ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, bennet, blumenthal, brown, cantwell,

capito, cardin, casey, collins, cornyn, cortez masto, graham, hassan, heinrich, hickenlooper, hirono, kaine, marshall, murkowski, ossoff, padilla, peters, rubio, shaheen, smith, tester, tillis, van hollen, warner, welch, whitehouse, and wind. mr. -- and wyden. mr. menendez, aye. mr. durbin, aye. mr. sanders, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye. senators voting in the negative -- barasso, brawn, budd, cotton, crapo, cruz, daines, ernst,

fischer, grassley, hagerty, hawley, hyde-smith, johnson, kennedy, lee, lummis, mcconnell, mullin, hall, ricketts -- paul, ricketts, risch, scott of florida, vance, and young.

mrs. murray, aye. mr. thune, aye. mrs. britt, no. mr. schatz, aye. ms. rosen, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. ay. the clerk: mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye. mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. warnock, aye. the clerk: ms. sinema, aye. mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: mr. lankford, aye.

vote:

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, no.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. the clerk: mr. kelly, aye. mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye. vote:

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. romney, no.

the presiding officer: the yeas are 63. the nays are 32. the motion is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii ms. hirono:}madam president, we now have one week left until the senate is scheduled to recess for the end of the year. while this year is quickly coming to an end, our work in this body is far from over, especially as it relates to our national security. yesterday, madam president, the armed services committee on which i sit released a text of f.y.2024 national defense authorization act conference report. this year's ndaa contains critical investments in our servicemembers, military -- in our servicemembers, our military infrastructure, and our national security at large. importantly, this year's ndaa contains a 5.^ 2% pay raise for our troops. the most significant raise in

more than 20 years. and prevents large cuts to servicemembers overseas' cost of living adjustment accounts. ms. hirono: the bill also includes several provisions i fought to secure to improve servicemembers' quality of life, including a pilot program to give military secretaries greater authority to replace substandard barracks. as we work to defend our allies and prevent conflict in the pacific, this year's ndaa contains a number of provisions to strengthen our posture throughout the indo-pacific, including establishing a strategy for missile defense of hawaii and the indo-pacific region, providing greater flexibility to bolster infrastructure in the region, and authorizing funding for multilateral training campaigns with our allies and partners in the indo-pacific.

as home to indo-pacific command and the tip of the sphere of any conflict in the pacific, hawaii plays an especially important role in our common defense. a role that is even more meaningful today on the 82nd anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor. but as is the case across our country, much of the defense department's post-world war ii infrastructure in hawaii is in desperate need of repair or replacement. that's why i secured language in the bill directing indopacom to provide a report to congress on the state of all dod infrastructure in hawaii so that we can get serious about modernization. at a time of global instability, it is essential that we pass this conference report as we have every year for the last 62

years. to protect our national and reaffirm our nation and reaffirm our global leadership. the united states plays a key role and a vital role in supporting our allies across the globe. that is why the senate is also working on a supplemental package to provide much needed assistance to our international partners, including two nations defending their right to exist. for nearly two years, ukrainians have brave live fought off putin's unjust and brutal invasion with the support of the united states, support president zelenskyy himself has said is essential to his country's success. but now at a critical moment in this war, republicans are holding up essential aid for ukraine in exchange for unrelated permanent immigration policy changes.

the biden administration and the ukrainians have been clear time is of the essence and without u.s. aid, putin will likely be able to gain ground. meanwhile, israel is working to defend itself and its fundamental right to exist in the wake of hamas' brutal october 7 terror attack. in the days following the attack, there seemed to be bipartisan consensus about the need to get additional aid to israel as quickly as possible, but just days later, house republicans opted to tie this much-needed assistance to an unrelated partisan domestic policy demand gutting irs tax enforcement. republicans claim this proposal would offset the cost of aid to israel when in fact it would cost our government money in terms of lost tax revenues. the house republican bill also

neglected to include any of the white house' request for funding to address the humanitarian crisis in gaza. in addition to funding for ukraine and israel, the senate package also includes language to renew the compacts of free association or cofa. these compacts would allow the marshall islands provide the u.s. exclusive military jurisdiction in these strategic pacific nations critical to our national security in exchange for defense and other benefits for cofa citizens. it is hard to overstate the importance of these compacts to our operations in the pacific and to our national security. for the first time in nearly 30 years, these agreements also reinstate access to federal benefits for cofa citizens thousands of whom legally live, work, and pay taxes in the

united states. madam president, the american people are counting on us and perhaps more importantly, they are looking to us watching to see whether we can set aside partisan politics and do our jobs. if we fail to pass this supplemental national security funding package, it will send a message to our allies and adversaries alike that when it matters most, the u.s. cannot be counted on and this congress cannot do its job. this is not a game. there is no backstop here. if we fail to do our jobs, people will die, our allies will suffer losses, our national security will be degraded, and our leadership role as a great nation that defends democratic values will be significantly undermined. i thank leader schumer, chairman reed, and those of our

republican colleagues who are working diligently in good faith to find a path forward on all of these priorities because failure is not an option here. with stakes this high, we have to get this done. i implore my colleagues to come to the table so we can do so. the world is watching. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor to celebrate 20 years since the passage of the part d medicare prescription drug benefit. so tomorrow, december 8, is that day. now, there was a time when the seniors of america on medicare didn't have access to nationwide prescription drug benefits. so, as i indicated, 20 years ago tomorrow president george w. bush signed into law a nationwide prescription drug benefit for our nation's seniors.

at that time, i was chairman of the finance committee, and i was proud to lead -- be lead author of that medicare part d. it wasn't easy. it took several years to bring members of both political parties in the senate and the house along with a president -- in this case, president bush, p- to accomplish this monumental task. as i remember, both political parties were blaming each other over a period of maybe five or six years of why we don't have a prescription drug bill and probably blaming each other. throughout 2001 and 2002 and 2003, i led a bipartisan negotiation that eventually

produced the medicare prescription drug improvement and modernization act of 2003, which is the official title. -- of that legislation. in 2003, i said this -- a quote from that period of time -- medicare is part of our social fabric. we're not only saving it but we're also improving it. and, of course, that still rings today. today 52 million seniors are voluntarily enrolled in medicare part d plans because it's not a requirement of medicare. in 2023, 804 stand-alone prescription drug plans were offered across the nation, with

the average iowan having over 20 plans to choose from to meet whatever their special needs were. over the lifetime of the program, the average annual medicare part d faced monthly premiums between $27 to $36 a month. now, i remember some of the discussions that were had back there as we tried to develop this legislation. we thought to ourselves we had to be very careful that the initial premiums were not over $40 a month because we figured that was just too high for anybody to participate in this new program. and we knew -- or least thought at that time -- that they would

continue to go up according to inflation. but as you can see, after 27 years, the base beneficial monthly premium is still well below $40 a month, which obviously is quite a surprise to those of us that were involved at that time in writing this legislation. but a very positive surprise. access and affordability have been a key hallmark of the medicare part d program, but so has good stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars. in the first decade of the program, the nonpartisan congressional budget office projected medicare part d would cost taxpayers roughly $550 billion for that decade. it ended up costing $353

billion, which was 36% less than the nonpartisan congressional budget office projected in 2003. and most federal projections of costs of almost any program tend tends to be much greater than can c.b.o. estimates, so this is another one of those pleasant surprises that have come out of what we thought would actually materialize as we were writing this legislation. i know that seniors have appreciated this nationwide prescription drug benefit and its use of a market-based approach. so market-based approach is pretty important because a lot of people have -- like to have one single government program that dictates to each

participant only that one choice, and that's the choice that the government offers. in this particular case, we know that we have had plenty of choices to meet the needs of americans in different ways according to their likes. recently i've been told how -- by my constituents how medicare part d has helped make their lives easier. now, there's a lady by the name of kay from mount vernon, iowa, who wrote this -- i am 1 should% satisfied with medicare part d. it's given me peace of mind and cost savings that make room in my budget for other living expenses. julie from dubuque, iowa, said this -- quote, i wouldn't possibly be able to afford

oncology care without this insurance. my advice for those becoming eligible for medicare, sign up for medicare part d. use a trusted source to navigate all the plans. i'm glad to have choices. not one size fits all. end of quote of julie. an iowan who volunteers with the senior health insurance information program said this -- as a ship volunteer -- that's shipp is the senior health insurance information program. that volunteer said quote, i'd like to help people find the best plan to fit their needs and their finances. one individual was taking 35 daily prescription medications that would have cost $10,000 per month without part d. for this iowan, medicare part d

was, by definition, lifesaving. end of quote. i'm glad medicare part d has benefited these seniors. medicare part d has shown that empowering patients with health plan transparency and choice can bring about significant savings for patients and taxpayers. even though medicare part d has been around for these 20 years, i've consistently conducted oversight and worked to make it better for seniors and taxpayers. during medicare part d's implementation, i held the centers for medicare and medicaid services accountable and consistently conducted oversight that ranged from making sure seniors could access their prescription drugs all the way to ensure taxpayers' dollars were wisely spent. i've also worked to advance

commonsense reforms for seniors, for providers, and for taxpayers. 20 years ago we modernized medicare to improve access to seniors while ensuring fiscal sustainability for taxpayers. i don't know why for sure in 1966 when medicare was set up, why it didn't include prescription drugs, but i assume at that particular time prescription drugs were about 1% or 2% of the cost of medicine in the united states, or the delivery of medicine in the united states. today i think it's somewhere between 15% and 20%. now, these patient-centered principles that i've talked about can be applied to the

latest front in the fight to lower prescription drugs by shining sunlight on powerful drug middlemen called pharmacy benefit managers. by bringing transparency to the pbm industry, we will empower patients, employers, providers, and insurers to make informed decisions based on true value, if any, that pbm's provide. when consumers are empowered, they can demand change or pursue better alternatives. unleashing market forces that foster innovation and apply downward pressure on prices is the way to get there l the way o get there. the senate has an opportunity to

take auction to reduce costs -- to take action to reduce costs for patients and taxpayers alike. we should let the successes of medicare part d patient-centered approach guide us. now my colleagues are going to say that way took advantage of commemorating 20 years of part d being a successful program for seniors and keeping drug costs down for seniors to take a whack at pbm's. but i think we all ought to think in terms of these powerful middlemen between the companies and you as a consumer or the pharmacy -- local pharmacy, and we don't have any idea what they're doing. we know that they have something to do with setting prices, setting rebates, determining what drugs are in what

formularies. but beyond that we don't know whether the rebates that they give benefit the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the pbm's themselves, the pharmacies, or you as a consumer. and we ought to know that. now, senator wyden, my democrat friend -- he and i traded off chairing the finance committee from time to time -- he and i started working on pbm's probably about five years ago. we were the only two that were interested in it. but it's reached astage where four committees of the united states senate and one committee of the house of representatives have put out bills to make the opaque environment in which pbm's operate more transparent. we're not saying what they're doing is wrong, i'm only saying

we ought to know what they're doing. for the benefit of the consumer but also for the benefit of the american taxpayer, because between medicare and medicaid, the government is the biggest purchaser of prescription drugs. i hope to be here on the floor of the united states senate to praise the congress of 2003 for passing the prescription drug part d program for medicare. i didn't want to lose the opportunity to urge action on pbm legislation so we can know what's going on with the pricing of drugs, the formularies, and the benefits of it. because with transparency brings accountability. maybe transparency won't be enough when we're all done, but i wouldn't know where to tell you to go if you wanted to

change some law right now to transform this system. but i think transparency will do a great deal of good. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: i want to first rise to congratulate my colleague from iowa and i'm glad he's told the story for all to hear about medicare part d and the benefits it's brought to his state, mine, and to the nation. it was a remarkable achievement. i congratulate him on enacting that legislation. even though we're different political parties, we're friends and find common ground. one thing we are fighting for now is disclosure on tv ads for prescription drugs and what they

cost. what a radical idea, the cost of the drug. we share the belief that disclosure to the consumer sr important and the understanding some of these drugs which we have become so, i guess become so common in our daily lives that we can actually not only pronounce but spell xarelto, we should know what it costs, we have should an idea of the thousand dollars a month to pay for the drugs. it's not a radical idea. we passed it before in the senate. questions were raised, so we're at it again. like prescription part d, it helps those in iowa and illinois. i congratulate you again on this achievement. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that eleanor skelly, be granted floor privileges until

december 16, 2023. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, it's pretty well known by members of congress but bears repeating that on october 7 an atrocity occurred. the innocent people living in israel were attacked by hamas terrorists. what happened during the course of that attack is not a subject of just specks, it's a fact. -- speculation, it's a fact. those of us in the senate had an opportunity two weeks ago at the invitation of senator rosen to see the videotapes of the horrible scenes when hamas terrorists attacked innocent people in israel. 1,200 people were harmed, they were victims of systemic rape, violence, murder, mayhem, every single list of war crimes was checked off that day when the hamas terrorists attacked. for those committed to the

survival and future of israel, it was a horrible occurrence. more jews died on october 7 of this year than at any time since the holocaust during world war ii, a terrible jaejd. -- tragedy. does israel have the right to exist? the answer is yes. does israel have the right to defend themselves? the answer is yes. does israel have a right to ensure they are safe? certainly. having said that, mr. president, there's another part to this story. the reaction to israel to what happened on october 7 has been measured by many different people in many different ways. this is what we know. 80% of the people who live in gaza have been displaced, moved to locations that are supposedly safe, which sometimes are and sometimes are not. 60% of the dwelling places in gaza have been destroyed so that families can no long-range live in the areas they once lived in.

the third point i want to make is the number of people who died as a result of this conflict is now in the range of 13,000 to 17,000 people. 70% of those who died -- innocent people who died have been women and children. it is the largest loss of life of children in a wartime setting in modern times and it gets worse every single day. we see the pictures, we see the videos, we see the news reports. it is a humanitarian crisis of epic proportion. one -- r -- ones president biden made it clear supporting israel, he has asked israel to be cautious with -- yesterday the secretary of the united nations

said that we have to return to a situation where there is at least an opportunity for peace and can stop the fighting. a cease-fire. some have criticized him for it. i applaud him. i think it is the only thing we can do to stop the one killing of innocent people in gaza. there are solutions to the problem in that area, they're not military entirely, only partially. primarily they're political. in has to be an understanding between the palestinian people and those living in israel that there is an opportunity for peace and they have to trust one another to enact that. you can't do that at the end of a barrel of a gun. i think this idea of having an end to hostilities so we can complete the exchange of hostages is critical. the long-range we wait, the less likely the hostages will survive. they are calling on the israeli government and i join them to

say we need another moment of peace so we can negotiate and help with the hostages, so i urge the leaders and government to think of the innocent people who are dying, the children, the women, elderly folks who are dying as a ruflt this campaign and to find a peaceful solution which starts, as far as i'm concerned, with the decision not to move forward with military operations. now, on a different subject matter completely, mr. president. i want to explain a bill i've introduced that is so controversial that when you go to the airport here in washington, d.c., they have billboards flashing about how dangerous this bill is. let me tell you about the bill. mr. president, most americans pay for their purchases with credit and debit cards. i know i do. however most americans don't know that when they go to the register to pay or enter their

card information on-line, there are fees being charged when they enter their credit card money as swipe fees. each time a credit card is used to make a donation to the red cross, purchase groceries, fuel, christmas gifts or something else, visas and mastercard charge a fee you never see. some of the fee they keep it for themselves, most goes to the bank issuing the credit card. today visa and mastercard control 80% of the credit card companies, duopoly, they set the interchange fees or swipe fee on behalf of thousands of banks, leaving merchants, retailers, many of them small businesses and restaurants without a choice but to accept the outrageous fees. there is no negotiation on this fee. there is no competition. small business owners and

consumers face a take it or leave it choice. in 2022, u.s. merchants and consumers paid $93.2 billion in credit card internet fees. that is unacceptable and unfair. and we can and must do something about it. that's why i made it a priority to pass my bipartisan credit ka card -- credit card competition act. i introduced this with senators marshall, welch, and vance, would bring competition and choice to the credit card market and bring down the excessive credit card fees, by requiring only the largest 30 banks in this country to enable at least two credit card networks to be used on credit cards they issue it would provide with at least one outside of the visa and mastercard duopoly. this is estimated to save merchants, retailers and

consumers 15 billion dollars every year. given this threat to their ability to profit off of consumers and small businesses, it's no surprise that the credit card industry is paying a pretty penny to convince consumers that my bill will take away the credit card rewards programs like frequent flier miles. a new report found that visa, mastercard and the trade groups they fund, such as the electronic coalition, spent 21 billion dollars lobbying against my bill since 2022. they recruited some allies to breathlessly claim that my bill would make frequent flier rewards frams disa -- programs disappear. scott kirby said that my bill would kill the rewards program.

that is false. a recent study found if my bill was enacted, it's would have an impact on rewards and noted that bank swipe fee profits would -- more than currently sufficient to maintain the reward level. what i've come to find out and most people would be surprised to hear that united airlines is a good example. we think of it as airlines that also have credit cards, but when you look at the profit statements, it is a credit card company that happens to own airplanes. that is a fact. more profit is made off of their credit card than flight operations. all of the planes and schedules and all those at work don't generate the same level of profit as the credit cards with the interchange fees. the he credit card companies

offering these programs if they make less money will provide fewer programs. let's look at europe for a comparison. in 2015, the european union capped credit interchange fees at 0.3% compared to the united states's rate for united airlines and others, the u.s. rate between 2% and 3%. compare that 2% to 3% compared to 0.3%, and you say to yourself they don't offer the frequent flyer programs in europe. but major european airlines still offer frequent flier programs that are comparable, if not better, than anything offered in the united states. moreover in july forbes magazine published an article said that the airline programs in the united states have made it harder to redeem miles.

i will look at this now that united airlines has made such a to-do about it. let me repeat, my bill is not coming after your rewards program or any other program, and any effort by the airline industry or big banks is just a scare tactic. they are feigning concerns for hard working americans to protect their bottom line. since i introduced the bill, those falsely claimed that it would hurt unions and benefit billionaires. a few weeks ago multiple unions, including the international brother hood of teamsters endorsed my credit card competition bill. the teamster president said union members and american families cannot afford to sacrifice hard-earned wages to predatory and consolidated credit card corporations, trying to skim every last dollar they can from vulnerable consumers.

that is why this legislation was introduced to fix. before thanksgiving, a diverse group of organizations representing workers, small businesses, and competition advocates launched the lower credit card fees coalition urging congress to pass my credit card competition act. few things could unite, businesses, consumer groups in a -- and a bipartisan group of senators. this bill does just that because it will benefit hard working americans. far from threatening rewards programs or hurting workers, the bill will benefit americans currently paying the price for the credit card industry price gouging schemes. it will give a fighting chance to small businesses and restaurants that we want to see stay open, support the mom and pop shops that make our communities feel whole and keep money in the pockets of hard working americans. it's time we bring this commonsense bipartisan legislation to the floor for a vote.

mr. durbin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader and minority leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 415, martin o'malley to be commissioner of social security. there be one hour of debate to be equally divided. upon the use foraying back of time, the senate vote on the nomination, with no intervening action or debate. that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 492, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 492, honoring the life of first lady rosalynn carter. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its "businessweek"

today, it stand adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday, december 11s following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the frederico nomination, postcloture. that all postcloture on the federico nomination be considered expired at 5:30 p.m. upon disposition of the nomination, the senate resume consideration of the cokier nomination. if any nominations are confirmed during mondays' session, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of senators lee and gillibrand.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i yield the floor.

international study. let's begin with the boat yesterday in the senate. the vote to move to the president international aid package by publicans over changes to immigration policy. your reaction to this debate? >> i'm still hopeful democrats and republicans will find a way to push the packages forward. as a clear deal to be made, rockets feel strongly about immigration reform and funding. democrats feel strongly about aid to ukraine. there's a deal to be made there and i'm hopeful that will continue to explore possibilities there because both of them are needed. >> explain why ukraine eight is your it needed in your opinion.

>> aid to ukraine as needed to keep military forces in the field. they are facing aggressive russia and without continuous flow of supplies able gradually military capability, the ability -- mr. lee:en mr. president, in the words of a simon and gar funkle song, they sing of a dream in which the world had all agreed to bring an end to war, and they reached this agreement apparently just by signing a single piece of paper. this dream is just a dream, of course. that's not how things are brought about. that's not how lasting peace occurs. but the dream echos the stated aspirations that led to the creation and eventually the perpetuation of the united

nations. as history unfolded, this stark reality is not lived up to those lofty aspirations. we've witnessed failure upon failure, andient the 20th century notion of a collective world peace still lingers in the minds of the american can foreign policy establishment. it's a notion that believes that somehow u.s. prayings and leadership within -- prayings and leadership -- participation and leadership in the united nations is a pillar of our security and strength. a glance at the world today however reveals the harsh truth, enduring global peace remains just a dream. while the corridors of the ounce use were designed -- of the united nations were designed for diplomacy, it's now a place where america's adversaries, people who trample on diplomat principles and human dignity itself, to say nothing of national sovereignty, sponsor initiatives that fly in the face

of our foundational principles and values. just last november, we saw iran, known for its support of terrorist groups, and ipts systemic -- its system ifk targeting of jewish people, chair a un human rights event. russia and china, nations that challenge our interests and undermined our values at every turn, hold permanent seats on the u.n. security council. china, for its part, also continues to enjoy the benefits of developing nation status, exploiting u.n. programs and other monetary benefits for questionable gain. now, the united states, as the u.n.'s largest funder, ends up tacitly supporting these things through its funding. the largest krinltor to the -- contributor to the u.n.'s budget is the united states. the biden administration continues to fund indirectly groups like hamas through the

united nations relief and works agency, known for its anti-semitic indoctrination. similarly, the previous administration halted funding for the united nations population fund, due to its support for coercive abortion practices in china. the bloated bureaucracy of the u.n. epitomizes the very foreign entanglements our founding fathers warned against. the global security environment of today underscores the urgency of reasserting american sovereignty. the defund act, which i've introduced this week in the senate, speaks to ends -- seeks to end u.s. participation in the united nations system, ensuring any future attempts to rejoin would require senate approval. now, detractors argue that u.s. involvement is essential for our security and that absence from the u.n. would diminish our soft power, forcing us to rely solely on military might.

these are misleading distractions. the current u.n. symptom erodes american power and combels us to come -- compels us to come to the rules-based international order. this fearmongering overlooks the proven value of bilateral relationships, which are the true bedrock of international diplomacy. at the u.n.'s inception in 1945, president truman presented a choice between international chaos and the establishment of a world organization for peace. yet, despite the u.n.'s existence, chaos abounds, adversaries leverage their u.n. positions, and the goal of peace is overshadowed by the ambition for supernational governance. the true hope for a peaceful world lies in the strength of our national sovereignty and the use of that strength to forge and continue to foster bilateral

relationships around the world. as william shakespeare said what win i if i gain the thing i seek? one must truly ask, what does the united nations seek? is it truly peace? i think not. its actions speak for themselves. since 1945, the u.s. has slowly surrendered national sovereignties to the -- sovereignty to the u.n. under the guise of customary international law. under this goal of bringing peace and harmony through this international organization, an international organization that is itself utterly untethered from the electoral politics of any country, they very much operate as an island unto themselves once they enter the halls of the u.n. in the united states we finance a very significant portion of the u.n. much of it voluntarily, with no obligation to do so. our generosity has been misused,

to empower terrorists, foment hate, facilitate coercive practices abroad, and in many, many ways undermine our values. the defund act aims to restore american independence from the u.n.'s bureaucracy. it will repeal the foundational participation act within the u.n. the u.n. participation act of 1945. terminate our contributions, and participation in peacekeeping operations, and strip u.n. personnel of diplomat immunity within the united states. it will also remove the united states from the world health organization, and prohibit reentry into the u.n. system without the senate's advice and consent. it's time, mr. president, that we face reality. the u.n. has long since ceased to be an effective or responsible steward of our resources. it's time for america to lead through strpth and sovereignty,

not through sub -- strength and sovereignty, not through an organization no longer serving our interests much less the interest of a realizable, lasting peace.

there is overlap but not much for manageable. >> your questions and comments about the fight and ukraine and u.s. supply of military assistance. he condyle and at these lines. text us at (202)748-8003 on facebook.com, c-span and x with the handle at c-span. jb in arkansas. >> my understanding is some years ago we enticed ukraine into giving up their nuclear

arsenal, whatever they had. i'm of the opinion that nuclear power russia wouldn't do what they are doing, can i have your opinion on the effects. >> when the soviet union fell apart, there were nuclear weapons and ukraine, ukraine agreed to have those deactivated and the united states paid for that. there is some thought whether that was a wise move on their part, there were some technical issues although they didn't have the codes to use them. one of the lessons countries are coming out of this experience with this nuclear weapons might be the ultimate guarantee of sovereignty and might be incentive for countries to build nuclear weapons and discourage

countries from doing that but it's important to be credible as an ally because if you look at south koreans or saudis, if they think the united states will not be liable then they will go to the ultimate guarantee of sovereignty which is to build nuclear weapons yesterday in the paper there were some numbers weapons have been depleted, are they in a position to attack another european country or have they been crippled in this fight against ukraine? >> the european country now will take time when the war ends to rebuild military capabilities, a lot of debate about how long it will take. when you talk to countries and eastern countries, they worry

that time might be very short, as short as three or four years and others might think it might be a decade or two. the challenges russians appear to be intent on capabilities back stating they want to do that and also appeared to be as aggressive as they were before the war so eastern european countries are worried about this and preparing for iraq of the armed russia when the war ends. >> gary in ohio, republican. >> i was wondering if they've won the effect on or, it just seems russians and their allies,

they will just give the ukrainian weapons. i just don't see how they can win. >> we are not just giving defensive weapons, we are giving a wide variety including tanks, artillery, it looks like we may get them f-16 aircraft so weapons that are defensive and offensive. i think there are some examples of countries successfully defending their borders. you go back to the first world war and they defended their borders but they were eventually pushed out. more recently iran iraq war after initially attacking iran, iraq held on for many years after that defending its borders so it is possible to have a

successful defense over a period of time. >> massachusetts, john, independent. good morning to you. >> good morning. the military, 1976 in korea. i was wondering, the only thing that stopped us talking on the phone today, when they were killed, russia and china did not back north korea must the only reason, it was a suicide mission. i'm wondering supply, we are in a dangerous situation, i want to know your opinion. >> are we in a dangerous situation right now with iran and other threats? deliciousness question there are many threats out there in the world, national security, it is

very complex. iranians are sponsoring tourism around the world and they are aggressive in the western pacific so china see for example. on the other hand when i talked to junior staff of office and they expressed concerns about changes in the world, which are very real, he should have been around during the cold war. served in korea in 1935, much more aggressive in those years. we also have the soviet union, 60000 nuclear weapons and they were high levels of readiness, existential threat was extremely high so although the world is dangerous now, it is not as it was during the cold war people

need to keep that in perspective. >> republican caller. >> thank you for taking my call. i've been wanting to ask, i can't remember your name but i think this is the problem, i have heard you mention other people's orders, the united states noticed ukraine, i think we would like to have some knowledge of checks and balances. the presiding officer: senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is not. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm going to pose a simple question here, that is this guy, xi jinping. imagine if a chinese financial institution, one of their banks,

one of their private equity funds, they've got a lot of them, imagine if a chinese financial institution starred to invest in the united states in big technologies that would make the u.s. military much stronger. what do you think would happen to those executives in china? they're taking chinese money and pouring it into companies that work directly with the pentagon, making the army, marines corps more lethal. with what would happen? he wouldn't let them do it and if he did, he would arrest them, put them in jail and shoot them at sunup. there's not one person in this body or america, heck, not one

person in china that would disagree with that. that's what he would do. so, mr. president, what happens when american development companies, financial institutions, private equity institutions, hedge funds, development banks, what happens when they invest in chinese companies that make the chinese military more lethal and stronger? what happens? the answer, mr. president, pretty much nothing. worse, we have a hard time knowing which american firms are even doing this. mr. president, this is a huge knowledge gap in an asymmetrical advantage that our big advantage

xi jinping and the chinese communist party have over us. they can't invest. they would get the death penalty if they invest in an american company that would help our military become stronger. we have, who knows, a lot of financial institutions investing in chinese companies to make their military stronger. we have companies -- financial companies investing in chinese communist parties that are investing in semiconductors, artificial intelligence quantum computing, all critical to dominate the 21{l1}st{l0} century battle field. this is a giant national security issue.

mr. president, i don't normally come to the floor and quote lennon. he said that capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. this is a little bit of that that is going on here in the united states of america. we have executives in this country, and certain financial institutions, by the way, these american financial institutions and executives owe everything to their success by being american, being in the greatest country in the world with the rule of law and our -- in our capital markets and dynamic economy, their success is because of the great nation we live in. and, yet, some kind of addicted to making more money, listen to lennon, they said, listen, maybe i will do that advanced chip manufacturing development in the chinese economy. maybe i'll help them a little bit with artificial intelligence or quantum computing.

by the way, quantum computing, you get good at that, you can break any code that our military uses. all right. you're toast if you can't communicate in a covered fashion, encrypted. so this is really dangerous stuff. i was first actually made aware of this many years ago by one of the -- in my view one of the best chairmen for the joint chiefs of staff in decades, joe dunford, just a fantastic chairman, very measured, smart, strategic. he raised this issue with me many years ago. senator, we, america, have financial institutions, american financial institutions using

american development money, you know, the iowa teachers retirement plan, the labors retirement plan, they are taking that money and investing it in china in really advanced technologies. it's a problem. chinese don't have that development capital and professionalism to grow these companies but we do. so this was first brought up to me by a great marine general. so i started digging into it, mr. chairman, over the years and years, and it is a giant problem. senior administration officials and the biden administration agree, a whole host of top national security officials in the trump administration agree, this is a bipartisan issue in terms of the concern. it is a blinking red light for our national security. so some might ask, well, wait a minute, what's wrong with an american financial company making development in the

chinese private economy? well, look, it depends on what part of the chinese private economy. if you want to go and make more hamburgers over there or, you know, sell, i don't know, refrigerators, that's fine. but these are investments in some of the critical technological needs of the military that will enable whichever military dominates these sectors to dominate the 21{l1}st{l0}century battlefield. there is no such thing as a private company in china. if you're a private equity firm in america and say i will invest in this private company in china to help with the quantum technology capability, we know that this guy and the chinese military, the pla and the chinese communist party, they own that. they own that. they will take it, use it,

dominate it. so, mr. president, what can we do about this problem? well, look, there's a lot of ideas on what we can do about this problem. i'm working on legislation that would actually have the u.s. government, believe it or not, and i'm not a big government guy, look into the investments being made by american financial institutions into some of the most high-tech areas of china. what we would call outbound cfius. let's look outbound. that is more controversial, we need it, we've got not a ton, but some who are financial executives, who, whatever, patriotism, i'll leave it at the door. i'm not worried about that guy. i just want to make a big buck.

it's too bad. we've got them. so we need this. mr. president, here's an easier starting point. let's have a transparency provision that enables us, the u.s. government, to say, all right, big financial american firms or private equity firms or hedge funds, that american development dollars you're getting from the, you know, illinois teachers retirement fund, we want to know if you're putinghad that into -- putting that into quantum computing that can help this guy dominate taiwan. we want to know that. we want transparency. pretty good idea. now, senator cornyn offered a bill i was a cosponsor of it, that we attached to the ndaa saying we want outbound development transparency. we want to know, what are financial american firms doing helping this guy become stronger? pretty easy. guess what, mr. president.

super bipartisan. that bill was brought to the floor as part of the national defense authorization act and passed 91-6. 91-6. very few things pass 91-6 here, that did because it made sense. very bipartisan and relatively simple. it's just transparency. hey, sequoia capital, are they investing in quantum computing that can help this guy dominate the world? we should know, especially if it's american development dollars, right? so that's a good start. a lot of agreement. here's a letter from dr. kevin roberts, the head of the heritage foundation. and i'd like to submit it for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: he was talking about how we need to be able to

track u.s. capital flowing into china, and it would be extremely concerning if that cornyn amendment didn't make it into the final ndaa. so he's saying, hey, senators, house members, make sure that stays in. thank you, president roberts of heritage. he also wrote the leadership of the house and senate, senator mcconnell, senator schumer, speaker johnson, congressman jeffries, saying in another letter, mr. chairman, i would like to submit for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: saying this is really important, this outbound transparency act. let's get it in the ndaa. pretty simple. pretty noncontroversial. mr. president, as you know, nothing here is ever simple.

evidently the chairman of the house financial services committee, patrick mchenry, i don't know him, seems like a nice guy from what i hear, but, with boy, is this guy misguided. because it's all over the press that he fought like crazy to strip this provision out of the ndaa. why would he do that? by the way, he's retiring, so i'm not sure why we would give him a lot of say anymore. but somehow, some way, mr. president, one congressman, republican, by the way, over in the house convinced the house to strip this transparency provision that's meant to undermine in bad guy, they stripped it out of the ndaa. so it's not in the national defense authorization act because one congressman said i don't want it in. 91 senators said we need it in. by the way, the vast majority of the house wants it in. you have a really strong house member, congressman gallagher,

who is leading this bipartisan china commission, he says it's really important. the biden administration wants it in. i talked to the secretary of commerce raimondo, they want it in, but one congressman who isn't going to be around anymore gets to strip it out so we don't know what american investments will make this guy stronger, he gets the final say? mr. president, this is an outrage. this is enough of an outrage that senator cornyn and i, two weeks ago in a lunch when the speak of house came to visit us, we said, hey, mr. speaker, we're hearing some things about this really important simple transparency development provision that you guys might strip it out. why? come on. some of us have been focused on the china threat for years and now we've got one congressman who's leaving?

he says we strip it out when 91 senators say we need it. so the speaker said to me and senator cornyn, we were pretty forceful in the meeting. i'm a big fan of the new speaker, speaker johnson, but he said, well, it might not make it in the ndaa, but we will bring to the floor of the house a vote on the m{l1}c{l0} call bill. this is the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, chairman mccaul, with a similar bill. it's tougher. he adopt like it. xi jinping doesn't like it. we're like all right, mr. speaker, sounds like a good compromise. let's do it. thank you, mr. speaker. now, mr. president, since that meeting, i think i got a commitment, i think senator cornyn thinks he's got a commitment from the speaker of the house to a bunch of u.s.

senators, saying don't worry, we got this, since that time, i've been reading press reports. look, the press can get a loot lot of things -- a lots of things wrong. the press is saying they're not going to bring up the vote on the mccaul vote. in the house, 340 votes easy. here, 91, maybe more. it would be super bipartisan. this guy, this dictator would hate it. let's do it. let's do it. mr. president, just lately, the press is reporting that the speaker is now saying maybe i won't do what i told the senators. maybe i'm going to put some kind of commission together and study it. as you know, when you start studying things here, that's the way to kick the can down the road. so, my first prior, mr. president, is to call out the speaker of the house, say mr. speaker, i'm pretty sure you said you'd bring the mccaul bill to the house floor soon, maybe

before christmas but certainly january, and let's get it voted on, we'll pass it here in the senate, i guarantee you the majority leader will bring it up. let's do that. so i hope you continue to make that commitment, mr. speaker. it would be really disappointing if somehow a congressman who's leaving, leaving, teams up with the people who don't want us to know how americans are investing in this guy's military industrial complex. that wouldn't be good. so i call on the speaker to keep that commitment that he made to a bunch of u.s. senators recently and not put forward some kind of baloney commission that is just kicking the can down the road. that wouldn't be good. mr. president, let me end with just the reason, why does transparency matter? why does it matter? i want to give one small

example, but a pretty good one. this sven chur capital -- this is a venture capital firm, sequoia. very successful. americans benefiting from being an american company, working the american economy, really, really smart guys and women, highly successful. their executives are very wealthy. that's great. this is a capitalist country. i love that. but mr. president, they were also known as one of these firms doing what i said, making big investments, big, over many, many years, in very high-tech components of the chinese economy -- advanced computer chip manufacturing, quantum computing, things like that -- and i think that's wrong, that americans and american executives and american investment dollars are going to

china to help develop weapons systems that will be used to kill u.s. marines and u.s. sailors if we ever get in a fight in the taiwan strait. so sequoia capital came to meet with me a couple years ago. i essentially told them, hey, look, you're very successful, that's great. you live in the greatest country in the world. you've done a lot to help our economy. but why are you helping the chinese economy? and why are you investing in things that are going to give them a military advantage over our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines? why are you doing that? they didn't have a good answer. it wasn't a very cordial meeting, to be honest, because we didn't see the same way. but at the very end of the meeting actually, one got up, said, senator, if we don't do these kind of investments in

china, the saudis and emiraties will. i was like wait, what? that's your drop-the-mic argument at the end? you requested the meetingwith me. that's a pathetic argument. what about patriotism? what about american interests? so, i started kind of blowing the whistle a little bit on this company, in hearings and stuff. we did a lot of research. they were doing a lot of big-time investments in some of the highest tech elements of the chinese economy that will help their military kill american sailors and marines, soldiers, if we ever get in a fight. that's wrong. we started, some of us, putinga little pressure on these -- putting a little pressure on these guys, transparency, calling them out. americans doing this kind of thing. well, mr. president, some of that worked. they announced a big separation

agre agreement, they're not going to do it anymore, they're getting pressure from the congress. by the way, legitimate pressure. and here's a headline from "the wall street journal", sequoia made a fortune investing in the u.s. and china, china high-tech technology to help the military, then it had to pick one. it had to pick one because members of congress were saying en enough. that's transparency. we want to know how many more sequoias are out there, mr. president. it's a pretty legitimate ask. it's actually a very legitimate ask. so legitimate that 91 u.s. senators voting for this, and we got one congressman over there who's leaving, not sure where he's going, maybe going to sequoia capital, and he's

blofshging it? -- he's blocking it? so, we need to fix this. we need to make sure the majority, the vast majority of u.s. senators and u.s. house members who want transparency on this really important national security issue, that this gets fixed. once again, i'm calling on the speaker to keep his commitment, bring the mccaul bill to the floor soon, next week, two weeks, january, but don't let one congressman who is walking out the door thwart the vast, vast majority of the united states senate and the united states house on a very important national security issue. you know, mr. president, a lot of us talk about china and the threats. i've been coming down here since i got elected in 2015 talking about the challenges of this

dictator. he is a menace. dangerous. and they're growing their power. but you know what? a lot of it is talk. a lot of it's talk. this was something that was action. it wasn't a huge deal, transparency, action, and right now we got republican house members, hopefully not the speaker, but certainly the chairman of the financial committee, banking committee, who are saying, no, i want to keep it in the dark what americans are doing to invest in making this guy stronger. that's wrong. 99.9% of americans would think that's wrong. so we need to fix it. the house needs to take up leadership on this issue. and my republican colleagues, who keep talking tough on china,

time to act. it's time to act. i yield the floor.

test:

two-300 yards behind me in the office building of the complex. he convened a meeting of jewish leaders soon after october 7. after the horrific attack by hamas on innocent israelis, jews and even some people that were not jewish that were tortured, killed, taken captive. and during his words to us, it was a small group, the president was worked up to the point where he pounded the podium and said, sometimes they are just not two sides. i could repeat those words. you could have read them in the news. being in the room and watching that passion was very, very important and moving. i think now is a time for us to give a real round of applause to the president and his

administration and all they are doing to counter the hate that is being thrust upon the jewish people in israel and around the world. [applause] earlier today i was asked how many family members of hostages might be present at this event. i want to recognize we have some people here. can you please stand and be recognized. the organization that has to go to a place after an attack and remove remains for proper burial i thought about it and i did not know the exact number. you know what my conclusion is, thousand family members of hostages here today. because it is not just a little over 100 bodies in captivity, it is over 7 billion souls, entire world is captive until we read

the world of this monster that has done unspeakable harm against people that wish them no ill and did nothing wrong to them. it is not resistance, it is terror and it is evil. we have to call it out for what it is. like the president said, he won't stop and his administration won't stop until it is impossible to do what they did before. [applause] at this point, i would like to move along with the program. we are on a bit of a time lapse here. a rabbi a key part for years. he was there when we conceived this idea of the contest going national. this is one of his favorite programs. the rabbi passed away at a very young age and we decided to

dedicate this national menorah essay contest in his memory so what he stood for, what he strove for, what he enjoyed and what he loved will continue. from around the country we got flooded with essays this year. we can only up to winners. the first is a fourth grader from a children's house in atlanta, georgia. a hot bod school. we would like them to come forward and read us his essay as soon as he is ready.

what hanukkah means to me. hanukkah means a lot to me. traditional delicious foods and presence. the lighting of the menorah and an exciting game of dreidel. but i think there's a deeper meaning. the hanukkah story is all about light conquering over darkness. the greeks wanted the jews to be just like them. they forced jews not to learn and not do vomit spots. a man had faith and pointed his son to leave. a small but faithful courageous group of jews that decided to

stand up for what is right. a small army with few weapons, they one victory. when they came they found that they cannot light the menorah because the greeks had made all the oil they used two light and pure. finally, after tirelessly searching they found one jug of oil. there was a problem. it was only enough to last monday. nevertheless, they used it. the oil miraculously lasted eight days and nights. i think that a lot of darkness has entered this world. we have to be just like them and usstand up for what is right. even though the darkness may seem overpowering, we can remember that small jug of oil that lasted eight days and nights. it was small, but it burned

through all the days and nights. we cannot be held back. we have to stand up for what is right. this is what hanukkah means to me. it is a reminder gaza, i met with three families whose loved ones become victims simplify hamas. -- became victims of hamas. one was the sister of tamar gutmann, a beautiful 27-year-old israeli woman who disappeared on october 7. tamar had been attended the super-nova music festival when the terrorists attack add. tamar's sister had been in contact as tamars tried to hide from the attack areas. she suddenly stopped responding

to texts. her family presumed that she had been be a ducted and held out hope she might still be alive. but 27 days after the attack, they fine finally got footage tt indicated she had been killed. tamar's sister told me that as horrible as it was to see the image of her sister's dead body tamar. it was a relief to see that her jeans were still on her body. but later when the family tried to recover tamar's body to give a proper burial, they only found a few bones from her thigh and chest, her body had been horrifically dismembered, mutilated and burned. i also met with friends of ofer,

who was attending the supernova musical festival as well. they were there to celebrate his birthday. when the rockets began to fall, they got in their cars and headed to the exit. there was a huge traffic jam. suddenly, people ran, shouting, terrorists, there are terrorists here. they start to run. people in freezing in fear and falling from gunfire around them. the couple and a friend hid for hours, four hours behind a tree trunk, he and others who escaped say that ofer was a hero, telling them when it run, when

to crouch, when to hide. they saw his bravery and followed him. when an israel driver came to offer help, he helped his are girlfriend and -- his girlfriend and friend in the car but there were already eight people in the car and there was no room for him, so he got into another car. he wanted to get in ofer's car, but the drive hit the dpas and drove -- gas and drove off. he called to tell where to meet him, he never made it. later loved ones learned that his car was attacked and he was badly injured. they held out hope he was still alive and were told he was taken captive. sadly on november 29, ofer's family learned that his family had been found in gaza. these are just two among the hundreds of innocent people who fell victim to hamas. but despite the profound grief

and despair their families are experiencing, they're dedicating them for advocating for the innocent hostages still in cav activity. last week -- captivity. last week i also met with may raviv, whose uncle abraham and aunt were kidnapped together with their daughter and son. rudy, ca rifrn ne and -- carine were released, but omar is still a hostage. his family said that a kind israeli woman who was trained to be a nurse was trying to care for him in captivity, but since she's been released, they are worried he will not survive. we know what hamas thinks about

the sanctity of life by what they did to tamar and foi -- ofir. every day the shonls remain -- hostages remain in captain activity -- captivity, is another day they risk their lives. it is time to bring those home, it is -- those whose bodies have been desecrated and those who are in deep, deep sorrow. i yield the floor. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, calendar number 435, with the exception

of colonel john w.sames. that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, army, colonel andrew o.saslov to be brigadier general are. the presiding officer: the question oh, oh-- occurs on the nominees. all in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the noings is -- nomination is confirmed. mrs. gillibrand: i ask that the senate consider executive calendar number 443 and that the nominees be confirmed en bloc,

the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and that no intervening action or debate and no further motions be in order to any nominations, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday.

lawmakers voted to begin debate on the final version of the house and senate negotiated bill by a vote of 82-15. final vote on the bill are expected next week. watch live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. watch the best of c-span q and a on sunday musician dale davis who for more than 30 years has befriended members of the ku klux klan. he talks about his efforts to try to understand their hatred and convince them they are wrong sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcast on the app. >> c-span now is a free mobile

app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington lived then on demand. keep up with the day's biggest events of hearings from congress white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for the tv networks and c-span radio. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free today or visit our website. c-span now. your front row seat to washington any time, anywhere. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these companies and more including wow. >> the world has changed