrant ukrainian american community. every day i hear from constituents who are urging the united states to act and act soon. not just to help ukraine but to defend democratic values all across the globe. if we fail to pass this legislation, it'll play right into putin's hands. the ukrainian victories will be nullified, their resolve will have been wasted and their independent democracy will be in grave danger. we cannot and must not let that happen a i commend president zelenskyy and the ukrainian people. i implore my colleagues to pass the bill before us and send the aid that they so desperately need. we also now have the ability to send urgently needed resources to israel in their fight against

hamas and provide humanitarian aid to civilians in gaza who have been caught in the crossfire of this conflict. israelis are reeling from horrific attacks on october 7, four months ago. many families are still praying for the safe return of family members being held hostage by hamas. others are mourning their loved ones who were killed in the initial attack, and there is there is no question that the country will never, ever be the same. i stand with israel and all those in the region seeking peace and security by passing this legislation, we can support both our key ally in the region and provide relief for innocent civilians in gaza who have shouldered the burdens of this war. as we send this urgently needed support, i want to reiterate my calls for both parties to minimize civilian casualties and

work towards a lasting peace. we had a chance to address all of these challenges at once yesterday. but, unfortunately, a significant bipartisan agreement failed p congressional republicans decided they do not want to secure our border. but today we can send help to our allies, and we can still help protect democracy across the world. the stakes are too high not to act. i urge my colleagues to vote for the bill before us now and join me in supporting this vital assistance. mr. graham: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. mr. graham: thank you it mr. president. is it my turn?

i'm not jumping ahead of anybody, am i? the presiding officer: the senator is recognize. mr. graham: thank you very much. sort of a little overview of where we're at here. everything my colleagues on the democratic side said about helping ukraine makes perfect sense to me. i think we need to help ukraine. i thought it was a israelily bad idea to get out -- i thought it was a really bad idea to get out of iraq in 23011s i issued a statement about our withdrawal in 2011. i said i respectfully disagree with president bush. i feel all we have worked for, sockifiesed for is very much in jeopardy by today's announcementment i especially i am wrong and the president is right. i fear this will set in motion events that will come back to haunt our country. the isis was not the jayvee team. so we got out of afghanistan. president biden chose to do that. i've got a statement here i'll

put in the record. i was very clear that if we get out of afghanistan, pull out the troops that there will be a reemergence of al qaeda and isis and that there will be great major upheaval as this decision by president biden is a disaster in the making. so a lot of republicans agree with those two things. to my republican colleagues, if we pull the plug on ukraine, it's going to be worse than afghanistan. the idea of pulling the plug on ukraine -- and it will not affect our national security is a fantasy. it was clear to me that getting out of iraq in 23011 was too soon and led to the rise of radical islamic terrorists. they literally took over the country. killed meme in paris and he shallry where else. now we're back in iraq. should never have gotten out in the first place. the bottom line about

afghanistan -- i know it was a long slog and people wanted out, but the taliban took over within weeks, and the taliban being in charge of afghanistan led to other people in the world thinking, hey, america is weak. now is the time to pounce. so in 2021, we withdraw from afghanistan. the taliban take over. 2022, russia invades ukraine. that's been a complete disaster. 2023, hamas attacks israel, killing more jewish people than at any time since the holocaust. 2024, iranian proxies are killing american soldiers and they're running wild throughout the world. other than that, everything is pretty good. now, having said all of that, my point is, i want to help ukraine, israel and taiwan. i really do. i think it is in our national security interest to do all the above. but i've also said from, like,

day one i want to help other countries, but we've got to help our country first. and what do i mean by that? i mean that the border is not just broken, it is a complete nightmare. it is a national security disaster in the making. seven million people come across the border illegally. a lot of people on the terrorist watch list. so it has been a nightmare. and we've tried to sit down in a bipartisan way. senator murphy, sinema, lankford, and others set down to come up with a bipartisan proposal that i thought did a pretty good job in many ways. however, having said that, i didn't think it was enough. i was hoping to be able to build on what they did, but here's where we're at. the house declared it

insufficient. the republican -- ms. sinema: would the senator yield to a question? mr. graham: yes. ms. sinema: you mentioned that you thought the bill we drafted and introduced yesterday was a good start but not enough. mr. graham: yes. ms. sinema: i am wondering if you would remind us how you voted yesterday on the motion to proceed to the bill that had the border package that we worked on together. mr. graham: i voted no because i didn't see a process in place or willingness by my democratic colleagues to allow me to express i think it could be better. seeing the gang of 8 -- you weren't here but senator mccain was. senator bennet has been involved in all of this stuff in 2013. and weigh let the bill come to the floor, people amend it and we spent days and weeks. that's why i voted no. no, no, i reclaim -- the presiding officer: would you address your comments to me. mr. graham: here is what i'm

saying. this has been a half-ass effort to deal with border security. ms. sinema: will you yield for a question? mr. graham: no, i'm speaking. you can speak later. to the people in irrelevant house, we have not tried hard to secure the border. we took a well-meaning product. people worked hard. i applaud you and others for coming out with a product that i thought had a lot of good things in it but not enough for me. so now i can't even vote. we're going to -- we closed out the border debate and you may give me a few amendments on ukraine about the border. that's not the way it works around here. so -- ms. sinema: will the senator yield to a question? mr. graham: no. to my house colleagues, you can do better than this. don't send us back h.r. 2. it's not going anywhere. you know, you couldn't get all republicans for h.r. 2. we lost one republican and no democrat. this side, we've done enough on the border is b.s. i am not done. i am not going to help ukraine

until we first do a better job helping ourselves. i've given people involved credit for working hard to get a product. but the system in place now, take it or leave it -- the reason i voted no is i didn't see any willingness by anybody to allow an amendment process where we could deal with the border issue. i'm getting an amendment on the ukraine bill about -- ms. sinema: will the senator yield for a question? mr. graham: no. that's assbackwards. we don't do it that way. we had a robust amendment process and let me tell you. i think there's things we could do to make it better. the 5,000-a-day encounter that kicks in in an emergency authority to shut down the border, here's what the border council said. 5,000 encounters a day is a catastrophe. a thousand encounters a day it would be a substantial improvement. it is truly an emergency.

i was hoping we could talk about that. now, we may get a vote on that on the ukraine bill. we have closed out a debate on the border. ms. sinema: will the senator yield to a question? mr. graham: yes. ms. sinema: thank you. i know you've been here quit a bit longer than me. but it is my understanding that in order to get the portion of a bill where we offer amendments on the bill, we first pass the motion to proceed. and it is also my understanding that it was offered by leadership and the three sponsors of the border bill, which your team gratefully helped us create, that we would have an open amendment process. so could you help me understand why you voted against the motion to proceed before we were able to offer any amendments? including your amendments. mr. graham: yes. i think the fix is in. i think people on our side and your side wanted to do the border thing as quick as they could so we could get to ukraine. and i don't trust the system here.

-- to be able to allow us to have the debate that we had for the gang of eight bill. that's why i voted no, because i didn't see any willingness in my -- and i might be proved to be correct because now the democratic leadership has joined with the republican leadership to shout down the border bill, through a few amendments on the ukraine bill and saying, aren't you happy now? no, i am not happy. i am not happy. i admit it that i wanted to secure the border before i helped ukraine. everything you say about ukraine is right. i was not kidding to our colleagues in the house. we've done a half-ass job here trying to secure the border. we shut this thing down, unlike any other time i've been involved in immigration. i've taken a lot of hard votes. you've taken a lot of -- tough tough been kidding around many. i understand it, senator lankford, i admire the hell out of him. i think y'all produced a really good product in some areas but it