>> hi. but friends don't have to be. >> this is joe. >> when you're connected, you're not alone. >> cox suppos c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> we take you live now to the floor of the u.s. senate on this tuesday morning where lawmakers are expect today vote on a judicial nomination, later today off the chamber floor, senators are expected to attend a classified briefing on the war in ukraine with secretary of state antony blinken and secretary of state lloyd austin, also the president of ukraine volodymyr zelenskyy will make his appeal remotely. you're watching live coverage here on c-span2. will come to. ... the chaplain, dr. barry blac, will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, source of our joys, answer us when we call to you. with your mercy and grace, free us from the troubles that challenge us. we acknowledge that no problem is too difficult for you. lord, we bring you our needs and challenges, asking you to do for us more than we can ask or imagine. lord, give the members of this body the patience to live courageously with life's trials, knowing that you are the author and finisher

of their faith. use them this day to bring healing where there is pain, hope where there is despair and peace where there is warfare. may our senators serve you with pure, exemplary lives and thereby give those whom they lead an ideal to follow. we pray in your righteous name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, december 5, 2023. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. nomination, the judiciary, lor rch enl.alikhan, to be united states district judge for the district of columbia.

the white house warns congress of an urgent need for ukraine funding. it was national security adviser jake sullivan in the white house warnings yesterday. >> on ukraine as you've all seen earlier today omb director young sent a letter to congressional leaders explaining that without congressional action the administration will have run out of resources by the end of the year to procure more weapons and equipment for ukraine and to provide equipment from u.s. military stocks without impacting our own military readiness.

the resources cogs is provided for ukraine and other national security needs have halted russia's advances in ukraine, help ukraine that she significant military victories including taking back more than 50% of the territory that pressure present occupied, and by revitalizing our own defense industrial base jumpstarting an expanding production lines and supporting good-paying jobs across the country. now it's up to congress. congress has to decide whether to continue to support the fight for freedom in ukraine as part of the 15 nation coalition that president biden has built, or whether congress will ignore the lessons we've learned from history and let putin prevail. it is at simple and that start a choice. we hope congress and a bipartisan basis will make the right choice. there is a magical pot of money available to meet this moment. as director young said we running out of money, and we are nearly out of time. congress has to act now to take up the president supplement a request which advances our own

national security, and helps a democratic partner in ukraine fight against russian aggression. >> host: jake sullivan from white house briefing room yesterday. a letter from the omb director hitting this response from the speaker of the house mike johnson yesterday afternoon saying the biden administration has failed to substantively addressed in of my conferences legitimate concerns about the lack of strategy in ukraine, about resolving the conflict or plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by american taxpayers. meanwhile he said the administration is continually ignoring the catastrophe at her own border. house republicans have resolved any national security supplemental package must begin with her own border. we believe both issues can be agreed upon if democrats and the white house will negotiate reasonably. the speaker of the house yesterday. this was republican senator ron johnson last week on these issues talking about border security and ukraine funding. >> we have one leverage point

here. the administration wants funding for ukraine. we need use that leverage and we need to make any funds they go to ukraine contingent on the administration actually reducing the number of migrants that are being dispersed in america. now, since this administration has started, over 6 million people at least 6 million, 1.7 million of that are detected gotaways. where no idea who these people are or where they have relocated. we really don't know with the other 5.3 million people are, the ones who are encountered, processed and dispersed. complete out of control. you have hamas now calling for days of -- you think 1.7 million or the over six munk debate it that person or two? it's a clear and present danger. so what the senate must insist on, if, if they take up a supplemental, if they are looking at funding for ukraine,

republicans in the senate must hold firm to deny cloture on any bill that doesn't include benchmarks, hard metrics, again the metric needs to be number of migrants dispersed and america whether again counted and dispersed or detectable gotaways or any other category. and when you to deny cloture on any bill that doesn't include that hard metrics. >> host: senator ron johnson last week. today we are expecting senate majority leader chuck schumer will try to move a bill that will serve as the vehicle for ukraine paid for additional ukraine aid and other emergency funding as well for israel and for taiwan as well. that emergency aid package that the biden administration is trying to move, that vote expected in the senate today. it's expected to come after a classified briefing with senators and ukrainian president zelensky expected to rest them

during that briefing. taking your phone calls this morning asking you to support additional u.s. aid to ukraine? lines or if you say yes, no andy cohen not sure to that question. randy is up first out of michigan. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning, john. i would like to start by thank you and all the other men or women who bring us the program. you are doing a great service, and happy holidays. >> host: same to you. what your thoughts on ukraine? >> caller: i believe we have to definitely support ukraine. that's the real threat to this country. we went in at the night the guy -- just as important if not more important than what we did for 9/11. now we're dealing with a gentleman over there in russia that actually has nuclear weapons, has the military and a navy, air force. terrorism is a terrible thing, but terrorism is more or less a nuisance, not a real threat to the national security.

as far as the administration having to negotiate to have something set that what our goals are, we had a goal to eliminate terrorism in 9/11. we didn't accomplish that but we still went after them because we had to. now, you have to negotiate with people that are willing and honest to negotiate. you can't just throwing out these -- i just, let me, we need to support ukraine and the blade that's our top priority. thank you, john for my time. >> host: thanks for the call. this is building alabama, the life of those who say they're not sure. why is that? >> caller: well, my opinion as evolved, and i think no more funding for ukraine until we

have an inspector general or someone, but someone in charge of watching where the money goes, where the weapons go. i'm really disappointed that our government, the biden administration, is taking money to pay ukrainians wages and for their government. and why are we spending so much money in ukraine guarding their border when our border is wide open? >> host: bill, if there is a deal that comes together that includes new funding for new border measures, would you then support that along with additional aid to ukraine? that's kind of the crux of the

argument right now. >> caller: well, , to be honest with you, i don't trust this administration to do anything they say they're going to do. it's just, he's not trustworthy. he should be impeached, and i'm sure he will be. >> host: that is bill in alabama. michael, lafayette tennessee. good morning. you are next. >> caller: good morning c-span. thank you for taking my call. i completely support the biden administration and the ukraine funding here we need to secure that funding today and get it passed it these people are for democracy, and if we lose that, then there goes western europe and eastern europe. putin will just roll right on over. i support biden completely and vice president harris. i think you're doing a great job i do know they are going to be reelected in 2024. trump will not be in the white house. he is going to go on trial and

hopefully be convicted of this kind that he's accused of. thank you so much for your time. >> host: anthony in iowa. good morning. that life for those who say no to additional aid for ukraine. why? >> caller: no, we shouldn't be giving all this money away to all these other countries. we need to take care of america. we got people living in the streets, veterans with nowhere to live. we need to use money for ourselves. quick giving it away to all other countries. i don't care who the next president is. thank thank you, you don't o the next president is going to be? we lost anthony. john, bridgewater new jersey. good morning. your next. >> caller: good morning. i totally support a to ukraine. we have to defeat putin, it's unbelievable what he's getting away with. now, it's lost in the background with the israeli issue and no one is talking about it too much. i am a dyed in the wool

republican from the nixon era, i'm 75. i don't like the fact that a republican colleague are raising all these issues about what's wrong with ukraine. we don't know what's wrong with you great but we know we have to defeat russia. and yes, we should absolutely secure the border. biden has been a disaster. that will cost him the election but those are, at this point to me to make separate issues. >> host: john, you talk about the nixon administration and going back to that time period what were your thoughts when you found it and a kissinger died last week? >> caller: oh, he's a great man. everyone tries to denigrate him. you know, they destroyed nixon. yeah, these are five good as people. these are great people, people

who stood up in the middle of the cold war and try to work things out. i don't understand why they are denigrated, frankly. i really don't. >> host: an interview with henry kissinger from this past spring with the economist the headline, kissinger for the safety of europe. get ukraine into nato. highlighting a conversation with him just months before he died. what are your thoughts on ukraine joining nato as henry kissinger was advocating for before he died? >> caller: he knows better than ideal. and, of course, he wanted to do that. you know? the argument has been that russia has reacted this way because we've expanded nato, and apparently we pledged not to do that, i'm not sure. that's very complicated, you know? what of course.

you know, i mean russia was supposed to be an ally after the wall fell and perestroika and glass not. they seem to be working for a while, frankly. i mean, we had seemingly very good relations and business, all of that stuff. i'm not sure what the turning point was. i'm not smart enough to know. i read a lot of history. something was, putin felt he was threatened with nato expanding and then crimea in georgia et cetera, et cetera. but he's got to be stopped, end of story. >> host: that is johnny bridgewater, new jersey. tributes to henry kissinger continuing in today's papers. showed you a couple yesterday on this program. this is walter russell mead in the "wall street journal." henry kissinger on power and morality is a headline.

he writes for kissinger the construction attending and repair of a sustainable balance in global affairs was the supreme moral and political challenge of statecraft. especially as nuclear weapons threaten to make war and survival. the . the restoration balance required embracing mao zedong at the height of his sanctuary career so be it. it required more bombs in north vietnam and cambodia, then send in the b-52s. any guilt or shame attached to such moves belongs in his view to those who sponsor let the united states with nothing but bad choices. kissinger was a victim of his own success. once america's position in the world had been restored, americans turned in revulsion from the methods and then responsible for turning the tide. liberals such as jimmy carter wanted american foreign policy to focus on humanes rights. vol will address senators through a secured video at our classified

briefing on the war in ukraine. this will be at least the third time president zelenskyy has addressed senators since the beginning of the war. the last time he spoke to us his message was direct and unsparing, without more aid from congress ukraine does not have the means to defeat vladimir putin. without more aid from congress, ukraine may fall. democracy in europe will be imperiled. and those who think vladimir putin will stop merely at ukraine willfully ignore the clear and unmistakable warnings of history it is therefore urgent for the senate to pass a security supplemental. last night, i filed cloture on a motion to proceed to a vehicle the senate can use as a supplemental package. we will have our first vote on this vehicle wednesday, in the afternoon. i urge my colleagues to think

about what's at stake in this moment in history. i implore them to do what's necessary to protect america's security. if we allow vladimir putin to march through europe, if we abandon ukraine in its hour of need, we will make the world a more hostile place for democracy and western values. it will send a message to the world that america's not up to the task of protecting democracy and western values in this century. it will be a gift to the chinese communist party, to the regime in iran, to adversaries around the world who want nothing more than to see our demise. the ukrainians are fighting valiantly. they haven't asked for american tr troops, with a concomitant casualties and pain that will cause. all they need is adequate weaponry. how can we turn them down? how can we turn them down?

there is only one right answer -- we must do what america has always done through her history, defend democracy, stand up to autocratic thugs like putin, and put our adversaries on notice that america's resolve will not fa falter. now, the senate supplemental package remains on hold because our republican colleagues have insisted that they need an immigration proposal to pass. while immigration is important, it's a separate issue from foreign aid to ukraine and israel and humanitarian aid to gaza and the indo-pacific. it's a difficult issue we've debated and never come to a conclusion on for decades! it's extraneous to this debate. some of our republican leaders say, well, that's what the public wants. yes, the public wants border, but it's unrelated to ukraine.

our republican friends are saying they'll defend democracy only at a price unacceptable to demo democrats. and the price is forcing congress to accept radical immigration policies that come straight from donald trump. one republican senator said yesterday, this is not a traditional negotiation, but we expect to come up with a bipartisan -- sorry. one republican senator said yesterday, listen to this, he said, this is not a traditional negotiation where we expect to come up with a bipartisan compromise on the border. this is a price that has to be paid in order to get the supplemental. no compromise. why are we sitting down and talking if there's never going to be a compromise? what that republican senator said, mr. president, is the textbook definition of hostage taking. i want to be clear, first, democrats want to deal with the problems of immigration and the

border. we've been trying for years. i also want to be clear, if republicans had not brought up immigration, an important but separate and partisan issue that has been debated for decades, ukraine funding would not be in danger right now. this mess was created entirely by hard right republicans. and alarmingly, republican leadership has gotten behind them. most of those hard right republicans, who say we must have border, don't want to vote for aid for ukraine in any case. if funding for ukraine fails, it will not be a bipartisan fa failure. it will be a failure solely caused by the republican party and the republican leadership because it was a decision of that republican leadership, pushed by the hard right, many of whom want ukraine to fail, to make border a precan be -- a precondition to supporting

ukraine. let me say that again, because the logic is perfectly clear. and irrefutable. if funding for ukraine fails, the failure will solely be on the republican party, because it was the decision of the republican leadership, pushed by the hard right, many of whom want ukraine to fail, to make border a precondition to supporting ukraine. now, even though we warned republicans about the dangers of injecting partisan border issues which threaten to derail aid to ukraine, we sat down at the negotiating table in good faith. we said from the get-go we'd be willing to compromise. everyone would like to come to a compromise on border. bipartisan compromise, a real compromise, not one side demanding everything, as that republican senator said. for three weeks democrats have tried to be reasonable with our

republican colleagues, to see if we can find some common ground on immigration. some days these negotiations look promising. we've been more than willing to show compromise. but sadly, each time we try to meet republicans at the middle, they have been moving the goalposts back, proposing nasty policies, like indefinite detention for asylum seekers and sweeping powers to shut down our entire immigration system. which has been a hallmark of america for centuries. after speaker johnson said last week that only policies along the lines of h.r. 2 can make it through the house, republican negotiators here in the senate gave up even pretending to show compromise. that's why the negotiations broke off friday night. republicans pulled the goalposts way back and proposed many items

plucked directly from h.r. 2 very similar to it. the same h.r. 2 that got not a single democratic vote here in the senate, the same h.r. 2 that couldn't even pass on the house floor because it needs, when it's attached to ukraine, because it needs democratic votes to pass it, because 30 republican congressmen won't vote for any ukraine aid. so, despite democrats' best efforts, negotiations have been going in circles. look, we want to find a way to solve immigration with our republican colleagues. we know this is an important is issue. we have many members who represent border states and border communities. but if republicans are holding up aid to ukraine because they want us to work with them on border, the onus is on them to present to us a realistic, bipartisan proposal that can

actually pass the senate, with aid to ukraine as well. and a bipartisan proposal -- we need a bipartisan proposal that can get broad support of democrats, not just one or two while the rest of us are strongly in opposition. again, if republicans want to bring up immigration right now, right in the middle of trying to pass aid to ukraine and other issues, the onus is on them to present serious bipartisan proposals that can get broad support from democrats, not just one or two democrats. and if republicans are unable to produce a bipartisan -- a broadly bipartisan immigration proposal, they should not block aid to ukraine in response. they should not be resorting to hostage-taking as the senator from texas seems to be admitting. that would be madness, utter

madness. it would be an insult to our ukrainian friends who are fighting their lives against russian autocracy and could go down as a major turning point where the west didn't live up to its responsibilities and things turned away from our democracies and our values and towards autocracy. ronald reagan would be rolling in his grave, rolling in his grave if he saw his own party let vladimir putin roll through europe. so once again, i urge my republican colleagues to think carefully about what's at stake with this week's vote. what we do now will reverberate across the world for years and decades to come, and history, history will render harsh judgment on those who abandon democracy for donald trump's

extreme immigration policies. now, on the assault weapons ban u.c., tomorrow i'll come to the senate floor with my democratic colleagues to ask unanimous consent to pass the assault weapons ban. if republicans do not object to our unanimous consent request to pass the ban, the senate can then pass a tried-and-true measure to reduce mass shootings and gun deaths in america. when i led the fight for the assault weapons ban in 19-94 go the house -- 19-94 in the house, along with our late colleague, senator feinstein, who led the charge in the senate, it passed with bipartisan support, because both sides recognize the need to rid our streets of these weapons of war. after the ban went into effect, the numbers proved the 07 sit.

banning deadly assault weapons saved lives, plain and simple. gun shootings both fell after the gun ban took effect. a decade aft expiration of the assault weapons ban, gun violence is running rampant in america. families can no longer enjoy a night at the bowling alley or go out to dinner without fear of a gunman with an assault rifle. people can no longer stop by the bank in the morning or spend a saturday at a shopping mall without that thought in their heads that maybe there's some gunman out there with an assault rifle. that's why democrats will come to the floor tomorrow to try and pass the assault weapons ban and other gun safety legislation. and i hope my republican colleagues find the courage to stand with us, stand with the american people, stand with families and kids who are sick and tired of living under the threat of gun violence. i 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.

and i don't understand that because the part about freedom everybody gets that when you start talking about dollars and what could potentially happen, i think i can begin to change minds about what we are doing there. >> host: that it's rick from sioux city, iowa. with the think thank you are getting that article from? >> caller: if you hang on just a minute, i will let you know. let's see. >> host: as you looking up the phone numbers again for viewers if you support additional u.s. aid to ukraine, 202-748-8000. if you oppose, 202-748-8001. and if you're not sure that's okay, we have a number for you to call in. 202-748-8002. is that enough time for you, rick? >> caller: cbc news, murray brewster he posted this back in 22 year may 27, 22. so you could kind that you could find that. it's a political analyst. >> host: canadian broadcaster.

>> caller: correct. >> host: thanks for the call. this is taylor, michigan. terri is in taylor. good morning. >> caller: yes. that's a big no. big no, should not be sending. well, let's start with, well, everyone from henry kissinger you mentioned to the former secretary of state james baker and the soviet union days, to noam chomsky, a big left-wing guy, and everyone from right to left to center knew that nato expansion was a redlined for russia. there's a huge historical record on that. okay? and then number two, there's anything, oh, it's about fight for democracy and freedom of ukraine. well, democracy, that elections. that's freedom of ing officer: w objection.

mr. mcconnell: the senate has spent months considering supplemental action to meet serious connected threats to america's national security. as i've said from the outset, our work needs to address four urgent challenges. putin's war on a sovereign democracy in europe, the terror campaign against israel, and u.s. forces in the middle east, china's aggressive escalation against taiwan, and peaceful nations in the indo-pacific, and the biden administration's continuing failure to contend with the crisis at our southern border. senate republicans focus on securing the border didn't just

begin this fall. we've watched for three years as the border descends into chaos -- descended into chaos on president biden's watch. and for three years he failed to fulfill even his most basic responsibility to enforce our immigration laws. anyone who suggests that senate republicans are injecting the issue of border security into this discussion at the last minute either isn't serious or hasn't been paying attention. continuing to pretend that upholding america's sovereign is any less urgent than helping our allies and partners defend theirs is reckless. borders in texas, new mexico, and arizona are every bit as

inviable as those in israel and the indo-pacific. as soon as our democratic colleagues realize it, the sooner we can deliver on urgent national security priorities. now, needless to say, america's adversaries aren't waiting for us to get serious about our own security. in the south china sea, for example, the prc is increasingly using aggressive posturing and outright force to disrupt peace, stability, and lawful maritime commerce. beijing's lawful passage in international waters with threatening unsafe conduct and hyper ventilating bluster and continues to undermine the long-established territorial claims of sovereign nations throughout southeast asia.

unfortunately, china is not the only adversary stepping up its aggression in the maritime domain. iran and its network of terrorists continue to illustrate the failures of the biden administration's deterrence and dangerous detail. on sunday a u.s. navy destroyer, an israeli-flagged commercial vessel came under fire from the same howty -- houthi rebels. this administration had inexplicably taken off, off its list of terror organizations when it took office. this of course was a concession to iran. of course, terrorist violence at sea is only the latest in a laundry list of iran-backed attempts to kill americans in the region since october 7.

at least 77 times tehran's proxies have used lethal force against u.s. personnel in iraq and in syria, just since october 7. by any objective standard, the biden administration's response has been woefully inadequate. tehran remains demonstrably undeterred as prem's former secretary of defense leon panetta put it last week, i would be much more aggressive. so effective deterrence requires both capabilities and credibility and america can't hope to deter our adversaries if we signal hesitation and fear of escalation. consider the enemy we're up against. one of hamas' top terrorists in

gaza told the media recently that the slaughter of israelis on october 7 was, quote, just a rehearsal, a bloody rehearsal that left 1200 innocent people dead and hundreds more in terrorist captivity. these savages mean what they say about erasing israel from the map, but this is not just israel's fight. today at least eight americans are still being held hostage in gaza, and if iran and its proxies get their way, there will be more americans killed and captured. this is not, not a time to go soft on terror. this is not a time to put constraints on israel. this is a time to support your friends and stand up to your adversaries. as the senate considers urgent

national security priorities, our adversaries in europe, asia, and the middle east are watching closely what we do. on another matter, in the 59 days since october 7, an alarming surge in anti-semitic hate has swept the world and the united states unfortunately has not been exempt. on sunday an angry mob descended upon a philadelphia restaurant co. owned by -- co-owned by an israeli-born jew. protesters demanded that customers boycott it and outrageously charged the business and its proprietors with genocide. unfortunately, this is hardly an isolated incident. across social media, left-wing

activists have whipped followers into a frenzy by proclaiming the urgent need to boycott hundreds of american businesses for the alleged crime of supporting israel's right to exist. they've committed acts of violence and vandalism, including against the homes of members of congress. antisemitic online mobs are insisting that organizations that do business in israel are complicit in ethnic cleansing. unfortunately, these situations seem most often to flare up on the campuses of elite universities. this week a prominent harvard lum i.n.s. -- alumist penned an open letter to the harvard president cataloguing that the institution's continued insanity when it comes to israel's right to self-defense. at princeton, a faculty group recently signed a letter

invoking academic freedom as a shield for students around the country who have parroted terrorist propaganda. of course in the same document, professors found room to hurl their own acquisition of apartheid at israel. american higher education has become the epicenter of an alarming wave of hatred toward jews. luckily, there are glimmers of hope. a franciscan university in ohio, administrators created an ex-pooh indicted transfer process to welcome students facing anti-semitic threats at other schools. they are eager to accept jewish students that the ivy league is failing to protect. but unfortunately stories like these are few and far between.

it's especially alarming to see anti-semitic hatred bleeding into the secondary education as well. last month an organization known as the people's forum helped organize a massive anti-israel protest and walkout at schools in new york city. the group which has direct ties to both domestic radical activists and state propagandists in beijing is creating tool kits and posters to facilitate such events at other schools. as i've said before, i'm a strong supporter of freedom of speech. our nation gives hateful people the right to say appalling things. but it also gives people with a moral compass the right to condemn them in the strongest possible terms.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call:

also donald, i'm not sure anybody identified themselves whether there were no data board or not. buffalo, new york, good morning. your next. >> caller: good morning, john. quick question. obviously you can't answer about some of the callers talked about some of the policies with nato and that's one of the reasons why russia is doing what they're doing. if the policies were broken and very similar to the israel conflict, policies were broken on that end with palestinians and over the history. i just can't see my money going to any of these campaigns if policies have been broken. because that means we are rewarding countries are policies that were broken.

therefore, some of the other callers talked about our own situations border, people's health and living conditions. when did we ever become the world police? c-span, i don't know, i watched you all the comments i don't know if you have a segment on how much aid other countries have given ukraine and i guess israel, too, those of the two main issues lately. because a a caller talked abot canada. candidate is a beautiful country. was just there over the weekend. they seem to be doing pretty good economy wise. i don't hear about their $33 $33 trillion plus deficit, you know? i'm just curious to see, you know, are we the only ones footing the bill? >> host: i can give you this. 47 countries have have provide military aid to ukraine. the eu is one of the largest

along with the united states. you can see the top two lines. after that it's a germany, united kingdom, nova, japan, canada, poland, netherlands, sweden and so on down the line in terms of most money given to least. see you can see as a single country the united states far and away the most, yeah, look at that man. i don't like that a graph. i wouldn't mind being somewhere near the middle part to be quite honest. i i don't want to be the major contributor. i mean, at some point when we just say hey, deficits don't matter? because which is going to keep increasing our debt and then every six months they're going to increase the debt ceiling because they can come to any spending cuts. i feel bad for the people of ukraine, but another topic about that, , stay on that one topic with you just in terms of

another way of looking at this. that the united states is not the top country if you consider aid as a percentage of gdp. the united states has given jusf you add up that total aid. some of the baltic countries including estonia, latvia,, lithuania have given a lot more, 1.2% of gdp, of us don't use gdp that came to ukraine in aid. that's another would looking at it as a percentage of gdp of money given to that country. >> caller: no, thanks for that. that's actually good information there to have space on the gdp. so to does make a little more sense. but still though i mean there's a point where i don't know, it's frustrating because it always seems like we're in the spotlight for the major contributors, but you never hear about where ukraine is really

spending their money. it's not just a military we giving money. we are giving them money basically it's welfare for people to stay home and front their businesses, healthcare, everything, you name it. i'm willing to help people out but i mean heck, i live in an area where 40% of the people are below poverty here i mean, like i said if we don't care about deficits, if we don't care about the budget, then a guess we keep doing what we doing because it's going to be up to 50 at some point, you know? heck, 2006 we were oddly 6 trillion in the bank. so i guess you know let's keep helping people out. i i would like to see our bordes restrained a little bit so we don't everybody coming in and loafing off the deal, too. i think 50% of of the people don't contribute. at some point we just i don't know it's frustrating because my taxes keep going up, and inflation and everything, and

then you know, i could go on and on. but thanks. you guys have a great day. >> host: about 15 minutes left in the first segment of the "washington journal" asking for additional u.s. aid to ukraine. the biden administration curtly does. national security adviser jake sullivan in the white house briefing room yesterday making the case for additional aid. >> i want to ask a question about ukraine. do you see any member of congress who votes against it for ukraine is voting for putin? >> i believe that any number of cogs who does not support funding for ukraine is voting for an outcome that will make it easier for putin to prevail. that is, a vote against supporting ukraine is about to improve putin's strategic position. that's an inescapable reality. that said speaking to someone's motive. why they chose to vote against it, that's just aching to the outcome of their vote. about against supplement of funding for ukraine will hurt ukraine and help russia.

he will hurt democracy and help dictators we think that is not the right lesson of history and that every member democrat or republican should vote to support this. >> do you feel the same eight about the money for taiwan? and vote to help president xi, the communist chinese party is photo hamas instead of israel? >> again, i don't want to characterize this in quite aware that your question presupposes. our view is that every dollar that is in this package is meant to enhance the national security of the united states, and the peace and stability and vital part of the world. that's why will people to vote for. not voting for interview for the package in its totality we believe is a vote against what is necessary to secure america's national security objectives going forward trend with jake sullivan yesterday from the white house briefing room. here are some of your comments on this question was asked to additional aid for ukraine. this is steve from facook saying yes, with the conditions

as outlined in the house proposal. that would be a chore to for those following on the floor. i plan says steve frowned when and get out of ukraine. secure and fix our border first before we give aid to others. easy peasy and yet the left likes to get large slush funds with no accountability and to keep our country in chaos. katie says a resounding yes on additional 80 ukraine. if ever a proved it wanted freedom and autonomy, ukraine has. bill saint actually not. the eastern border of ukraine is secondary to the southern part of texas. the russian speaking people in eastern provinces of the much disputed real estate that is called ukraine is a tragedy. the open borders of the united states is a national security issue. bill from facebook. this is ryan from san bernardino, california. good morning. you are next. >> caller: good morning, john. i'm calling in support because you are he mentioned -- with the

big dog on the block. putting in a lot of money but comparatively small to what we could do. and the cost of this would -- i would blow up the we're doing now. unit, a competent to be looking at a two or three front war in different places. even might have to expand to the critical resource areas in africa. you put all that together, we can't afford to let this thing go on. because if it does you will be spending a lot more money. churchill said that america does the right thing eventually. well, we can sit on our coattails and weight for it to get bad. if we do, it's just not going to work.

there are ways to do with the budget and aborted but really it's not people are the problem tickets the fentanyl. that's come right through the border. i don't see how inflating the concern about the border, using that as a bulwark to stop the funding is going to be effective. because in the lifted are. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: 11,334, that is how much more a sip cal family has to -- typical family has to spend today with the same standard of living at the beginning of the biden administration. 11,$334. mr. president, nearly three years of high inflation has taken its toll. americans are exhausted from constant price hierks, and they're -- hikes and they're

struggling to keep pace with the huge increase in the cost of living. one news story noted and i quote, since 2020, prices have risen about as much as they had in the full ten years preceding the health emergency. plet me repeat that. since 2020, prices have risen about as much as they had in the full ten years preceding the health emergency. we had ten years of price increases packed into the last four years and the lion's share of those increases have occurred during the biden administration. since president biden took office, the price of groceries has risen by 21%, gas prices have risen by 54.8%, electric bills are up almost 25%, car

repairs and maintenance are up 26.5%, rent is up 18%, and the list goes on. and unfortunately at this point it's clear that today's high prices are here to stay. mr. president, inflation didn't come out of nowhere. inflation is the result of too many dollars chasing that too few goods and services and that's exactly the situation the biden administration and democrats helped create in 2021. the president's first major piece of legislation was a massive and partisan $1.9 trillion spending bill filled with unnecessary spending and handouts to democratic interest groups. the bill flooded the economy with unnecessary government money and the economy overheated as a result. no big surprise there. almost three years down the road, we're still dealing with the inflation crisis the president and democrats helped

create. so it should come as no surprise that the president's bidenomics pitch, his attempt to sell the american people on his economic record, is falling flat. even among members of his own party. a substantial majority of americans have a negative view of the economy. 55% of voters say they are worse off financially under president biden. and a large percentage are cutting back on spending to make ends meet. president biden claims that, and i quote, bidenomics is just another way of saying the american dream, end quote. well, for a lot of americans, mr. president, bidenomics has proved to be less dream and more nightmare. because the reality is that under bidenomics working americans are struggling to get by. they're tapping had into their savings, they're taking on more

debt. they're falling behind on car payments or other bills. and increasingly one key measure of the american dream, which is owning your own home, is out of reach for many americans. the higher interest rates the federal reserve was forced to put in to rein in president biden's inflation crisis has meant more expensive mortgages, with combined with higher home prices has eroded home buyers' purchasing power. a recent nbc news article reported, the monthly mortgage payment on a newly sold home was around $1,100 in principal and interest. it's now about twice that. end quote. it's now about twice that. on the car-buying front, mr. president, americans are facing loan rates last seen, as one article noted, during the great recession. soaring credit card interest rates are making it difficult

for americans to afford their credit card bills, much less make progress paying them off. the situation not helped, of course, by the fact that many americans had to turn to credit cards to help get by. get by, under bidenflation. under the biden administration americans can't catch a break. mr. president, president biden has spent a lot of time talking about giving families, quote, a little bit of breathing room, end quote, but the reality of bidenomics is a lot of families have seen their breathing room disa disappear. perhaps the president should remember, i should say, perhaps the president should remember that before he gives another speech touting his economic record. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

we are wary of the fact that justice cartridge himself noted discrimination against transgender people is discrimination based on sex so we have brought interest challenging we are seeing restricted access. >> thank you so much.

>> i now recognize that children. >> are you sure you're not anything about the case? >> thank you for the opportunity to clarify. this is handled by the position and i assure you -- >> the justice department is compliant. >> did you read the opinion? circuit opinion? >> is not a civil rights division case. >> which is that? first of all said he did not one thing about it and now you say plan -- >> i appreciate the opportunity to clarify. the civil division handling this case and compliant with the court. >> are fundamental rights. >> absolutely. the bedrock principle of our

democracy. >> do politics drug decisions the justice department should? >> politics have no place in the work -- >> three months ago the new mexico governor announced a 30 day than on citizens right to carry a concealed firearm county albuquerque did. what is the justice department doing when the governor did that unconstitutional order? what is the d.o.j. in response to the unconstitutional action can the governor of new mexico? >> i'm generally aware about the matter you are referring to is not a core issue. >> it's pretty important isn't it? >> is a very important. >> tell me what they did when the governor buses

unconstitutional ban. >> i'm happy to bring your question back, her mental division. >> you know what the d.o.j. did in response but here is where the county sheriff's office think was unconstitutional, unenforceable and incapable of stopping and curbing gun violence. attorney general, a democrat said this will not have any impact on public safety and does not have constitutional muster and when the democrat says the constitution,. >> are you aware of anything the justice department did in the order from the governor of new mexico? an important person, does the justice department do anything?

>> did the justice department do anything? they didn't put any statement of interest, they didn't do a darn thing which gets back to what the points mr. mcclintock was doing, when texas got the pro-life bill september 1, 2021, 8 days later the department of justice announced and adjusted, that is a bill that passed the state senate you're in the testing not eight days later the obvious direct result is difficult to the legislature there's nothing deeply committed to enforcing the law and

committed to the civil rights of all americans. >> you for say it but based on your answers not knowing the first thing about missouri, not knowing what if anything was done relative to the governor's unconstitutional order regarding new mexico, and americans right, i appreciate the chairman having this very direct thank you for building and -- i'm over here for a few insert saying if the cover is something -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise today, i can say out of frustration, out of anger, oufrpt of disappointment -- out of disappointment that our administration is continuing to break the law that we all passed and that president biden signed, knowing full well what was in it. i'm talking about the inflation

reduct act, the ira. putting this together, i made sure everyone involved that had to sign off on it, with the president, the majority leader, and the speaker, new exactly what was in the bill, and the purpose of the bill. i still believe that the purpose of this bill was done in the right, proper way, i think it's a transformative bill if they'd stay within the guidelines of how bill was written. it's not left to interpretation, but they have interpreted. they're trying to implement a piece of legislation they couldn't get passed, and i've said this, the purpose of the bill had three purposes -- the first on the inflation reduction act was to reduce our debt. we all talked about that. we have $33.8 trillion of debt today. if everything we do does not take that into account, and not think about our children and combrand children and future generations what we're leaving them is unattainable. something has to be done. that piece of legislation had

debt reduction in it. debt reduction. it also was based on securing our energy. when the ukrainian war broke out, we were not energy secure. we couldn't help our allies in europe. basically, energy was weaponized by putin. he usedit as a weapon -- used it as a weapon, which was harmful to our allies. i said, if you can help the people willing to fight and dawe for the cause you believe it, and we all believed in the freedoms and democracy that we cherish, then they're not going to be there when you do need them. the third thing was to bring manufacturing back to america. the building blocks we need. and transportation is a major building block of how we deliver our goods, how we blank take care of our lives, how we secure our own jobs and how we're able to pay for our own way through this wonderful world of ours. but it also runs our economy. i still believe the intent and

the ability of the ira to work as we hoped, the level of investment we've been seeing from the ira is transformative. we've never seen this type. feel have been predicting we'd fall into a recession, with high inflation, and we've staved that off because we've had this piece of legislation given -- which gave us a shot in the arm that nowhere else in the world has had. but here's the problems we're running into -- it seems, it real truly seems, from my standpoint, because we in my energy committee, wrote the bill, unknowing to most any american, for over three months before it was introduced, and it was done because of the war in ukraine, it was done because we were not secure. let me talk to you about transportation. they want to move to electric vehicles sooner than what we're prepared to do, and the building blocks that you need is basically have total, absolutely self-reliance on your transportation mode. up until this piece of legis

legislation, or the intent of the administration, we were able to take care of basically, whether planes, trains, automobiles and everything in between. we could do that with american ingenuity. manufactured in america. or reliable countries. we never had to rely on foreign supply chains that were unreliable, such as china, such as russia, such as iran, such as north korea. but because of the political desires of trying to transform the transportation mode that we weren't able to basically secure ourself, this is what's happening. if president biden were still a member of this body, and he was senator biden, i guarantee he would be absolutely incensed what's happening in any administration, with a peeings of legislation that he worked so hard -- with a piece of legislation that he worked so hard or basically cosigned or signed off or something he believed in, watching it completely shredded. that's what's happening. since the administration seems to have forgotten, i want to

remind everyone what we agreed to, and this was on a phone call that i had with the president, with the speaker, and with the majority leader at the time, before the bill was signed. i says, this is a $687 billion bill, $687 billion in revenue. $384 billion of that bill would be invested in energy security, while also improving our environment. energy security. that means we would be producing more energy and be self-secured than at any time. right now, i can say, it's worked absolutely the way it was intended to. we're producing more energy in this country today than ever before. we're producing more oil and gas, and we're doing it cleaner than anywhere else in the world. and we're producing lng to help our foreign allies. we're doing exactly what we intended to do with this piece of legislation. that was $384 billion. another $64 billion towards

health care. we put a $35 cap on insulin. we're allowing medicare to negotiate. we have an extension of lower prices with health care. with the balance, you've never heard this, we paid down $239 billion in debt. now, everything i just told you, you very seldom hear from the administration or really from the president himself. speaking about what this bill all included does. you don't hear him speaking about we paid down $237 billion in the most trying times that we have. the most deficit that we've ever carried before. you should be proud of that. first time since 1997 we have a piece of legislation that was directed almost a third of that bill to pay down debt for our future generations. the ira did that. never heard it mentioned. also what the ira did, what we intended for it to do, was basically give us the energy that we need today, make sure

we're eproducing the fossil in the best, cleanest fashion with modern technology. you cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner environment. i know a lot of my environmental friends on the far left are thinking, please, don't drill anymore, no more oil, gas or coal. that's not how the world works. it's called global climate. you can innovate through technology, but you're not going to tell people to eliminate something. we're producing more energy today than before, and doing it cleaner and with more technology. so we're producing the energy we have to have to be energy secured today while we're investingin energy we like to have carbon free in the future. we're doing both. that's what's creating all this excitement and investment from around the world. but also the purpose was to bring manufacturing back to the united states. secure the manufacturing that we needed that we allowed to leave 30 or more years ago to bring it back home.

and now they're trying to change that to meeted radical climate change that basic play is going to harm the economy and still be able to help countries we know are unreliable. it becomes more and more obvious to me every day that it's either frustrating to read the law or is knowingly violating it. that's what they're doing. and i would hope that the president of the united states, if he's watching or listening to me, bring your team in. ask them how they can basically neglect the way the bill was written and the numbers that we put in the bill and the definitions we put in the bill of what was going to be not left to interpretation, and how it goes to different agencies, whether it be d.o.e. and back up to treasury, to basically find ways they can maneuver and work around this. transportation is fundamental to our economy. think about this. there's been a different -- i've been sitting here long enough, listening and watching --

different proposes -- proposals. at one time there were -- like $60 billion, $80 billion was recommended that we would build charging stations around the country. i said let me understand how history works. i remember reading the history books when the model t, when the model t was basically brought on to a mass assembly line, that the average person could own. and they were going to put cars into every family. i don't remember the federal government stepping up and building filling stations. this is a capitalist society that we live in. the market meets the demand. always has, always will. but this administration was concerned that the market wouldn't meet it. so we had to throw federal dollars at it which i was totally opposed to and we've cut that down drastically because the market has always met in a capitalist society. that's what we believe in. you either believe in it or you don't. that was done. couldn't believe that. i said i don't remember us building any filling stations but again i don't remember basically doing the -- during

the greatest depression the world has ever seen, 1930's, that fdr ever sent a check to nick. my grandparents never received any checks. my grandfather received an opportunity to find a job to take care of the kids, my dad and them. we never got a check but we thought we had to. you can look back on this and find out how better off we are because of some of the changes we've made into the country we are today. i think that's what we have to do. i remember waiting in gas lines in 1974. i had to wait to buy gas to go to work. every other day, whatever your license plate, last number, there were so many different ways you could. then we start trying to find different ways we could maybe buy in bulk and to be able to use that during times when we could buy gas. i do not intend to stand in line and wait for a battery or battery component for me to drive my vehicle if i'm forced to by an e.v. car. that's what we're doing, almost bribing american citizens to buy e.v.'s. the car companies in america, the big three, were so committed

that they had to have $7500 in credit. here's general motors, ford, and chrysler. have to have this money coming from the federal treasury for them to be able to make their market plan. that's their business plan. i said, are you -- i mean, that makes no sense to me at all. but -- because i've watched the automobile industry over the years. i love automobiles and i love what they do and how they market them and basically when they have an oversupply, they use incentives for you and i to want to go buy them. they give you discounts, they give you interest low rates or no rates interest. they do everything they can. but here they needed to have, the federal -- they needed to have the federal government to entice you to buy a vehicle that maybe you don't want, maybe we're not ready for. i said final. if that's the direction we have to go, then don't you think we should get something for it. so that's when i made sure that

$3750, $37 # 50 would be basically granted as part of the discount if, if that you basically sourced the critical minerals from north america or free trade agreement countries or allies of ours. not from foreign supply chains that we believe was basically unreliable. it makes no sense for us to be fighting over whether to get china out of our supply chains or not. but the bottom line is to have them controlling our building blocks of how we build our batteries, where it comes from, all the critical minerals in the processing. let me just basically show you when we wrote the bill, we put strict, tough, but achievable standards in the ira to assure that china and other nations that don't share our values don't benefit off the backs of american taxpayers. i do not believe that the united states of america and citizens of our great country and

hard-earned tax dollars they're paying to our treasury should be used to benefit another nation that could use it against us. we made it very, very clear on that. if you look at the chart right here, you can see what they've done. everything on the left here shows about 2023, 40% of the minerals that must be extracted or processed in the u.s. or free trade agreement countries rely or recycled in north america. this is written in the bill. this 40%. guess what? they cut that in half to 20%. arbitrarily by basically saying that these are temporary rules. they're not permanent rules. this is what we're dealing with. this was in the bill all the way down so that we would not have to rely on sourcing requirements from countries that we couldn't rely on if they wanted -- it goes clear down all the way through. 2024, 50% had to. they cut that, every one of them

in half, arbitrarily in half. i would like for the president of the united states to see this and i'd be happy to make this presentation to him. i want his administration to look at this and try from the treasury department, from janet yellen, explain to the president, explain to the american people why you can arbitrarily cut in half of the intentions of the bill and what you think you that can do because we cannot meet the demands in america. with all this investment coming back to our country, they can't do it quick enough because of their political agenda to get more e.v. cars out the door. that's it. that's the only reason. it's not for securing basically this manufacturing back to america quicker. it's not to get off the reliance of unreliable foreign supply chains. it's basically to meet a political agenda. the other 3750 was supposed to be strictly for production. producing the an needs -- anodes and cathodes. these wsh the minerals and

processed from free trade agreements or recycled north america according to treasury proposed rules. that's what they want to do. this is what the ira says is in the law. this is the bill that you and i and a lot of people voted for, mr. president. and we've explained to them follow the law. if you don't follow the law, then you're breaking the law. and i guarantee you, then senator biden now president biden would be totally outraged, totally outraged at this. they are also destroying the law to make it easily to qualify for tax credits by pretending the battery components manufactured is the same as critical minerals processing. what do i mean by that? you extract the critical minerals wherever they may be and whatever part of our country, and that means that we have to do our permitting reforms so that we can start extracting in the united states the large depositsthat we have that we haven't been able to get to and other countries such as canada, north america, and

australia, free trade agreement countries processing them, taking them out and getting them ready to go to manufacture. they're not defining manufacturing as part of the processing process. that was never ever part of the law and they know that. the fake free trade agreements including with indonesia which is totally controlled by china, which makes them say that we can go to indonesia and do business with them and use that critical minerals for processing and manufacturing and say it meets the qualifications. it does not. that is not a free trade agreement country. it's absolutely controlled by china. then we have other battery companies, that basically ford is going to pay 10% for ten years, for the technology. without the ability to create their own technology or basically reverse the technology that was stolen if america. it makes no sense to me at all. and they want the u.s. treasury tax dollars, the taxpayers of america to be giving a 12%

royalty to china. makes no sense, none at all. they did it again last week with the proposed rules of foreign entities of concern delaying deadlines that we were intending to remove china completely from our battery supply chains. the quote from the ira, the consumer e.v. tax credit does not apply to any vehicle placed in service after december 31, 2024. so i want you to look at this chart here. to quote, this is in the bill, this is how it was written. the consumer e.v. tax credit does not apply to any vehicle placed in service after december 31, 2024. with respect to which any of the applicable critical minerals contain in the battery of such vehicle were extracted, processed or recycled by a foreign entity of concern. basically bipartisan inflation

bill that we passed, that basically we identified and it was written into law those countries of concern. foreign countries of concern. we wrote that into the law. china, russia, north korea, and iran. and then if you see here, this is what was written. the deadline of the inflation reduction act. written into law. no extraction or processing in critical minerals by chinese entities or other foreign entities of concern after december 31, 2024. look what now, the deadline and proposed treasury rules. these are proposed treasury rules. they want to change that to 2026 or later. 2026 or later. and this is written by the law. this is the code. no battery manufacturing by chinese entities or other foreign entities of concern. december 31, 2023.

we're coming up on that deadline. look what they did over here. 26 or later from the anodes and cathodes, the positive and negatives of batteries. that's what they want to do. to meet their political agenda. not intiesing or nohow we have in america to get us up and running. these investments are coming because of that. but when you strike this out and basically lengthen it to these timetables or later, this could go clear for the cycle of the bill, 2032. so do you think that then-senator biden would not be incensed to see what was done in clear view, plain view, any administration doing to his bill or a bill he supported or a bill that he voted for and what's happening to it now? i don't think so. the credit is also not applied to any vehicle placed in service as i said after december 2023 with respect to which any of the

components contained in the battery of such vehicle or manufactured, assembled by a foreign entity of concern. china along with russia, iran, north korea is listed in the law as foreign entity of concern. it's listed. they're spelled out. it wasn't like you had to say well, we're not sure that interpretation, what that means. what does foreign entity of concern? we spelled it out. and because they're willing to weaponize their control of supply chains against u.s. and allies. russia has already done that with ukraine and all of our allies in europe. china i'm sure is doing the same thing with critical minerals that they know we have to have for the building blocks that we use every day, computers, chips, everything that we need. but now the irs is proposing temporary exemptions from the end of 2026 to allow batteries containing chinese minerals to qualify for years-longer than the lawful allows, as the charts show. it completely violates the law.

i see it and i'm sure many of my colleagues do, too. yet this administration is moving forward. i hope the president sees it. i hope he asks for an accounting from his people who are interpreting, implementing it, from the treasury department, d.o.e., from his own people within his environmental counsel within his office. the ira clearly said deedlines in 23, 24, not the end of 26, can neighbor at the irs read? is it that difficult to understand the ira clearly set deadlines 2023 and 2024. not the end of 2026 or later. another three years of american taxpayers truly getting screwed over by the administration. it's another three years of china and other foreign nations reaching deeper into and controlling more of our electric vehicle battery supply chains. and this will put america

another three years behind. this loophole means that automakers will not be required to know whether chinese critical minerals are actually in a given battery until 2027. won't even report it. won't even know where it's coming from. it puts all of our investments that we have coming to a country at a critical disadvantage. if they can undercut and basically flood the market with lower prices, it makes it very difficult for our own manufacturers in the united states of america to be able to find the footing and the support they're going to need to make sure that the batteries and cop points are made right here in america and making sure that the critical minerals are coming from countries that we have supply chains that we can rely on. i ask you, what is the point of the ira with loopholes like this? what's the point of passing a law that lawmakers can just throw their hands up and say, well, here's where your tax dollars are going and we don't even know where the battery came from, whether it is china,

indonesia, or anywhere else? worse yet, the irs seems to have adopted a legal strategy. they're basically a new legal strategy to avoid accountability. by issuing what they call proposed rules. proposed rules means that you're working diligently to get the permanent rules in place, okay? if you can't get them in place, then nothing should go out. there shouldn't be any credits. there shouldn't be any of these incentives until you actually get wu'er act together. not only they don't get them together. they say they can't get them close together before 2026. they say it might be later than that. that's what is they're using. that's the gimmick. that's the legal strategy, to basically usurp the law. then the irs can break the law, implement in a way that they wish it was passed and possibly avoid any judicial review.

they're trying to push into the market quicker than what we can basically produce and rely on ourselves e.v.'s. that's the bottom line. and car companies have changed and done that to put themselves in a position where, without the credits and without the incentives from american taxpayers who are giving them money for the cars that they think is is going to be -- they're destroying their business plan. this is wrong. this is not america. this is not capitalism as we know it. this is not the market-driven performance that we've seen over our lifetimes. it's absolutely ridiculous and not the way the government and this country should operate. i intend to hold the irs accountable, mr. president. i will support anyone who attempts a legal challenge to these proposed rules. if you have been damaged by what they are doing and basically putting you in jeopardy of not having your market shares, not being able to get your product to market quick informed and basically china is overrunning you with lower prices because they're keeping you out of the market, then you should sue the federal government, the treasury, and i will do an

amucous brief behind it because -- and i will do an amicus brief behind it because they are breaking the law. that's their strategy. we'll just do proposed rules. that gives us all the flexibility that we need. this situation is unique. credits are being awarded as if proposed rules were final. that's what they're doing. that has never been how we've operated. then-senator biden knew exactly -- and he knows it now and i hope he gets involved and stops this ridiculousness by some of his heads of these agencies. the congressional real estate view act should apply here. xi jinping has shown that he will use critical leverage to put americans in the free world at risk with new restrictions on exports of several critical minerals. i would expect that from xi jinping and china. what i never could have expected was our own government to give up so easily and continue to let

foreign nations control our nation's transportation. and the administration is breaking our promise to the american people that this will -- this bill will reduce our debt. these proposed rules are i can bring the law and blowing past the cbo cost estimate. the biggest mistake that we made, a the biggest mis-stick that i made was not putting a cap on the money. if you want to know how we have accumulated $3 $33.8 trillion of debt so quickly, when you pass a legislation, cbo scores it. we have to find pay-fors. we to show that we're paying for things. how can you accumulate -- i came here in 2010, the detect was at $13 trillion. we're now hat $34 trillion. how can you accumulate that much debt that quick if you're paying for things? let's quit kidding ourselves. the bottom line is this -- they put a piece of legislation, the

cbo scores it, it becomes very popular, so we have ten years of spending authority, we run out of money in three or four years. guess what happens? rather than coming back to the legislature because it was such a successful program and expanding upon that and making sure we have new appropriations and new ways to pay for the additional services that people want, what happens then? we debt finance it. it's basically added to the debt for the next six years, if you run out of money in four. that's what's happening and no one seems to really care about that. i mean my republican colleagues, i mean my -- i need my republican colleagues, i need my democratic colleagues to be serious. stop. stop this craziness of allowing pieces of legislation to have a cbo score. make it stop when the money runs out. if the money runs out in four years, then the spending authority should run out in four years. even though we intended for to to last ten years, it didn't.

don't wait until the next movement changes it. do it ourselves so we never get ourselves in this deficit spending and keep accumulating more debt. second thing, propose more rules. don't let temporary rules rule the day. the treasury would do its job on time. we're not holding anybody accountable whatsoever. and that's what we need to do. let me be clear. there's no question that the ira is bringing more investment to this country than ever before and it'll work the way it was intended to work. electric vehicle and battery makers announced $52 billion in investments in north american supply chains before the irs starting loosening rules. it was working. it didn't need all this. they're placating a few players year -- the large carmakers -- that basically want this advantage. they wasp to be quicker because they put so much investments into electric vehicles and we can't supply them. they got way ahead of their skis

and they want the taxpayers of america to pull them out. that's it in a nutshell. numbers like this show that i can bring the law doesn't get us more investment. it just makes the costs go up for american taxpayers and it also keeps jobs in china, not bringing them back to america. the administration knows that the deal they made and the intent of the ira was to secure our energy, reduce our debt and rebuild our critical supply chain. they are attacking all three of those principles and you have never heard about the good that the bill did and the reason -- the purpose of the bill, reduce our debt, reduce our debt, secure energy. we're doing that. and basically rebuild our critical supply chains that are reliable and not dependent on foreign supply chains that basically are unreliable. i'm going to do everything in my power to hold them accountable, protect american taxpayers and restore american supply chains. this is something we should all be concerned about. if we work hard and pass a piece of legislation and we have

understanding that we all have agreed to on what a bill does, then every agency should adhere to the intent of the legislation. they should not be able to look for loopholes and find loopholes and even write them in when there are no loopholes. but they are doing that. they've all done this. you can't accumulate $33 trillion of debt or an additional $20 trillion of debt in 12 years, 13 years. you can't do that unless something is critically wrong. and we've been able to show it. and we've seen this and it has to stop. so i'm asking the president, please, get involved, mr. president. hold your agencies to the letter of the law, the way you would if you were still a senator. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: 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 nomination of executive calendar number 263, loren l. alikhan of the district of columbia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum calls has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of loren l. alikhan of the district of columbia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia 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. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty.

the clerk: ms. hassan. the clerk: mr. hawley.

the clerk: mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. the clerk: ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar.

the clerk: mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. the clerk: 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. vote: vote:

senators voting in the affirmative -- brown, butler, cantwell, casey, coons, durbin, fetterman, hassan, king, lujan, merkley, ossoff, padilla, schatz, shaheen,

stabenow, tester, warner, warnock, warren, welch, whitehouse. mrs. murray, aye. senators voting in the negative -- grassley, kennedy, lummis, mawch -- manchin, marshall, ricketts, risch, wicker, young. the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no. ms. smith, aye.

mr. johnson, no. mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, no. mr. heinrich, aye. mr. kaine, aye. mr. bennet, aye. ms. sinema, aye. mrs. britt, no. ms. baldwin, aye.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye.

mr. graham, no. mr. scott of florida, no. the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. mr. thune, no. mr. budd, no.

the clerk: mr. barrasso, no.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, no. the clerk: mr. vance, no. mrs. blackburn, no.

the clerk: mr. braun, no. the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no. mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. rounds, no. the clerk: ms. collins, no. mrs. capito, no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mr. tillis, no. ms. murkowski, no.

the clerk: mr. cotton, no.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no.

the clerk: mr. cramer, no.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye. the clerk: mr. kelly, aye. mr. crapo, no.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no.

the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. ms. rosen, aye. mr. moran, no.

the clerk: mr. lee, no. the clerk: mr. zanes, no. -- mr. daines, no.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, no. mr. sanders, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. hagerty, no. mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. mr. blumenthal, aye. mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. rubio, no. mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. menendez, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no. the clerk: mr. lankford, no.

mrs. fischer, no. the clerk: mr. romney, no.

the clerk: ms. ernst, no.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

mr. paul, no. vote:

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

vote:

the vice president: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or change a vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 50 and the nays are 50. the senate being equally divided, the vice president votes in the affirmative and the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: madam vice president. the vice president: the majority leader. mr. schumer: today is historic. vice president harris has just cast her 32nd tiebreaking vote, the most tiebreakers ever. i join all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle thanking the vice president for her leadership and for making the work of the senate possible. the record vice president harris sets today is significant. not just because of the number but because of what she has made

possible with tiebreaking votes. without her tiebreaking votes, there'd be no american rescue plan, no inflation reduction act, and we would not have confirmed many of the excellent federal judges now presiding on the bench. every time duty has called, vice president harris has answered, more than any other vice president in our nation's long and storied history. today, i also want to thank the vice president for doing all this while juggling the immense responsibilities of her office. she's led the charge on protecting freedom of choice, she's fought for climate justice, for criminal justice reform, commonsense gun safety. our children will live in a healthier, more secure, more prosperous nation thank to her lifetime of service. so thank you, advice harris -- vice president harris. this a great milestone, and yours is even a greater legacy.

let us continue working together to make life better for all americans. the vice president: thank you, majority leader. mr. schumer: and a little housekeeping after that history. i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized to speak, followed by senators hagerty, kaine, prior to recess, and further that all postcloture time be considered expired at 2:15, further that following the confirmation vote on the ali can nomination, the senators recess for an all-senators briefing until 4:30 p.m. the vice president: without objection.

mr. hagerty: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from virginia, senator kaine. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hagerty: mr. president, i'm here today to discuss worrying developments in mexico, one of the united states' most important international partners and our neighbor to the south. the nearly 2,000-mile border that our nations share both winds us -- binds us together and presents a series of challenges, including illegal migration, drug trafficking and human trafficking.

as we work through those difficult issues, a robust economic relationship has provided a firm foundation to strengthen and stabilize our efforts with an eye toward the future. the innovative u.s.-mexico-canada agreement, or usmca, deepened the connection between our economies, such that mexico is now one of our largest and most strategic trading partners. however, actions over the past two years by the government of mexican president obador weakened the bond and threaten the ties between our nations. through increasingly arbitrary and aggressive moves against companies based here in the united states, and their law enforcementy owned assets in mexico, the mexican government has abused its permitting and regulatory powers in ways that violate the letter and the spirit of our trade agreements, not to mention the special relationship historically enjoyed between our two

countries. these decisions directly impact critical sectors of the u.s. economy, from agriculture to energy and mining and from transportation to tourism. these capricious actions, which are falsely labeled as reforms, risk substantially undermining confidence in the commercial rule of law in mexico. they also jeopardize the essential economic relations between north american partners. further, these actions likely violate our trade agreements, by be a ra gaiting -- abrogating contracts and eliminating private competition and oversight, thereby sending a clear message to u.s. capital markets that mexico is no longer safe nor profitable for investing. i want to highlight the specific case of vulcan materials. for almost two years now, president lopez obrador personally harassed, interfered

with, and obstructed vulcan's lawful operations in mexico. vulcan is a u.s. based construction aggregate company with a strong tennessee and virginia presence that is more than a 30-year track record of responsibly operating in mexico and investing in the community that surrounds its mexican facility. in may 2022, president lopez obrador ordered the illegal shutdown of vulcan's operations which had an immediate impact on the supply of construction aggregates to the united states. then in march 2023 the president ordered a military invasion of vulcan's property and okay piez the company's property and port for two weeks. as shocking as this sounds, video footage of this invasion is available online. now, president lopez obrador has initiated a process to illegally take the company's property by

declaring it a supposed naturally protected area. the president of mexico is abusing a process designed to protect region wide ecosystems in order to illegally expropriate land which coincidentally exactly matches vulcan's property lines. this is an egregious abuse of the law that undermines the very trust that should be foundation, foundational to the u.s.-mexico relationship. by illegally closing vulcan's business and now attempting to steal their property, the mexican president is signalling to other american companies that mexico cannot be trusted when it comes to foreign investment. if not quickly corrected, actions like these risk choking off the economic relationship between our two nations. many important supply chains stretch across the u.s.-mexico border supplying millions of good jobs and making both countries more attractive for capital investment. this is certainly true for my home state of tennessee.

because of the successes that i witnessed between my home state of tennessee and mexico, i've been a strong advocate for reshoring integrated supply chains from communist china to north america. building upon the successes of usmca as a foundational component of north american competitiveness supports both american and mexican economic prosperity and both nations' national security. but without a basic respect for private property and the rule of law, the prospects for expanding our shared economic and national security via commerce and investment are greatly diminished. in fact, failing to protect property property and rule of law will inevitably lead to the disintegration of our ties. i urge president obrador to reverse course before more damage is done. instead, we should be looking for opportunities to work together to attract investment and unlock the economic

opportunity that is being presented to both of our nations as supply chains are rebalanced away from communist china. let's seize this opportunity together rather than damage our shared interest for short-term political gains. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. kaine: mr. president the presiding officer: the senator from virginia mr. kaine: mr. president, i join my friend and colleague from tennessee who in addition to being on the foreign relations committee has background in the private sector as an economic development official for the state of tennessee and also as a diplomat in his service as ambassador to japan. and the issue that we're talking about is one about the economy and the economic relations between the united states and mexico, but also it's about diplomacy. we are here to speak about the mexican government's unfair targeting of this one business, vulcan materials company, but they can stand as an example for many others.

vulcan is headquartered in alabama, but they employ more than a thousand people in the commonwealth of virginia and more than 70 facilities. and they have been legally operating this construction material facility and port in the yucatan peninsula of mexico for more than 30 years. the mexican government in recent years under the direction of the president of mexico has taken a set of actions to include the recent filing of a regulatory notice that they intend to take over vulcan's property in the yucatan. and this is a matter about trade but to be sure, it's also a matter about the rule of law. last december we celebrated the buy centennial of diplomatic relationships between the u.s. and mexico. our two countries share a 2,000-mile border, extensive trade, security, economic relations. the relationship as my colleague shared, is a consequential one, but that relationship will

suffer unless mexico chooses a different direction with respect to foreign investment. mexico is a member of the organization for economic cooperation and development, oecd. that is the international forum designed to promote sustainable economic growth. the oecd membership is made up of 38 democratic countries with market based economies, a country as small as iceland and as large as the united states but who share a commitment to democracy rule of law, trade, and economic growth. if you're a member of the oecd, you rest pretty comfortable in the fact that 80% of global trade by many estimates come through these 38 countries and nearly 60% of the world's gdp are through oecd nations. the oecd's last economic survey of mexico pointed out some trouble signs. they indicated that investment

in mexico has been weak for the last nine years since 2015. and they made a key recommendation that if mexico wants to be stronger in the oecd pillar values, they should provide investors with certainty and regulatory stability. the report notes that, quote, with appropriate policy settings, mexico could reap further benefits from the strong recovery in the united states and the ongoing reorganization of global supply chains closer to consumer markets. in other words, mexico has a huge upside in an economy that's globally coming out of covid. but this type of behavior by the mexican government against companies like vulcan is exactly what is limiting mexico's ability to reap the benefits of oecd membership. senator hagerty and i are supporters of near shoring and closer economic engagement not just with mexico but with other

nations in the western homes fear. we're -- hemisphere. we're original cosponsors of senate resolution 273 which we introduced earlier this year calling on the need to promote stronger economic relations between the u.s., canada, and countries in latin america and caribbean. i'm not going to repeat my endlessly repeated concern that american diplomacy too often moves on an east-west axis and not a north-south axis. i've spoken about that often. we both want to have a more robust north-south axis whether it's about trade, diplomacy, security. the mexican example already through the usmca is a great example. but this is all jeopardized if foreign investors believe that their land can be taken. that they can be invaded by the mexican military, that decades

of providing jobs and investment can be taken away at the whim of the individual who is president. we're seeing a historic shift in global supply chains right notice. that could be to mexico's advantage, but if mexico continues on the kind of behavior that senator hagerty and i are discussing today, mexico will fall short of this is opportunity that is right at its doorstep. i support the state department's efforts to advocate for u.s. businesses in mexico, including making clear to the mexican government that their treatment of vulcan and other companies will undermine u.s. and international confidence in that country. i urge the government to refrain from moving in this counterproductive direction. and i thank my colleague from tennessee, senator hagerty and others in this body who are focused on this issue, i thank them for maintaining a focus and i'm doing everything i can to make sure this works out the right way. with that, mr. president, i would like to yield back to my

colleague from tennessee. mr. hagerty: thank you, senator kaine. i want to thank you for lending your expertise as the senior member of the senate foreign relations committee and most importantly as chair of the western hemisphere subcommittee. thank you for bringing your respected voice to this matter of serious diplomatic concern. and as former governor of your home state of virginia, you have an acute appreciation for the economic opportunity that exists. there is danger and danger being destroyed by the illegal actions of the mexican president. thank you very much for joining me in this. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until 2:^ 15.

the president of harvard university, university of pennsylvania and massachusetts institute of technology testified on combating anti-semitism college campuses and hearing the house education workforce committee. you can see it tonight. northeastern on c-span2, c-span now, removal you up for online c-span.org. >> is a free mobile app between your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington, live on demand, keep up with the biggest events and live streams and for proceedings and cures for the rest congress, white house event, campaign and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington general