actually believe if there were really smoke filled rooms spill be the ticket the dnc would be whitmer warnock warnock whitmer. yeah, right. you know, depending who had more delegates. yeah. you know, no white guy. yeah. and i think that's more likely not in fairness. so thank god. congratulations by the book. he's here to sign the book. and what's the bobbleheads tell about the bobbleheads? i. brought my own, actually, but no, i think yeah, i think they're for sale. i saw some when i was walking and took notes. all right. but if you take out of the package, they're no longer worth as much on ebay, right? yeah, that's right. that's right. and if you prefer i saw they also had a trump behind bars bobbleheads all over there, too. so that might be more to your taste or to your you should get stripe ties. trump stripe. yeah, they're all black and white anyway, so copies of joshua's book are available to check out does he'll be over

here at the table signing. thanks again for coming everybody. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god of love, bring unity to capitol hill. lord, we do not ask for uniformity -- in which each person finds individual fulfillment in doing your will. lord, give our senators unity like the symphony with its variety of instruments, its many

different notes which produce grand harmonies. may our lawmakers produce these melodies on this super bowl sunday by seeking to understand before being understood, to console before being consoled, and to serve before being served. we pray in your merciful name. amen. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk

will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c. february 11, 2024. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable cory booker, a senator from the state of new jersey, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, today the senate gavels in on a sunday to continue our work on the national security supplemental. in about an hour we will take the next procedural vote on cloture on the substitute amendment. i can't remember the last time the senate was in session on super bowl sunday, but as i've said all week long, we're going to keep working on this bill until the job is done.

even though we're keeping the process moving on the floor, democrats still hope we can reach an agreement with our republican colleagues on a reasonable list of amendments. we're happy to have a fair and reasonable amendment -- we're happy to have fair and reasonable amendment votes on the floor. so we'll see if there's any possibility for speeding this process up. but at the same time it is essential we finish the work on this bill. it's been years, perhaps decades, that the senate has taken up a stand-alone bill that so significantly impacts not just our national security, not just the security of our allies, but the very security of western democracy and our ideals. as we speak, vladimir putin's invasion of ukraine has rendered parts of eastern europe a war zone the likes of which we have not seen in those regions since the second world war.

ukraine is dangerously low on supplies, including ammo and air defenses. if america doesn't assist ukraine, putin is all too likely to succeed. as president zelenskyy repeatedly has reminded us. the only right answer to this threat is for the senate to face it down unflinchingly by passing this bill as soon as we can. again, democrats are ready to work with the other side in the spirit of bipartisanship. i know many of my republican colleagues are working in good faith to get this done. i thank them for their dedication, for their good work, and for doing the right thing by voting yes yesterday. let us move forward. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration

of h.r. 815, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 30, h.r. 815 an act to amend title 38, united states coat, and so forth and for other purposes. #

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: in the earliest days of vladimir putin's escalation in ukraine, america's closest allies and partners have been paying close attention. from halfway around the world in the indo-pacific, our friends have made it clear that in the ukranian people's fight, they see their own future. from taiwan, ukraine's survival is taiwan's survival. from japan, security in europe and security in the indo-pacific

are inseparable. from australia, it's absolutely in the interest of every free country that putin's aggression fails. but why? why would peaceful people dare to get involved in others' fights? why would leaders in asia contribute billions of dollars in weapons to help ukraine defeat russian aggression? why would the prime minister of japan and the president of south korea bother with long journeys to wartime kiev to express solidarity with ukraine? why not just pull up the draw bridge and keep quiet? because our allies and partners are not naive, because they know that unchecked aggression begets

more, because they know that victory for russia means a green light for china, because they know that neglecting ukraine's fight to restore its sovereignty raises the costs of defending their own. our partners don't have the luxury of pretending that the world's most dangerous aggressors are someone else's problem, and neither do we. so today it's no exaggeration to say that the eyes of the world are on the united states senate. our allies and partners are hoping that the indispensable nation, the leader of the free world, has the resolve to continue. and our adversaries are hoping for something quite different. friends and foes alike pay close

attention to what we say here and to how we vote, because american leadership matters, and it is in question. now let's be absolutely clear. the united states didn't give our greatest generation to the fight against in aed sdi germany or commit half a century in resources to defeating communism out of a sense of altruism. and we aren't helping partners resist authoritarian aggression today out of some warm and fuzzy sense of charity. we have not equipped the brave people of ukraine, israel or taiwan with lethal capabilities in order to win philanthropic accolades. we're not urgently strengthening the defenses in the indo-pacific because it feels good.

we don't wield american strength frivolously. we do it because it's in our own interest. we equip our friends to face our shared adversaries so we're less likely to have to spend american lives to defeat them. for years i've warned about the growing threats to america's national security and the growing coordination from our adversaries. for years i worked to steer greater investments toward the hard power needed to deter them. the russian despot trying to conquer ukraine also wants to see america weakened. the chinese autocrat hoping to subjugate taiwan also wants to consign american leadership to history. the iranian regime that equips

the slaughter of israel's jews and a terrorist war on international commerce also wants to shatter our influence in the region and spill american blood in the process. they tell us by their actions, pretending not to hear them is not an option. delaying until the cost in american lives and treasure rise immeasurably is not an option. the time to stand up to these gathering threats is right now. every night millions of americans sleep in peace because brave men and women continue to answer the call to serve in our nation's armed forces. every day millions of americans turn for their livelihood to an economic order built and un underwritten by american leadership. and every time that peace and

prosperity are threatened, we stand with allies and partners who trust in the righteousness of that leadership and the credibility of our commitments. today, the future of the world i've just described is in question. the endurance of an order in which american support is craved and american strength is feared is in doubt. and we, the united states of america, have the most to lose. ever since we came to the aid of our allies 80 years ago, america has been an inseparable partner in the security of europe. not out of charity, but because our own security and prosperity is tied to it. ever since we were attacked in 1941, america has helped guarantee stability and free

commerce in the indo-pacific. not as a moral gesture but because we have core interests of our own in this critical part of the world. ever since the establishment of the modern jewish state of israel in 1948, america has stood by her. not out of generosity but because of the enduring values and interests we share, in security, in democracy, and in peace. i know it's become quite fashionable in some circles to disregard the global interests we have as a global power, to bemoan the responsibilities of global leadership, to lament the commitment that has underpinned the longest drought of great power conflict in human history. this is the idle work for idle

minds, and it has no place in the united states senate. in this chamber, we must face the world as it is. we must reject the dimmest and most short-sighted views of our oblig obligations, and grapple instead with actual problems. as they come, in the harsh light of day. and today, the question facing this body -- the questions facing this body are quite simple. will we give those who wish us harm more reason to question our resolve, or will we recommit to exercising american strength? will we give those who crave our leadership more reason to wonder if it's in decline, or will we invest in the credibility that underpins our entire way of life?

i cannot answer these questions for any one of my colleagues, but none of us can afford to get them wrong.

the presiding officer: the senior senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the national security supplemental before us is a profound -- is of profound importance to america's security. it will provide updated, modern, effective munitions to our tr troops, rebuild our flagging defense industrial base, allow our navy to continue its vital operations in the red sea, and the mediterranean, and support our allies. now, mr. president, time does not permit me to correct every

misunderstanding and misrepresentation about this bill that we have heard on the senate floor and elsewhere, but i do want to correct some of the motion egregious misstatements because the american people should have the facts. the defense supplemental bill before us would strengthen our own military by providing $35 billion to restore our military readiness, modernize our arsenal of democracy, and rebuild our defense industrial base. it would send a strong message to putin that his goal, his dream of capturing free, democratic nations like ukraine will not be allowed to succeed. it would reassure our closest

ally in the middle east, israel, which is battling terrorists who have killed more israelis, more jews in a single day than since the holocaust, who have taken as hostages babies and the elderly, and who are using innocent palestinians as human shields. it would help deter a rising and menacing china, whose navy now exceeds the size of our own. each of these investments, mr. president, is in our self-i self-interest. it makes america more secure. a claim was made yesterday that this bill gives $238 million to

increase u.s. troop deployments to europe. the implication was that this bill increases funding to send u.s. troops into combat in ukraine. that is simply not true. the funding in this bill supports through the end of the year u.s. servicemembers who are principally in poland and germany working with our allies to train and equip the courageous ukrainians. the ukrainians are the ones who are doing the fighting and taking the casualties. no american soldiers are dying on the ukrainian battlefield. and we are training and equipping the ukrainians because it is the right thing to do, but also in america's self-interest.

the best way to ensure that the united states is not drawn into a larger regional war in europe, in which our troops could be put at risk, is by helping ukraine defend itself against this brutal, unprovoked invasion. if russia prevails in ukraine, putin will be in a position to threaten our nato allies all along ukraine's border, including poland and one of our n newest members, finland. what we are doing through this bill is to greatly diminish the risks that the united states could be drawn into these larger conflicts. history is filled with examples of well-intentioned leaders who sought to avoid war but who

actually made war more likely by refusing to recognize the evil with which they were confronted. nevil chamberlain declared peace in our time, trying to appease germany before world war ii began. we should not make that same mistake today. another charge that i heard yesterday is that europe is not doing in your opinion to support ukraine, and that the way to get them to do more is for us to do less. again, this assertion is false. in terms of security assistance provided to ukraine as a percentage of gdp, the only fair way to measure it, the united states ranks 15th globally,

15th. estonia ranks number one. estonia has the same population as the state of maine, 1.3 million people. yet it has provided ten times as much as a percentage of its gdp as our countries has to help the ukra ukrainians. on february 1, the european council unanimously approved a four-year ukrainian facility economic assistance package worth $54 billion. that equals nearly 13.5 billion per year, and that is on top of what other countries have already provided, which is approximately 63 billion in n nonsecurity assistance. now, mr. president, i want to

stress that throughout this process, which began last october and included extensive hearings and much consultation, we did not rubber-stamp the biden adm biden administration's budget request. many changes were made throughout the process, but let me just t on three. first, the president requested $11.8 billion for direct budget support for ukraine. we reduced that amount by 4 billion, more than 30%. furthermore, that budget support will phase out time. this assistance, however, is critical because it helps ensure that russia cannot win this war by utterly destroying ukraine's economy as putin is trying to do, and it allows ukraine to focus more of its national

resources on the war effort. second important change, this bill includes a clear and strict prohibition on funding in this bill and in prior appropriations from being used for any kind of financial support to the united nations relief and works agency, known as unrwa. yesterday's news that the hamas tunnel was found under unrwa's headquarters in gaza and that hamas was using unrwa's electricity to power a command and control section underneath the headquarters underscores the need to ensure that not a single penny of taxpayer funds is

provided to that agency, much less the $400 million that was in the president's original request. and i would note that the evidence is overwhelming that 12 employees of unrwa directly participated in the october 7 horrific attacks on israel, and the estimates are that about 10% of their employees are involved in terrorist groups. this organization is thoroughly infiltrated by hamas and other groups. third, we included strict guardrails for all the humanitarian assistance for gaza. by march 1, usaid and the state department have to have procedures, processes, and

policies in place that are developed in consultation with israel to ensure that money is not diverted from the legitimate humanitarian assistance to palestinian civilians to terrorist groups like hamas. now, it was suggested on the floor yesterday that we have no oversight of this assistance and no way of knowing where it is going. that is simply wrong. usaid delivers direct budget support through a world bank mechanism whereby the funds that are released to the government of ukraine are done so on a reimbursement basis for verified, pre-agreed categories of expenditures only. in addition, usaid employees a rigorous monitoring system that

involves two international accounting firms -- delit and kbmg to audit this assistance. we have increased funding for the office of the inspector general for both the ukraine funding and for the gaza funding. let me discuss also the support that we provided ukraine, israel, and taiwan through the transfer of weapons and equipment from our stockpiles. a concern was raised on the floor yesterday that this would leave our own military vulnerable and without enough weapons. it's important to remember that this bill includes $35 billion to restore u.s. military readiness and modernize our arsenal of democracy. for every dollar of authority provided to transfer weapons to

ukraine in this bill, there is $2.50 to replenish u.s. military stockpiles. and most of the time this allows us to replace those older items with more modern, effective, and improved weapons. in the case of israel, many of the weapons systems, such as iron dome and david's sling, are co-produced by both the u.s. and israel. the under secretary for acquisition and sustainment has said, quote, production is deterrence. the supplemental includes $8.3 billion in historic investments to greatly expand our production capacity. this will result in a strong, resilient munitions industrial

base capable of surging to meet the threats facing our country. but if we do not pass this supplemental now, none of these investments will occur. mr. president, i encourage my colleagues to support this bill. there's so many other misrepresentations that i wish i had time to counter today. let me tell you that this funding is desperately needed to strengthen america's military readiness, to help ukraine counter brutal russian aggression, to assist our closest ally in the middle east, israel, in its fight against terrorism, and to deter a rising and menacing china.

mr. president, in american history, it was our very first president, george washington, who used the term peace through strength in his fifth state of the union address. centuries later, president ronald reagan reminded us of the vital importance of peace through strength. that is the goal of the legislation before us. that is what it will accomplish as we meet the challenge of the perilous times in which we live. thank you, mr. president. mr. king: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, i rise with immense pride to be from maine this afternoon. i want to thank my colleague for

not only the hard work that she and the members of the appropriations committee have put in over the past four months to bring this bill to the place where it is, but also for her vocal and outstanding and moving leadership on this issue. i simply want to express that him he'll very proud to be from -- that i'm very proud to be from maine this afternoon, and thank you to my colleague. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i just want to thank my distinguished colleague from maine for his very kind comments. thank you. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: let me join the

comments of the democratic -- independent democratic senator from maine and the kind words for his colleagues because what she said in a brief period of time was so important at this moment in the debate. i note with pride that of the top nations on a proportional basis supporting the effort in ukraine, the baltics ranking at the top. these small nations determined to be free know what it means to invest in the cause of the ukrainians. i also note -- and i believe she made reference to the fact -- that a country like poland, which ranks fifth on the list of proportional assistance to ukraine, is giving so much that is not accounted for in the ledger books. the people of ukraine when they left in a panic over the invasion of the russians went to poland and were accepted in that country as neighbors who were

going to have a helping hand when the polish people opened their homes. the leader in the polish government said to me, senator, you playbook -- you look all over poland, you won't find a refugee camp. they're literally in our homes. that kind of assistance is not accounted in the accounting books but it is meaningful. i might add that among the top five nations was finland. finland, which because of its leadership, decided to join nato, and their arrival, it is my understanding, their accession in nato doubled the border that russia has to face of nato countries in size. finland is a very large country. we're glad to have them as part of nato and its future. and that is at stake as well. i don't want to get political on this issue about the future of nato, but i think it's pretty clear that there are those of us who believe that the 31 nations

of nato are indispensable for maintaining security in europe for years to come, decades to come. and we have to invest in it. if the united states should step away from this nato commitment to ukraine by its action on capitol hill, shame on us. there's so much at stake here in terms of the future of democracy. last night -- i'll close with this -- as i was leaving capitol hill hill in the darkness i passed by four or five people standing on the sidewalk outside. they were ukrainians and ukrainian americans who were there to beg us to stand bid their country in this hour of need. they've been keeping a watch for weeks and months at a time so that the united states' commitment to ukraine is appreciated by them and they express it to us as members of congress. i saw them standing in the dark and realized that there may be many americans going about their business, but these ukrainian americans know that this decision by the united states

congress and the senate and the house could literally decide the future and the fate of their homeland in ukraine. i think it is an essential responsibility on a bipartisan basis, and i thank senator mcconnell for his inspiring words this morning -- on a bipartisan basis we knead to stand with the -- we need to stand with the ukrainian people in this hour of need. i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, in this chamber, over the last couple months, we've heard haunting echos of the past, haunting echoes of chamberlain going to munich in 1938 to say to hitler, go ahead, take that slight of czechoslovakia -- take that slice of czechoslovakia. we will simply look the other way and declare peace in our time. the parallel is not just haunting, it is scary.

folks advocating for saying to putin, just go ahead, take ukraine. we will playbook the other way -- we will look the other way and tackle other challenges. in both cases, you had an authoritarian in hitler, in putin determined to take adjacent land and certainly in putin's case determined to crush the democracy, the republic to the south. ukrainians speak a language that is a close cousin to russia. putin particularly resents the loss of so much territory, so many states that he controlled or the soviet union controlled not so long ago, and it is his life's mission to reclaim as much as he can.

it should be our mission -- it is our mission, it is the american mission to defend democracy in the world, to stand with people who are all about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, and the freedom to cast a fair ballot to determine their own future. those are all the values that putin opposes. so so much is at stake here for the future, freedom of the people of ukraine but also for american leadership in the world. if we follow in chamberlain's footsteps from 1938 and look the other way, where else -- where else will putin decide to tackle? and how much partnership will we lose in the cause of democracy and freedom by breaking the pact

we have forged so carefully with europe to support ukraine? and how much future blood will flow from our sons and daughters as we stand in other battles because of our failure in this case to stand with the people of ukraine? xi of china is watching carefully. can the autocrat simply endure until the american people are tired? endure until the partnership between europe and the united states breaks down? can he simply maintain an assault on taiwan until we fade away with other priorities? it is a vision in the world that we have been proud to fight for, the vision of democracy and the vision of freedom. this is the moment when we have

the opportunity to actually secure a bill here in the senate to fund the people of ukraine. we are not being asked to shed our blood. we're not being asked to put our soldiers, our men and women, on the battlefield. we're not even being asked to put a huge share of our budget into this battle. it is 1.5% of our national budget. 1.5 pennies on the dollar of our budget. if we cannot sustain even that modest commitment to stand for freedom, to stand for voting integrity in a republic, in a democracy, then on what course has the united states gone? let us stay the course as champions of freedom and champions of democracy and take a strong step forward today to

completing the work of making sure we stand with the people of ukraine, we maintain our partnership with europe, and we continue to lead for freedom and democracy. thank you, mr. president. test. test. test.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, today i'm asking colleagues to support my motion to table the motion to recommit. even for seasoned senators, this sounds like a lot of technical language and it kind of it so let's put it in perspective and explain what it actually means. what's really going on here is we've got the majority leader, who has decided to obstruct an open and fair amendment process. the motion to recommit -- the motion to commit, which my motion aims to dispense with, is what senator schumer is using to block every member of this body from accessing the amendment tree and offering up amendments as they please, making them

pending and then having them dispensed with. instead leader schumer is dictating which amendments are allowed to be voted on and which are not. to cut to the chase, essentially all of them are not. then he turns around and accuses republicans of being obstructionists for not wanting to play by his arbitrary rules. some have suggested that too many amendments have been filed, pointing out that among a handful of republicans, over 80 amendments were filed. this is not a reason to not allow any amendments. not all of those amendments have sponsors who really want to make sure they get voted on. in any event, the way the senate works, the way it long worked, the way it still works to a significant degree when i got here in 2011, we work it out. we allow members to offer up amendments and when the body gets tired of it, social

pressure coupled with physical exhaustion usually leads to a natural end to the process. every body has rights, certain institutional prerogatives and prerogatives accorded under the rules. the people of our states should be afforded representation allowing us to address the issues that we think are important. sadly, some of our colleagues are ready to sacrifice those prerogatives, those privileges and rights under the rules and by senate custom and tradition for $100 billion foreign assistance package. it's important to remember that the senat our counterparts in t house gop took a consensus opinion, consensus position a couple of months ago that supplemental spending should not move without language, actually forcing the biden administration to secure the border. there was language that was negotiated by a small number of

senators. it took a few months to get it negotiated. when we finally saw it less than a week ago, last sunday at 7:00 p.m., it didn't achieve that goal. and for that reason, that proposal received only four republican votes on the vote on cloture on the motion to proceed. only one-third of republican senators voted for cloture on the motion to proceed to the supplemental without the border provisions. this doesn't make it our conference's position. quite to the contrary, it makes the position within the senate gop supporting cloture, a slim minority among republicans. so what we're asking is that we be given the opportunity, those of us, most of the senate republican conference who has concerns with the bill would like more opportunity to debate and, yes, offer amendments to this bill. we need to have that opportunity. i'm seeking this not just for my

own interest but for that -- for any member of this body who has one or more amendments that they want to be considered. we shouldn't have to be supplicants to the majority leader and be forced to operate solely on a universe with which he's really comfortable. we all have rights to bring these amendments forward, and we ought to be able to have them considered. so i appreciate my colleagues' support on this motion, and i hope everyone can support it regardless of how you feel on the bill and regardless of how, which political party you belong to. this is for all of us. and it's important to remember that neither passing this motion nor opposing cloture today will kill this bill. rather it would keep debate alive and allow amendments to move forward. we should also remember that there is no clock ticking here. this is not something that's

going to to evaporate. we're not going to turn into pumpkins if we fail to get this done today or tomorrow or this week. we can handle this the way that it should be handled, with great care to make sure that we know what's in the bill and to make sure that members, as many of them as possible, have had a chance to be heard on it and offer improvements to the bill before we move forward. thank you. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the president pro tempore. mrs. murray: mr. president, i have spoken quite a bit about how the votes we cast as united states senators for this funding have tremendous consequences. i've talked about whether or not we deliver this aid, especially to ukraine, is a question of whether or not america will stand by its world, by the world and stand by its allies. how we all decide to vote on this bill could not be more important. it was just last night we heard the presumptive republican nominee for president openly

encourage russia to attack our nato allies. all of us in this chamber, all of us understand those words have consequences. our friends and adversaries alike listen to what major political leaders here in america have to say about issues of global concern. but as my colleagues know, our votes matter tremendously as well. action, legislation that actually gets signed into law, $60 billion to support our ukranian allies, that sends a lot more than a message to putin. it sends badly needed ammunition and weapons to ukraine so they can put an end to russia's bloody invasion. so i urge every one of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me not only in sending a message to our friends that they can count on america to stand by its word, to our adversaries that they cannot invade sovereign democracies

unchecked and unanswered to civilians caught in conflict around the world that america will help deliver food and medicine and more. but to join me and vote against this tabling motion so we can finally take action and show the world that congress is united when it comes to american leadership and resolve on the world stage. we have been negotiating for months now trying to get this funding over the finish line. let's all recognize that each time we falter, our adversaries have not been subtle in making a show of it, claiming that america will not do anything to protect its friends and allies. this, this is the time to prove them wrong. i said it before, i will say it again, those of us who understand the gravity of this moment are ready to stay here as long as it takes to get this done. i hope we can soon come together quickly and get this to the

finish line as soon as possible. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: my friend and colleague from the state of washington makes the point that we need to show unity. nothing says unity quite like shutting out a majority of the minority party from having any say in amendments, from having even a single amendment be made pending. if what we're after is unity, then we should move forward and allow individual members to exercise their prerogatives, their rights under the senate rules and by custom, practice, tradition and precedent to make their amendments pending. that's not too much to ask. my friend and colleague also just acknowledged that, in her words, we can stay here as long as it takes to get this done. if we're respectful to each other's rights, privileges and prerogatives as united states senators, it's going to take more time than this. i know many may want to get it done today, and you may feel that way especially if you think

the bill is just perfect the way it is. but we owe it to those we represent to do everything we can to make sure this bill is adequately debated and that amendments are considered. with that, madam president, i move to table the motion to commit, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt.

mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. the clerk: ms. capito.

mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. vote: mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn.

ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin.

ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith.

mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan.

ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell.

mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray.

mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio.

mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance.

mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative, collins, crapo, hyde-smith, lee, mcconnell, paul, scott of south carolina, thune, wicker. senators voting in the negative, booker, butler, durbin, king, manchin, merkley, murray, padilla, reed, schatz, smith, tillis, wyden. mrs. fischer, aye.

ms. warren, no. the clerk: mr. casey, no. mr. kaine, no.

mr. cornyn, aye. the clerk: ms. cantwell, no.

the clerk: mr. marshall, aye.

the clerk: mr. warner, no. mr. welch, no. the clerk: mrs. britt, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. grassley, aye.

the clerk: mrs. capito, aye. mr. heinrich, no. mr. schumer, no.

ms. duckworth, no. mr. whitehouse, no. mr. peters, no.

the clerk: mr. ricketts, aye. mr. brown, no.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, no.

mr. murphy, no. mr. young, no. the clerk: ms. baldwin, no.

mr. hickenlooper, no. mr. graham, aye. mr. moran, aye. ms. stabenow, no.

the clerk: mr. lankford, aye. ms. cortez masto, no. mrs. gillibrand, no. mr. van hollen, no.

mr. barrasso, aye. mr. rounds, aye. mr. sanders, aye. mr. boozman, aye. ms. murkowski, no.

mr. mullin, aye. mr. ossoff, no. mr. cotton, aye. mr. tester, no. the clerk: ms. hassan, no. ms. ernst, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, aye. the clerk: mr. romney, no.

mr. bennet, no. the clerk: mr. coons, no. the clerk: mr. daines, aye.

the clerk: mr. johnson, aye. mrs. blackburn, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, aye. mr. kennedy, aye. mr. markey, no.

the clerk: mr. lujan, no. mrs. shaheen, no. the clerk: mr. cruz, aye.

vote:

the clerk: ms. rosen, no. mr. cardin, no. mr. blumenthal, no.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye. the clerk: ms. klobuchar, no.

the clerk: mr. menendez, no. mr. budd, aye. the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye. mr. rubio, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, no. mr. kelly, no.

the clerk: mr. carper, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, aye. the clerk: ms. sinema, no o -- no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. hagerty, aye.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, aye.

the presiding officer: the yeas are 40. the nays are 53.

the motion to table is not agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the murray substitute amendment numbered 1388 to calendar number 30, h.r. 815, an act to amend title 38, united states code and so forth and for other purposes signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 1388 offered by the senator from new york, mr. schumer, to h.r. 815, an act to amend title 38, united states

code, to make certain improvements relating to the eligibility of veterans to receive reimbursement for emergency treatment punished through the veterans community care program and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown.

mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons.

mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. the clerk: mr. durbin.

ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson.

mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez.

mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt.

mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. the clerk: mr. van hollen.

mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, bennet, blumenthal, butler, capito, cardin, carper, casey, cassidy, collins, coons,

cornyn, cortez masto, duckworth, durbin, ernst, gillibrand, grassley, hassan, heinrich, hickenlooper, hirono, kaine, kelly, king, manchin, menendez, merkley, mullin, murray, ossoff, padilla, peters, reed, romney, rosen, rounds, schatz, schumer, shaheen, sinema, smith, stabenow, tester, tillis, van hollen, vance -- van hollen, warner, warren, welch, whitehouse, and young. sullivan, aye.

senators voting in the negative -- barrasso, blackburn, britt, budd, crapo, daines, fisher, graham, hawley, hoeven, johnson, lankford, marshall, paul, ricketts, and rubio. mrs. hyde-smith, no. mr. tuberville, no. mr. thune, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. sanders, no. the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. lujan, aye.

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

markey, aye. the clerk: mr. lee, no. mr. cruz, no. mr. schmitt, no.

the clerk: mr. boozman, no. the clerk: mr. booker, aye.

the clerk: mr. wyden, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye. mr. cotton, no.

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

mr. wicker, aye. the clerk: mr. hagerty, no.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. vance, no.

vote: the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no.

mr. brown, aye.

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 67, the nays are 27. three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. cloture having been invoked, the motion to commit false as being inconsistent with cloture.

the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i yield 30 minutes of debate time to the -- to the manager. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. the senator from maine. ms. collins: i yield 30 minutes of debate time to the senior senator from south carolina. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. ms. collins: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. schatz: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: madam president, there is no good reason to delay the security and humanitarian assistance in this national security supplemental package any longer. ukraine is running dangerously low on munitions on the eve of

the second anniversary of putin's invasion. millions of innocent palestinians in gaza are suffering daily without access to basic necessities, and our allies in the indo-pacific are counting on our support to counter china's aggression and main tape stability in the -- maintain stability in the region. none of these priorities can wait months longer without being addressed, and all of them are vital to our security interests. we need to pass this supplemental urgently. when ukraine officials warned they're running out of shells and bullets, it's not an exaggeration. in the fight for an eastern ukrainian city, the ratio of russian to -- the presiding officer: senator, will you suspend? please continue conversations outside the well. the senator may continue. mr. schatz: when ukrainian officials warn they're running out of shells and bullets, it's

not an exaggeration. in the fight for eastern ukrainian city, the ratio of russian to ukrainian artillery fire was five to one. five to one. ukrainian soldiers are forced to ration their bullets, even when enemy soldiers are bearing down on them. that's what ukraine is contending with on the front lines as we speak. meanwhile, putin is intensifying his onslaught with the help of iran and north korea, who are more than happy to replenish his stockpiles if it means ending the world order as we know it. in gaza, millions of innocent civilians have for months been enduring unimaginable horrors on a daily basis. more than 25,000 -- 28,000 people have been killed since the start of the war, hundreds of thousands are starving, with widespread famine looming. just about everyone is displaced, with nowhere else to go, and humanitarian assistance getting through the few available checkpoints is nowhere

close to enough. these people need our help, and it can't arrive soon enough. just as we have a responsibility to help israel defend itself against hamas terrorism, we also have a responsibility to make sure that innocent palestinians caught in the crossfire have access to basic necessities -- food, water, medical supplies. this package also includes important assistance for our allies and partners in the indo-pacific region in order to counter china's aggression in the region. china's president xi made no secret of his desire to take taiwan by force, if need be. just because there are wars going on in the middle east and europe does not mean we can take our eye off threats brewing in asia and the indo-pacific. it's in both our interests and our allies' interests for us to stay vigilant and provide support to maintain stability in the region. later this week, i'll be part of

a bipartisan delegation with 14 of my colleagues attending the munich security conference in germany. one of the pressing questions among world leaders will be where does america really stand? do we still believe in defending democracy and freedom? are we still willing to rally the world in standing up to autocrats and authoritarianism? they will no doubt be closely watching what we do or fail to do here in the next few days. we ought to be able to say to them america remains the indispensable nation, america stands with our allies in war and in peace, but that depends on republicansorking with democrats in good faith to pass this supplemental package. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: the clerk: baldwin. quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask consent to end the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: let's take a moment to take stock of how we got here. three years of weakness from president biden. from the very beginning, president biden appeased russia. he appeased iran. he appeased china. he gave russia a one-sided extension of arms control treaties. he looked the other way at russian aggression, against

america and cyberspace or threats to our friends in europe. with iran from the very beginning, he wanted to go back into the failed nuclear deal. he refused to stand up to attacks on american forces throughout the middle east that iran was behind. and from the beginning with china, he's begged and pleaded to turn down the temperature, temperature which i would say china has been turning up for years. then of course there was the collapse in afghanistan in the summer of 2021 which put all of our enemies around the world on notice that president biden was not up to the task of protecting america or aiding our friends. vladimir putin began to marshall forces on ukraine's force as few weeks later and invaded. biden pewsy footed around. he wouldn't get ukraine the weapons it needed to defend itself whether they needed them. and to top it off, here at home he opened our border entirely to an invasion of over 10 million

illegal aliens. so last fall when president biden asked for more than $100 billion to try to solve his own failed policies, republicans here wanted to the opportunity to try to force an unwilling president to protect our border in addition to aiding our friends. so we engaged in several months of negotiations. and after four months we saw that the democrats are more ideologically invested in open borders than they are a secure border or for that matter, aiding our friends around the world. now, i want to commend senator lankford from oklahoma who led these negotiations. i think he did the very best he could negotiating with stubborn counterparties who are ideologically invested in open borders. there's some good parts of the bill, but unfortunately the bill itself wouldn't solve the crisis at our border. and we didn't go down this path to pass a bill for its own sake. we wanted to force the hand

again of an unwilling president to protect our borders. that's why all but four republican senators and some democratic senators opposed the legislation. so now we have in front of us a bill that spends $95 billion. much of that spending, the defense spending, is needful. and i want to commend senator collins who led that part of the negotiations, for doing an outstanding job of improving what president biden set out in his request for defense spending. if this bill doesn't pass into law, it should be a template for the future and hopeful legislation that might come back to us from the house. however, the bill still includes $19 billion in nondefense spending. again, i want to commend senator collins for reducing that amount from what the administration requested. but that's still $19 billion, almost 20% of this bill. $7.9 billion goes to ukraine for

direct budget support. i believe that we need to be aiding ukraine with military hardware, ammunition, and shells, and tanks. europe is going to have to do more to pick up direct budget assistance to ukraine. up to $9.2 billion goes for humanitarian aid, to ukraine, to israel or to other vulnerable populations and communities. we don't know how the administration is going to break that down. some, even much of that could go to gaza. there's no reason for the united states of america to be sending humanitarian aid to gaza. israel was targeted with vicious atrocities on october 7 from gaza by hamas. and no matter the guardrails in place, when aid goes to gaza, hamas doesn't divert it, doesn't steal it, doesn't come endear it. hamas and their cronies accept it because hamas is the governing authority in gaza.

the united states should not -- did not send aid to nazi germany or imperil japan in world war ii. we should not be sending it to gaza during israel's war for survival. another $1.6 billion in aid mostly to post soviet states in central asia and eastern europe. maybe some of that is useful spending but if you look at the administration's own budget requests, they say that also goes to things like climate change resiliency or green energy investments. finally, there's $481 million for grants to left-wing globalist ngo's whose main mission is not to secure our border but to accelerate the flow of illegals into this country. now, i have an amendment that would strike all of this nondefense spending from the bill, reducing its cost by $19 billion which is no mean thing when we're spending more than a trillion dollars a year than we take in. i'd also point out that even if we didn't just put that money

towards deficit reduction, it could also go to, say, three virginia class submarines for our own military, more than 170 f-35's stealth fighters or more than 5,000 precision strike missiles. but senator schumer won't allow a vote on this oement or -- amendment or other amendments. i hope when this legislation leaves the senate and goes to the house, the house of representatives, in particular the speaker of the house can sit down and negotiate directly with president biden and get the kind of conceptions that president biden -- concessions that president biden must make to address his own failures to secure our border and in that case, we will not only be able to protect our own border but also help our friends around the world who are in the crosshairs thanks to joe biden's failures and his weakness. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: madam president, i rise today, and in a few minutes i'm going to make a unanimous consent request for a bill that we refer to in our office as the american deficit relief act. but before i do, i want to talk

about why i'm here. we have a program, if you all remember during the covid era, we came to this floor multiple times on a bipartisan basis to do everything we could to try to keep the economy afloat while we were dealing with something that hadn't happened to this country in a 100 years, called the pandemic. we did some things that were good. we did a few things that have proven to be not so good. and one of those things is referred to as the employee retention credit also known as the employee retention tax credit or erc. it was under the cares act that we first implemented this bill. at that time we thought it was going to be about $55 billion reduced revenue to the government. i guess a different way of saying that is $55 billion remaining in the private sector. that was the concept behind so many of the things that we did in the covid relief measures.

but then we had the appropriations act of 2021 and the american rescue plan. we've added even additional reductions, extensions that have resulted in $86 billion in revenue not coming back to the federal government. the challenge that we have out there, like we have in a few of these programs, is we've had fraudsters run rampant, and probably none more than the employee retention tax credit. they have the cottage industries that are set up calling businesses, saying, hey, did you know that you're eligible for this? keep in mind, when we were doing this program, these are businesses that are going my gosh, my business is about to go under. i don't know how i'm going to pay for my employees. we're trying to create programs to get the employers just to hang on a little bit more. folks, i don't know if you'll notice, but we're past the pandemic. we're back open for business, and you've got companies that i

think arguably are going to be proven guilty of fraud going out and asking people to take the tax credit now to the tunes of billions and billions of dollars. so what do we do? we've got the tax credit where people are calling the irs and making claims every single day, in the middle of tax filing season they're dealing with a program the irs said they want to get rid of. fraud's out of control. we need to give them help. they have been asking for help. why would this require unanimous consent request and why would i anticipate an objection today? just in fairness to senator wyden, my colleague on finance committee, he is the chair, i'm a relatively new member, there are some that want to use this program as a pay-for for a tax measure that we may talk about briefly later on. i'm okay with some of the tax discussion going on, but i'm really worried about this being used as a pay-for.

here's why. we implement the program in, in the 2019 time frame, or i should say 20 time frame. we don't have a pay-for for this program. it sits on the books for awhile. it's costing three times as much, and we're using some of what we hope to clawback through fraud and abuse as a pay-for. it just seems to me kind of like pay-for laundering. it doesn't make sense when you're looking at some $34 trillion in debt. with the discussion about the tax extenders, the r&d tax credit, low-income tax credit, all those things i support, and i even support some modernization of the child tax credit. but i got a real problem with using the $78 billion roughly that we think we can get out of the employee retention tax credit to pay for it.

so madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of my bill at the desk. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, anybody who follows the finance committee knows that i very much enjoy working with our colleague from north carolina. we worked together on a variety of issues here. however, we got a big disagreement, and i hope we can work it out. more than 90% of north carolina's members of congress voted in favor of our bipartisan bill too improve the lives of 16 million kids and assist scores of small businesses trying to better compete with china. this carefully bipartisan bill

will significantly also increase supply of affordable housing which is badly neededfrom one -- needed from one end of our nation to another. if the senate approves the request from our colleague from north carolina, it would, madam president, essentially kick out one of the legs of this carefully crafted bipartisan tax agreement. the entire bill topples. here's a little background -- after four months of negotiations, including many meetings over several months working with our colleague from idaho, senator crapo, our colleague from massachusetts, congressman neil, chairman smith of the ways and means committee and i agreed on a bill that brings together republican and democratic priorities. republicans wanted a set of tax cuts for business. democrats were willing to accept those because many of those tax cuts will help small businesses

and help our country compete with china by promoting research and development. so, democrats said we'll work with the republicans on those proposals in exchange for an equal investment in kids and fam families. we fought for the largest expansion of the child tax credit we could get. our bill immediately helps 16 million kids from low-income fam families. the laws on the books, madam president, i think you and i talked about this when you came to the senate to join us, the laws on the books today discriminate, they discriminate against so many of our large families of modest means. this bipartisan bill changes that. they'll get to claim the child tax credit for each of the kids, just like middle and high-income families get to dochl the neal is from the center on budget and

policy priorities, and it shows what a transformational change this would be for so many families of modest means. for example, ar parent of two young -- a parent of two young kids, who works as a home health aid or food server, could see their child tax credit nearly double. they could get close to an additional $2,000 to help those families, help them pay for diapers and baby food, school supplies, you name it. for families with three or more kids, the benefits are even greater. and in both cases, they'll do even better next year. these are families who walk, madam president, economic tightrope every day. they need the help. they're going to keep working hard regardless, because raising a child in america is expensive for everybody -- working class, middle class, even those more fortunate. our bill also includes other bipartisan priorities, and i part

particularly want to thank colleagues on both sides, senator cantwell, my colleague from the pacific northwest, our colleague from indiana, senator todd young, a number of senators came together to support the low-income housing tax credit, which will help build more than 200,000 affordable units across the country. all of these are paid for by sunsetting a pandemic-era tax program called the employee retention tax credit. the program, which technically expired in 2021, has become overrun with fraud. i think my colleague remembers, because we were there together and all of us were kind of slack jawed, we had, madam president, the commissioner of the rips irs, mr. -- of the internal revenue service, who senator tillis and i both enjoy working with, straight shooter. i said i got a tip from a whistleblower. what's the story on this

employee retention tax credit? i hear it's 95% of the current claims are fraudulent. let me repeat that. 95% of the current claims are fraudulent. he looked at his shoes and said yes, that's the case, senators. so, that's what we're looking at for our pay for it. the joint committee on taxation, these are the people -- i know they're not exactly a household word, but they're the official nonpartisan experts. as my friend from north carolina and i know, we kind of use them as the gospel before everybody starts running around and twisting the politics. joint committee on taxation tells us that cutting off the ertc claims pays for nearly the entire tax bill chairman smith and i introduced. it makes a lot of sense to cut off an out-of-date program overrun with fraud and redirect those dollars to low-income families and priorities like

research and development and small business. now, i know that my colleague from north carolina is raising objections to this as being an offset, around he certainly has a right to do that. but i want to take a minute to kind of walk through the implications. first, my colleague's request from the senate right now would shut down these employee retention claims, but it doesn't include the rest of the bill that chairman smith and i introduced. there would be no help for low-income kids and families, no boost for r&d or business. i know my colleague thinks this is some kind of gimmick and he'd like to wait and pass the business pieces of the tax package without any offset. now, i'm not sure, because he and i have not really talked about it, but there is this ole saw that corporate tax cuts pay for themselves. essentially, that the tax cuts

favored by republicans never need to be offset, regardless of the proof theme add to the deficit -- the proof they'll add to the deficit. that was wrong. that was shown in 2017, when republicans added trillions to the deficit to pass the trump tax law that overwhelmingly benefited large corporations and the wealthy. the price tag on that deficit buster was growing higher with the increase in interest rates. my colleague, as i indicated, hasn't had to get involved in those kinds of issues in the past, but i just think if we're unwinding deficit finance tax laws, we ought to go back a little further and repeal the deficit finance handouts to corporations and the wealthy that donald trump and republicans passed in 2017. the fact is the chairman of the ways and means committee, from missouri, who i think would call himself a strong conservative,

he and i negotiated a bipartisan proposal and nearly the entire bill is paid for, and it came after months and months and months of discussions, with democrats and republicans. and if the joint committee on taxation tells the finance committee that's an offset, the one we have that works, that, to me, is always the he believed of the debate. so -- is always the end of the debate. i would just hope we not do something -- and i know my colleague well enough at this point that this is not his intent, but this is essentially a poison pill to a bipartisan effort on the child tax credit research and development and low-income housing. and we shouldn't do it this way, and i will just say publicly what i said to my colleague from north carolina -- i am very interested in working with him, the ranking member, senator crapo, because we've always done it that way.

we've always found common ground. my goodness, there's a lot to work with here. it got 357 votes, madam president. in the other body. i've been here long enough to know you can't get 357 votes to go order a dr pepper. that's a big, big effort at bipartisanship. i close by way of saying that i am going to object here in a minute official will, so that's clear, but i want to again extend an olive branch to my colleague from north carolina, the ranking member, senator crapo. let's do something good for low-income kids, particularly the big families, small businesses, research and development. let's get that low-income housing tax credit that senator cantwell and senator young and a group with of us on the finance committee have been for. let's get going on that to work on it together and get it up in

the short order after we come back. with that, madam president, i object. mr. tillis: madam president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: it was about a month ago in banking committee we had a panel come before us who were talking about fentanyl and how in the banking system we should try to figure out ways to get rid of the illicit finance of fentanyl. one of the people who testified is a country music artist and rapper called jelly roll. it turned out that jelly roll grew up in antioch, tennessee. i did too. when i went to ask him questions, i started by saying you grew up in antioch. where you did grow up? he described the area. i said you remember country meadows. he said yeah, i used to live there. i said me, too. it's a trailer park in ainlt -- in antioch, tennessee.

i understand there are families who need tax credits. i know there are families that need help. i was one of those families. there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. i want to make sure we don't conflate the concern i have about using one credit card to pay off another credit card with tax policy that i'm okay with, with child tax credit programs that we can get to right. but let's do it on the basis of sound, sustainable fiscal year policy. i have three grandchildren under the age of 6 years old. the dirty secret about this money that we're using to pay for this program is they're putting my children, my grandchildren further in debt because they're not real pay-fors. i was down here to try and end a program that i do not believe is appropriate, and quite honestly i don't think people consider me a firebrand that's not willing to work across the aisle.

when you see me stand up against a so-called bipartisan effort, maybe you should listen a little bit more. if not for the fact that i happened to grow up in the population that i want to help take care of, but because i understand business and i understand a bad pay-for and fake pay-for when i see one. i hope that we can get to a point we agree on tax policy, but the first opportunity i had was to decide whether or not i support it, what had been negotiated, perhaps with senator crapo, perhaps with congressman smith, and perhaps with senator wyden, but not with me, and not with many members of the finance committee. i look forward going forward. i've given senator wyden a lot of credit, i think, for being a fair chairman. i look forward to having that discussion about this measure, then hopefully trying to find a pay-for that makes fiscal

conservatives like me feel more comfortable with the overall package. thank you, mr. president. . the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: just very briefly, my sense is that after we're done voting on the piece of legislation that's in front of us, we will have, i would say to my friend from north carolina, we will have a crucial period where we can come together and start looking at ways to find common ground and get this passed. the reality is it's been weeks now since the chairman of the ways and means committee and i brought forward our proposal, the one that got 357 votes, and i've been saying to folks on the republican side of the aisle, my door is open. you know, tell me what you want in terms of a couple of these

provisions that i've heard mentioned. but we haven't heard anything. so i want to, as chairman of the finance committee, again extend an ol itch branch to say -- an olive branch to say the door is open. you got ideas on pay-fors at both sides -- that both sides can go along with and get passed in the other body? we've had discussion about the work requirement, for example. i have looked at all of these experts, you know, this fellow from the tax organization, grover norquist, certainly one of the more conservative people in this town says this doesn't discourage work. but he doesn't have an election certificate and republicans do. so we're all going to sit down and work this through but we've got to get it done quickly because people are filing their rurnsz now. we -- returns now. we want those small businesses, we want those families to get a

fair shake. so to all senators who are listening to this, my door is open. let's move quickly after we get through this bill and be ready to go when we get back and move this legislation to do something significant, which by the way, also has the added benefit because it will set the table in a responsible way for the bigger tax debate come 2015. i thank my colleague. i yield the floor, madam pres president. mr. tillis: madam president, one tactical point. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: i should mention i lived in the same neighborhood of jelly roll but 20 years apart. i don't want anybody to think we were neighbors. mr. casey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: madam president, i want to make sure i'm procedurally correct. i rise to speak as if in morning

business. the presiding officer: without objection. indication case i rise to talk about an amendment i filed and we're hoping we'll get to the point where both sides will come together and have agreements on amendments, but i know we've got some more work to do. but if i had to describe this amendment, this is one of those you can describe in one word, fentanyl. there's not a community in the country, big city, small town, rural area, suburban community, that hasn't been ravaged by fentanyl in one way or another. we all know it's in every state. and when i consider the challenge we have in & counties with the largest percentage ever their population who have been victims of an overdose, the so-called overdose death rate, those counties are not one kind of county. there are a lot of small rural counties that have a lot of small towns. there are big counties with big

cities in them and big urban populations. so no matter where you live, fentanyl is a problem. the overdose death rate is almost all fentanyl related in my state of pennsylvania. something on the order of 70% or 75% or higher of the overdose deaths are fentanyl related. so i don't think anyone in this chamber, democrat, republican, or independent would disagree with the scale and the severity of the fentanyl problem. there are some things we can do about it. investments we can make that we should not fail to make in the short term, the near term. and i hope with this legislation. we all know that the fentanyl problem starts in china where china for years now has been producing the chemical precursors. if anything, we should continue to crack down on the bad guys here in china and the cartels in mexico. the good news is, this

legislation by including the fend off fentanyl bill which is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill of the banking committee will help us do that, to attach get the bad guys, to target money laundering with provisions that will focus on antimoney laundering provisions. it will also target the bad guys by way of sanctions against transnational criminal organizations. but this all starts in china, but of course it does end up coming across the border. most of the fentanyl coming into the united states is trafficked into the country through official land border crossings. this isn't a problem where someone is crossing the border and has fentanyl in their pocket. that's not where most of the fentanyl comes in of the the fentanyl comes in in vehicles, in cargo. the good news is we have the technology to detect that and to stop it at the border. but because most of it is coming

across those land border crossings, by those transnational krienl organizations that -- criminal organizations that start in china, here's the data. in fiscal year 2023, u.s. customs and border patrol, cbp, seized -- i'm sorry -- 240,000 pounds of drugs at the southwest land border which included an esti estimated 1.1 billion doses of fentanyl. so that's just in fiscal year 2023. what we stopped at the border was 1.1 billion doses of fentanyl. the bad news is that number could be a lot higher. billions and billions of doses could be stopped at the southwest border if we're willing to make the right decisions here and invest in the technology and the manpower, the personnel that it takes to do

that, to intercept more and more doses. we should be intercepting billions of doses, not just 1.1 billion doses of fentanyl. so what does the amendment do? here are the specifics on it. the amendment would support the procurement and deployment of so-called nonintrusive inspection systems known by the acronym nii, nonintrusive inspection systems which scan vehicles at the border and provide detailed images of the interiors of those vehicles to detect fentanyl and other illicit drugs and help increase their effectiveness by supporting ongoing efforts to develop algorithms, to analyze and flag these scans for officers. that would be a significant investment in technology that we know can bring that intercepted number of doses at the border

much higher so we can stop billions of doses instead of just one billion doses. second thing the amendment would do would create a structured, outbound inspection program to increase seizures of firearms and currency that are flowing out of the country and into the hands of these international cartels in mexico. it would also fund related technology and infrastructure. and then thirdly, the amendment would support and expand existing fentanyl interdiction efforts by investigative law enforcement agencies and task forces throughout the country. look, these individuals are working night and day with limited resources and loipted technology -- limited technology to stop fentanyl. we can't tie their hands behind their back and point at them and say stop the fentanyl at the border. they need more technology, a lot of it, and it's expensive, and

we've got to pay for it. if you want to stop fentanyl at the border, you need to invest in it and support the appropriations that would invest in that inspection. we also need to help these law enforcement officials who are currently working on this morning, noon, and night, every day of the week. we've got to give them the tools they need to stop fentanyl at the border. so this amendment should be over -- and i think it would be -- would be overwhelmingly bipartisan. both parties have a concern about this. both parties have counties like mine where the overdose death rate is high, mostly caused by fentanyl. let's come together and take a step as we pass this larger bill to stop putin and his murderous invasion of ukraine. let's help stop and disable the terrorist organization hamas, but let's also, as we make investments, let's make an investment to stop fentanyl at the border with proven

strategies, technology and otherwise, that we know will work. let's stop fentanyl at the border and do it in a bipartisan fashion. madam president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call: