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. the clerk: mr. cotton. mr. cramer.

mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. vote:

ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono.

mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king.

ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders.

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

mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affir affirmative, it baldwin, capito, cardin, casey, cassidy, collins, cornyn, cortez-masto, cotton,

daines, durbin, ernst, fischer, gillibrand, heinrich, klobuchar, lankford, murray, reed, rosen, rubio, tillis, warner and young. senators voting in the negative, paul and tuberville. mr. bennet, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. mr. white house, aye. mr. whitehouse, aye.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. mr. brown, aye. ms. lummis, aye.

mr. hoeven, no. the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye. mr. murphy, aye.

mrs. hyde-smith, aye. mr. scott of south carolina, aye. mr. merkley, aye. mr. tester, aye. ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye. the clerk: mr. welch, aye. mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, aye. the clerk: mr. moran, aye. the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no.

the clerk: mr. coons, aye. the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. mr. cramer, aye.

the clerk: ms. smith, aye. mr. schatz, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye. mr. ricketts, aye. mr. marshall, aye.

mr. thune, no.

the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye. mr. king, aye. the clerk: mr. lujan, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. mr. graham, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

the clerk: mr. crapo, no. ms. duckworth, aye. ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. mullin, aye. vote:

the clerk: ms. butler, aye. mr. boozman. the clerk: ms. hassan, aye.

the clerk: mr. braun, no.

the clerk: mr. budd, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no. mr. padilla, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. mr. rounds, aye. the clerk: mr. hagerty, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no. ms. sinema, aye.

mr. lee, aye. the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: mr. vance, no. mr. johnson, no. mr. blumenthal, aye.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. mrs. blackburn, no. mr. grassley --

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye.

the clerk: mr. cruz, aye. mr. romney, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no.

the clerk: mr. menendez, aye.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye. the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change

his or her vote? if not, the ayes 80, the nays are 17, and the nomination is agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. under the previous order, the question occurs on the brisco nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. mr. barrasso. the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. barasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. the clerk: 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.

ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king.

ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin.

mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters.

the clerk: 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. the clerk: mr. tester.

mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, blumenthal, carper, casey, collins, hirono, hyde-smith, kaine, manchin, mcconnell, menendez, merkley, peters, romney, sinema, smith, stabenow, and wyden. senators voting in the negative -- boozman. crapo, cruz, ernst, grassley, and paul.

mrs. murray, aye. ms. cortez masto, aye. mr. schatz, aye. mr. brown, aye. ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. tester, aye. the clerk: mr. daines, no.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye. vote: vote:

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

vote: the clerk: mr. braun, aye.

the clerk: mr. hawley noengs the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. reed, aye. the clerk: ms. hassan, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye. mr. tillis, aye. mr. johnson, no.

the clerk: mrs. capito, aye. the clerk: mr. lee, no.

.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. mr. thune, no.

the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye. ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no. the clerk: mr. cotton, no. mr. whitehouse, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

mr. mullin, no.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. vote:

the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye. the clerk: mr. risch, no.

mr. rounds, aye. mr. vance, no. mr. bennet, aye. mrs. fischer, no. mr. graham, aye. mr. trump ricketts -- mr. ricketts, no. the clerk: mr. durbin, aye. mr. hagerty, no.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no. mr. padilla, aye. the clerk: mr. rubio, no. mr. scott of florida, no.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no. the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. the clerk: mr. schmitt, no. mr. hoeven, no.■á

the clerk: mr. cramer, aye. mr. young, aye u -- mr. young, aye. the clerk: mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. the clerk: ms. lummis, no.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. budd, no.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, aye. mr. lankford, aye. mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. murphy,

groundhog. vote: the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: mr. moran, no.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: mr. lujan, aye. mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mr. sanders, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. vote: ■k

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 667. the nays are 32. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the

senate's action. the senate will resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, gretchen s. lund of indiana to be united states district judge for the northern district of indiana. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president, i would like to say a few words about the urgent humanitarian catastrophe now unfolding in gaza. and the reason that i want to do that is i just have the feeling that most people may be -- maybe here in the senate and throughout the country are just not aware of how severe the situation has become. my staff and i have had a number

of conversations in recent days with the united nations, world food programme, and other humanitarian actors struggling to deal with the horrors unfolding in gaza. and here is the bottom line. the coming weeks could mean the difference between life and death for tens of thousands of people. if we do not see a dramatic improvement in humanitarian access very soon, countless innocent people, including thousands of children, could die of dehydration, diarrhea, preventable diseases, and starvation. the world health organization predicts that the number of deaths from sickness and starvation could exceed the

25,000 people who died from israeli bombs. and let's be clear. what is going on in gaza today is a manmade crisis. this is not a natural disaster. this is not climate change. this is a manmade right now. and it is the direct result of choices made by political leaders, none more than israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, the leader of israel's extreme right-wing government. madam president, we all know that hamas, a terrorist organization, began this war with its horrific attack on october 7 which killed 1200 innocent israeli men, women, and

children and took more than 200 hostages. israel in my view had the right to respond to that attack and go after hamas. but it did not and does not have the right to go after the entire palestinian people which is exactly what is happening right now. madam president, let me try to provide a picture, a snapshot, of what life in gaza is like today. more than 25,000 palestinians have been killed in this war so far, and, remember, the population of gaza is just a bit over two million. 25,000 are dead already. 62,000 have been wounded.

70% of the dead are women and children. 70% of the dead are women and children. at least 210 palestinians have been killed in the last 24 hours. overall, 152 united nations aid workers have been killed so far, more u.n. losses than in any previous war. madam president, when we look at what is going on in gaza now, we must understand that 1.7 million people have been driven from their homes, 85% of the entire population of gaza. imagine that, 85% of the population removed from their homes. and then, as a result of israeli bombardment, 70% of the housing

units have been damaged or destroyed. an unprecedented level of destruction. most of gaza's critical infrastructure has been destroyed or made inoperable, including many water wells, bakeries, power plants, shall hospitals, and sewage treatment facilities. importantly, much of the area has been without cell phone service for weeks, making communications very difficult. how do you know what's going on? how do you know what kind of bombing may be taking place if you don't have a cell phone that is working? madam president, the fighting and israeli restrictions have made it nearly impossible for food, water, fuel, and medical supplies to enter gaza. water is scarce, and what little

is available is often contaminated. children are drinking very polluted water. public wells are operating at just 10% capacity, and just one of three water pipelines into gaza is functioning. for several months now, children in southern gaza are surviving on just one and a half or two liters of water per day, far, far below what is needed, and that is in the area where the u.n. can reach. the situation is worse elsewhere. the lack of clean drinking water is leading to a spike in waterborne diseases and diarrhea, a very serious condition which accounts for northerly 10 -- nearly 10% of all deaths among children under the age of five world-wide. in gaza, a the u.n. reports 15 a158,000 -- 158,000 cases, more

than half among children under the age of five, a 4% increase in die -- in dia from -- war began. we have heard from humanitarian groups last week that they feared many thousands of children will die from diarrhea before they starve to death. what a horrible reality we are looking at in gaza right now. hunger and starvation are widespread. before the war, gaza had 97 bakeries producing the bread and other basics that people need. right now just 15 of those bakeries are operating. and none are functioning in the north, closed by the combination of air strikes and a lack of fuel and flour. hundreds of thousands of

children go to bed hungry every night, and we have all seen the scenes of desperate people mobbing the few u.n. relief trucks that can reach beyond the border. they see food coming, and they mob those trucks. right now the united nations says that 570,000 people in gaza, including small kids, are currently facing catastrophic hunger. that's their definition, which is equivalent to famine. this is the most severe category of starvation. the u.n. reports that the entire population of gaza, roughly 2.2 million people, are in crisis or worse levels of acute food insecurity, end quote. in other words, virtually every household is regularly skipping

meals, and most are down to a single meal a day, often just bread. experts tell us that infants and young people will succumb first to hunger. without enough food, with no clean water to make formula, their vital organs will begin to shut down. many will die of infection before they reach that point. madam president, i have diffic personal level even using the technical term for this stage, the technical term is child wasting, and i find that term absolutely horrific. yet that is what we are watching unfold in slow-motion as the world looks on. children starving, drinking polluted water, suffering from dehydration, getting sick, and

slowly dying. madam president, in the midst of all of this, gaza's health care system is under tremendous strain. faced with over 87,000 casualties, figures that would overwhelm the most sophisticated health system in the world, health workers there have worked to save lives amid frequent bombardment and overcrowded -- in overcrowded hospitals without electricity or adequate fuel or medicine. in the midst of all this, over 300 health workers have been killed. the lack of basic necessities in overcrowded conditions are contributing to a dramatic increase in disease and 10% of the population now has acute respiratory infections. those with long-term medical

conditions that require advance treatment have little hope of receiving adequate care. amidst this devastation, approximately 180 women give birth in gaza every day, facing unbelievable dangers and completely inadequate medical care. without enough food or clean water, let alone necessary medications and antibiotics, many of these women face serious complications and their children will bear lifelong scars from this war. that is just a bit of the story in terms of what is happening in gaza right now, a story that we cannot continue to ignore. madam president, let me say a word about why this is

happening, about what the immediate causes of this humanitarian disaster are. and the answer is not complicated. at every step of the way, the israeli government has failed to provide even the most basic protections to civilians. every humanitarian move has been extracted only after weeks of delay and outside pressure from the united states and others. the result of all of this is that today just 20% to 30% of what is needed in humanitarian aid is being brought into gaza. there is not enough food, there is not enough water, there are not enough medical supplies, there is not enough fuel. one onerous israeli border inspections are a major cause of this crisis.

today there is a 3- to 4-week wait for trucks to get into gaza while children are starving. many trucks are unloaded and reloaded numerous times, often to be searched for the same items. it is understandable that israel wants to ensure that no weapons are reaching hamas. we all understand that. but senior u.s. officials tell us that they have seen no evidence of hamas theft or diversion of u.n. aid. meanwhile, israel is rejecting things like tent poles, feminine hygiene kits, hand sanitizers, water testing kits, and medical supplies. if a single item in a truck is rejected, then the whole truck has to go back to the start of the process, causing enormous delays. kareem shalom crossing, the main

entry point processed to -- equipped to process trucks in large order oz, is only open eight hours a day, and i want to thank our colleagues, senator van hollen and senator merkley, for their courage in going to the egyptian gaza border and coming back here and reporting to us their personal observations of the crisis there. madam president, it is hard to see this process and not conclude that what is taking place is a deliberate effort to slow humanitarian aid. and sure enough, just last week prime minister netanyahu said that israel is only allowing in the absolute minimum amount necessary. when trucks do eventually get across the border, they face a whole new set of problems bes. israel is bombing targets across

gaza and its ground forces are fighting across much of the enclave and have closed many major roads. for aid trucks to move safely and avoid being bombed or shot, every movement must be cleared with the israeli defense forces. this deconfliction process has repeatedly failed, even when notified, israel has sometimes hit convoys, medical facilities, and humanitarian shelters cleared with the israelis have been struck numerous times. tragically, the first half of the january actually saw a deterioration in humanitarian access. in that period, israel denied 95% of u.n. attempts to bring fuel and medicines to water wells and health facilities in north gaza. madam president, netanyahu's right-wing government is starving the palestinian people.

on top of its indiscriminate bombardment, israel is imposing onerous restrictions that are blocking the delivery of essential humanitarian aid. all of this is unacceptable. we are running out of time, as we face one of the most severe humanitarian catastrophes of recent times. madam president, this should not be seen as just a terrible crisis taking place many thousands of miles away from our shores. this is a tragedy in which we, the united states of america, are complicit. much of what is happening right now is being done with u.s. arms and military equipment. in other words, whether we like it or not, the u.s. is complicit

in the nightmare that millions of palestinians are now experiencing. madam president, in my view, israel must take urgent steps immediately to open up humanitarian access. the water pipelines must be rapidly repaired and reopened, more border crossings, including in the north, must be opened. inspections must be streamlined and sped up. deconfliction of aid deliveries must be prioritized. and israel must stop blocking essential humanitarian supplies. madam president, these are not new issues. these are concerns that have been repeatedly communicated to the israeli government for months by the united states, by

the u.n., and in fact by the global community. but the israeli government has refused, refused to take these steps. madam president, this has got to change now. tens of thousands of lives hang in the balance. if we care about human rights and if we believe in the dignity of every human life, as we so often profess, we cannot allow this gruesome and horrible situation to continue. this is an urgent, unspeakable crisis. every day matters, and we must act and act now. israel is not doing what is needed despite the repeated

pleas of the united states government and the president of the united states. that is why, in my view, we need to use every tool at our disposal to make netanyahu change the direction he has taken. madam president, as part of that effort last week, the senate voted on what i consider to be a very modest step, a resolution requiring the state department to report on any human rights violations that may have occurred in israel's military campaign in gaza. the resolution was based on long-standing u.s. law, requiring that any security assistance or military equipment provided to any country be used in line with internationally recognized human rights. that's what that resolution was about. this is not a radical idea,

making sure that the weapons we supply any country is used consistent with american law and international law. yet, just is 1 u.s. senators voted -- just 11 u.s. senators voted for that resolution. madam president, we cannot continue turning a blind eye to the suffering in gaza and the humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding there. we cannot continue to ignore the fact that it has been american bombs and military equipment that has helped create this crisis. given the scale of the disaster, how could any member of the senate tell us that they do not want to know how billions in u.s. military aid is being used? how can we not want to have that very simple information?

madam president, my colleagues and i will continue to push for this information, which is absolutely necessary for congress to conduct its oversight duties. but in addition to getting answers, madam president, i believe the united states must use all of our leverage to end this horrific war, and the primary leverage that we have over the israeli government is the billions of dollars in military aid we provide to them every year and the $14 billion being proposed for israel in the supplemental budget. madam president, in my view, we must loudly and clearly say no to netanyahu's indiscriminate bombing, no to this manmade

humanitarian catastrophe, and no to the unprecedented level of human suffering that is taking place in gaza now. we must use our leverage to demand an end to the bombing, a humanitarian cease-fire to allow aid to those who are suffering, and to secure the release of the more than 130 hostages still being held in gaza. we must also demand that the israeli government begin the necessary work to lay the groundwork for a two-state solution. the bottom line, madam president, there is a horrific catastrophe taking place right now. we cannot continue to ignore it. we must act. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor.

we want drugs or criminals or terrorists. president trump, i thought about

. they have had a lawless administration. in regard to texas, the biden administration went to the supreme court they want to ensure that borders are secure. federal government that they don't want texas to do the job to make sure. one thing we do know, there will be nothing that will directly impact anything if the border is not secure.

we are to be able to negotiate and people back home to know what's going on. they should not be surprised last minute and all are to be involved. we don't codify the open-door policy. murderers, rapists, terrorists everyday the put them in the street and they might impact our family.

we get a new republican president, make sure we don't sell this. securing the border with existing laws the bottom line secure our border, secure the border until we get a president and force our law. >> in adequate legislation,

nothing. more than enough pools in the proposal and had tools and programs in place. he lifted the remain in mexico. it's now the subject of litigation even after losing the litigation. this was pursuant to existing law. what should give us any reason with the existing law is already on the books today will suddenly change course to new law including a new law to get a new additional to shut things down? shut down once we reach not a

day. i have no idea what that means because they haven't bothered to shayla but one thing it could be is the asylum program altogether or without documentation claim asylum. if that's what it means, they've already got the authority and it ought to wait because it's not right, is a power granted. he does not have to get one person let alone 5000 or 5 million but of we don't have that until there is time. instead, these are given the ability in the interior of the country and able to afford it without a drivers license.

it probably will not occur until the mid- 30s. according to the terms of the proposal, they are going to dispense it and it will bring in illegal -- i have great respect and i'm sure they are coming up that might help certain things but from what i'm hearing, there is a risk of much bigger problems.

>> thank you for coming here. in this aim here, our staff has been briefed and what keeps going through my mind, this dozen have to be, should be simple but again all i have are questions. these questions you want to be asking about this bill the homeland security 2016, a thousand people a day in the

overwhelm the system so if 1000 people still true today, why would we have it at 1000 if we have something like this and negotiations and the problem is leader mcconnell is the manager leverage and not to tie funding but when senator langford was asked, it was to secure the border, it was to give the tools

he or she would need

and i need

to know that will be the new normalized level. the senate is on a collision course. it includes ukraine without any aid to israel or any addressing the border. i say that because the actions of this administration and my colleagues across the aisle, that's what they are consistent with and what their goals appear to be. let's talk about funding. july 27 last bill came out. we've only considered three of

those. we talk about actions president obama about 5000 people year. it leads me to think goals are not the same as ours. i see this is a national issue from the national security issue. their goal is to get as many people across the border legally, illegally and ukraine

funding. this issue will be the deciding factor. although agree on anything come up i agree on everything. i still think they know what that looks like. only a president 1.7 million people in a few years, how can we even talk about any other people mentally figure out the whole situation? their actions are still with the ukraine funding and the only reason i'm at the table as this, border security is the number one issue and concern of americans, my number one priority and we are going to go to great lengths to accomplish the. >> into perspective, i think it

was three or four months ago for the first time in five years coming together and will be the same thing. the worst possible thing, there is urgency with do something that doesn't make sense. i don't know what happened before but generally whenever take part in anything and the last one was dumped in a year ago or around there, 4100 pages and two days to look through it. first time we have a separate, who got to be careful don't lose

it. a place like indiana, it's as big an issue. this is a tool, an example if you have them at any latitude, they want open borders and find ways to get done. last but not least, every penny we are borrowing from our kids and if you remember from the house on israeli aid didn't take pay for. >> the truth this joe biden had

every way to close the door and didn't want to. the oval office with agenda study and now they have more power than ever. global settings since willis open the door and joe biden came to office successful things. we filed a lawsuit and held up and had to keep going back to court and can't get rid of it and force them to follow the law. this is a lawless administration, it's not in their dna so some language change no with a come to jesus

moment for joe biden, this is what the administration is about. millions of dollars paid $140,000 a day for contractors and then in a ridiculous option, $4.4 million for $100,000. these folks are not interested in this sector go through this exercise seems ridiculous.

a back room unveiling. so if you change one word here given a day or two days and god forbid three weeks, this is the. willing to throw the into history and they are not serious about securing the border. >> the biden border crisis is absolutely military and. last year 853 migrant died crossing illegally into this

country and l.a. hunter mayorkas didn't even know how many had died. when i brought 19 settlers down to the border we saw a man living in the rio grande. last year thousands upon thousands of children were brutalized and sexually assaulted by human traffickers. last year thousands of women were sexually assaulted by traffickers and democrats do not care. last year more than 100,000 americans died of drug overdoses from tiny fentanyl flooding across is on the border in democrats do not care. they care, some were in their hearts they care about the people suffering. baloney. if they care, they would stop it. if you care about the children being raped, you would say no

more. joe biden came in, we had the lowest rate of important structures and he deliberately broken. democrat want open borders. this bill from a this mysterious bill buried in the basement of chuck schumer's office, ask yourself, why have you not read this? there is a reason in the status the bill is, promise you it's worth. the people knew the american people knew what wasn't it, they were beat in a box canyon with no exit. you look at this bill, the bill is not designed to fix the problem. the greatest national security threat to america, this right here. i think the odds of a major terrorist attack in the united

states are higher than september 11. how many hamas terrorists are there? how many hezbollah terrorists are there? what we say when we have an attack like october 7 here? this is not designed to fix the problem. this bill normalizes 5000 people a day coming in, that's over 1.8 million a year. that's called an invasion. under joe biden we packed 9.6 million so the great republican compromise is two thirds of joe biden's open border will let in six millions of 9 million. this makes utterly no sense and there is a reason. republican leadership is like charlie brown with lucy in a football. over and over lucy schumer pulls

away and republican leadership lands under -- the intricacy negotiation sank we will only do what chuck schumer will agree to. he doesn't want to fix this. he wanted to continue so negotiating with chuck schumer on securing the border is like putting electorate in charge of a go vegan at campaign. he might die on your liver with a healthy diet of fava beans but is not going to remotely do what the objective is. not only is this bill utterly ineffective at fixing the problem but it's designed to fail. the chances of this passing, quantify it. the chances of the bill passing .00%. it's not going to pass and we

had a vigorous discussion at lunch yesterday, i asked leadership, why would you speaking up about with every democrat and ten or 12 republicans? and no chance of passing the house. i get leadership really wants ukraine funded but that doesn't have a bill that can pass the house. the only purpose of taking his is getting democrats political courage to say we want to secure the border but pesky house republicans didn't let us. it's good to talk, it's baloney but a good talking place. this book represents senate republican leadership raging war on the public and leaders. it's not designed to secure the border and it won't secure the border and that's why leadership doesn't want anyone to see. republicans in the senate ought

to have the sanity to say secure the border or we are not going to go along with providing fig leaves to cover up deliberate failure of joe biden and democrats. i'm proud of the great state of texas and state legislature stepping up to defend our state. the mayor of a bunch of blue cities declared illegal immigration emergency. that's true in new york and

massachusetts, chicago, dallas. illegal immigration really new york city, 110,000 people. i agree but if 110,000 people destroy new york city, what do you think 9.6 million people are doing in the other states? texas stepping up but the reason texas is is because joe biden, chuck schumer and the democrats affirmatively want this invasion. we want to know why it is negotiating? they are today, joe biden litigating against texas. litigating against texas.

he is wrong. but it shows that biden wants this and the only thing biden wants next is to make ron johnson had to buy a bigger posterboard because the chart goes high. that's all he's looking for. [inaudible]

c than 70,000 people died of fentanyl so they must be okay with this. they don't care about human trafficking. we had 267 paris last year and we don't even know where they are. we had a classified briefing in we didn't know who the were. if you know these things are happening and you are going to stop that you must be wanting it. i don't know why, they want all these people to come here and they are wonderful people who want to come here legally. [inaudible]

c senator lankford is to invest again but he's been told that he was told by mcconnell that you cannot put anything in there that says we will not provide ukraine aid of the border doesn't get secured. we talked about it. a bunch of us talked about it at the conference and we said we want something that biden has today because we know, the only thing we could come up with is let's release ukraine aid in the numbers of people coming across the border go down. leader mcconnell said no way. so lankford is trying to do all he can but when the leadership is telling you that you can't do that -- [inaudible] first off we don't know. all we do is we read the things you guys ride and we have gotten a few briefings that we don't

know all of it. you're so we do know why don't they give it to us? go to the omnibus and go to the china bill and go to all these bills. they do behind closed doors in a way to the last minute and they say vote for it. we don't vote for it because -- they have trained us. if this is such a good bill why don't you give it to us and as you nicco see it we will give you our thoughts. >> internally it's hoeven's idea. we have got to have some kind of benchmark. if they are going to get what they want to be funded. it literally had to be at least a half a dozen if not more. we press the point. i made the point that i would not only vote for it i would promote the bill to help the people of ukraine at the secured

the border. there was a great deal of support in our conference on the apposite so without consulting the conference at all apparently leader mcconnell told senator lankford to try to do a good job. just put something on the table. we had a confirmed so he never it boggles our minds when the conference has a good deal of support for something that would give us leverage that would force president biden to secure the border. that wasn't even part of the discussion. so that's what i talk about come the lack of negotiating skills is profound in this leadership. so now we have got this and so many holes in this and it's a whole reporter: solution that's not a solution. many people said they cause this

problem. biden and the democrats in congress are the root cause. they want an open border. it's a problem for james lankford had to deal with that and it's even more difficult when he is getting his marching orders in terms of the day she -- negotiation not in terms of the conference and the red lines are. one individual who doesn't consult with the conference and makes the decision for us. [inaudible] first of all that's not the topic of this conversation. i'll say very briefly there still questions that need to be answered and i want to know what the source of authority is. maybe he'll rely -- the 01 and 02 aumf have been used for every

conference out there and i do think it's important for the president to specify which of those aumf's if they are relying on their -- to repel an attack. i need to know that. [inaudible] >> if we are going to expect, he'll be the next republican president and if we expect him to secure the border he ought to build a see this bill and to be able to be engaged in say is this going to help secure the border or not? he secure the border.■" absolutely we should ask him but on top of that wise and the house leadership the republican house leadership doing this?

why wouldn't they? why would we do anything that puts us in a bad position? [inaudible] i have supported ukraine aid and i have a lot of questions. we'll have a conference at 330 clock today and hopefully will get a lot of interest. what we are trained to do here is get answers so we can make an informed decision. i want the ukrainians to lose and i want -- i don't want the ukrainians to lose and i don't want russia to win. we don't know where it went in with the plan? we don't know any of those things. [inaudible] absolutely. >> there are differing views on stage and ukraine aid. that's a thing i voted for

previous build to provide ukraine aid and i pointed out the war in ukraine is utterly unnecessary and cause by joe biden and waving sanctions on nord stream ii before the war started presents a lengthy and ukraine urged the senate to pass i sanctions legislation to stop pressure from invading and joe biden and 44 democrats took their position and voted in favor of russian for weeks later putin invaded ukraine so president biden pauses worn ukraine and right now today biden is flowing roughly $100 billion to iran that's providing drones that are being used to kill ukrainian soldiers and civilians so joe biden is funding both sides of the war in a way that's utterly incoherent. my view is that doesn't make any sense needs to change but what we are talking about today is a different piece of this. listen, the reason this bill is so is because, i disagree with

ron johnson one thing. he said mitch mcconnell is it terrible leader. he's just negotiating for the same objectives that chuck schumer has. they both want a bill that funds ukraine and is a blind check to ukraine and they want a bill that has a fig leaf that pretends to do border security. doesn't do border security. they are negotiating for the identical outcome in chuck schumer's enemy in congress are conservatives in the senate and house republican leadership. in fact it's mitch mcconnell's energy -- enemies are conservative headhouse and republican leadership. it's interesting the shell game has been played on the justification for this bill. initially we were told this bill will force biden finally to secure the border. okay that's an objective i'm on board with. very quickly the proponents of this bill said we admit this bill won't do anything to fight and he'll continue exactly what he's doing now.

argument under two argument number two they said this will give donald trump the tools he needs to fix this problem next year. let me point out ron johnson's very helpful charge. without this pile of bill donald trump -- joe biden deliberately took the number up to here. and the genius republican negotiators say let's drop the numbers to hear. double where they were under obama. it's not that they are batted negotiating. it's that they want this outcome in this outcome is terrible for the american people. [inaudible]

e there's no country in the face of the planet that is more generous. we allow roughly 1 million people a year to come here legally. i'm the son of immigrants. we had anuestion and it's really fun when reporters want to be totally dishonest editorialist and say anyone that wants to secure the borders or races. i am the son of the cuban immigrant and i believe in legal immigration but there's a right way to do it. you wait in line and the dishonest reporting that says anyone who is concerned about what's happening about murders and is coming to this country and gang members coming into this country and hamas and hezbollah coming into this country and little children being forcibly i invite everyone of you to come to the border and look in the aisles of -- the eyes of a child is in. at that repeatedly brought my colleagues down there and reporters dishonestly say well

you are just afraid why people are going to be replaced by you. as the son of a the cuban immigrant no, i'm not afraid of that but i'm tired of our government allowing children to be brutalized. >> we will take one more question. >> remember what happened the last time we had a major overhaul on immigration rights. the gang of eight bill we had that in the senate judiciary committee the committee of jurisdiction for markup and most of our mark-ups last an hour or two in maybe three but but thise lasted for a month. about four weeks. and even then we had some lag time between the end of the short committee markup. so i personally don't understand

why we don't don't go through all the processes. it's my understanding they don't want to so you ought to decide at a minimum, courtesy would suggest the bear minimum is a commitment that we will have three weeks to review the bill and with text in hand. all we have right now are a loose set of bullet points and we are told that we can't talk about it because they are finalized and yet they talk about it for their purposes and they convinced "the wall street journal" to publish an editorial saying republicans opposed this thing and trying to score political points at the expense of national security. so i find that kind of offensive given they are still sitting on it. they say well it's an a lot of different places. that's fine most of us on the stage are custom to looking at a whole bunch of different pieces.

a few of us did that for a living for many years. we can do that. nope they still won't let us have it so we ought to have access to the tax so we can read it and understand it and prepared amendments and vote on those this amendment and receive input from our constituents. we have been negotiating this thing th october november december january assuming we see it sometime in february we will be up in the four-month range but they can have access to what they are doing for four months. three weeks is not too much to ask. i've been stunned by how often it happens here. the year before he ran for office back in 2010 the obamacare thing was the 2700 page bill and you had to passat find out what's in it. i thought surely it must be a once in a century thing where someone pulled that trick and people fall for it. i'm stunned by how often this

happens. when the law firm of schumer mcconnell johnson and jeffrey's as it's currently composed put something together and drops it in at the last minute we don't appreciate it. snip the full offer. that is uncollegial to a degree that i the capacity in the english language to describe it prefer them to suggest we out to be ready to take this thing and thank them and vote on it, within a couple of days, three days at the most, that's what they seem to think is the norm. that norm is not acceptable. adults and in a professional context do not treat each other that way. nd. mr. whitehouse: is the senate presently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no, we're not. mr. whitehouse: then let me get

to the point at hand. i am back now for the 27th time to call attention to the right-wing billionaires scheme to capture and control our supreme court and connect it to things that are going on at the court right now. the billionaire elite that captured our supreme court wants to use it to attack americans' ability, our ability as a people, through regulation to protect our own health and safety. and the goal mostly is to benefit the big polluters in their midst. a word modern innovations have raised the standard of living in the united states and around the world and corporations have grown to international behemoths

and billionaires have claimed for themselves a larger and larger share of the world's wealth, regulation has come to have a very important role. big corporations, well-known motive to maximize dangers -- to maximize profits, i should say, inevitably causes dangers to society. if you think of a big industrial plant that without oversight would leak products into the soil and water, poison wells and spread cancer, you've got an idea of why regulation is needed. over many decade, congress created administrative agencies to perform this task. staffed by scientists and other experts to use their expertise to manage and rein in these industrial dangers. the american system of regulation made our society

safer and more prosperous, period. as heavy equipment and dangerous chemicals came to mines and factories and construction sites, regulators implemented workplace safety standards. the meat-packing jungle led to sanitation requirements in production facilities. automobile highway carnage produced seat belts and air bags. stock jobbing boiler rooms and insurance fraud protected regulators. what's been the result? workplace illnesses, injuries and deaths declined. foodborne illnesses that used to kill thousands of people per year have been practically wiped out. highways are no longer carnage. boilers rarely explode. and medications and stock offerings and insurance policies are all safer for and, by the way, in this

environment of safety, corporate profits soared. the s&p 500 has returned in excess of 7,800%. clean air and clean water and safe food and cars are actually good for business. regulation is good. regulation is a public good, but a gang of recalcitrant polluters is in the crew that captured the supreme court, and they want not only to pollute for free, they want to pollute without expert regulation. well, even republican congresses wouldn't go for that, so they turned to their captured, unaccountable court. first they got the court to

create a brand-new so-called major questions doctrine, basically a too big to regulate escape hatch for big polluters. and now they're using their captured court to attack another precedent, the legal doctrine known as chevron deference, which is pretty simple. unless the law is clear on technical matters, courts defer to the agency experts. this arrangement makes sense. congress isn't suited and usually hasn't the expertise to make fine technical determinations. so to prop up their attack on this commonsense principle, polluters have invented some fake arguments. a few years ago these industries

and their right-wing front groups began arguing that chevron deference has a separation of powers problem. it may make all the sense in the world, but it has a separation of powers problem that courts must attend to, because, they say, it gives unchecked and disproportionate power to the executive branch. the problem with that argument is that it is just not true. it is flat-out false. congress' legislative grant of administrative authority to agencies comes with significant checks and balances. i'm not going to go into all the details, but for starters agency heads are appointed by an elected president and confirmed by an elected senate. and agencies may not promulgate rules willy-nilly. they have to take public notice and comment. agency rules are subject to judicial review to make sure

they're consistent with the rules and the administrative procedures act and the public information and comment and the evidence. that helps make sure that regulations by law have to be both reasonable and consistent with the evidence and the facts. and in congress, when all that is going on, we exercise direct oversight over these administrative agencies. we do it through our oversight committees that have specific jurisdiction on specific agencies. we do it through the appropriations process. very often you see appropriations riders to control agency behavior. and we do it through the expedited review of the congressional review act, which we're seeing a lot of now in the senate and it allows for very quick review by congress of a challenged agency rule. in fact, congress has used that process to overturn agency rules

20 times since 2001. the legal vehicle for the polluters' attack on chevron comes in a case called loper bright enterprises. as usual, where polluter interests are involved, this case brought out a rogue's gallery of what i would call the usual suspects. front groups that have spent decades trying to dismantles the government's ability to regulate the big industries who secretly fund the front groups. they arrive at the captured court at the end of a long process that began with industry-funded think tanks, that reverse engineered fringe ideas on legal theories, that will serve right-wing dmoer interests. then those fringe ideas and legal theories cooked up in the doctrine factories get taken

into other think tanks and around captured trade associations and bounced around and put more and more into the public debate, and ultimately once they have been credentialed by this echo chamber of front groups, they get pushed, these manufactured legal theories get pushed into courtrooms around the country very often through coordinated flow till has of -- flotillas of secretly funded amicus briefs. there is a whole ecosystem of secretly funded corporate groups that manage this whole process. it seems complicated but it's less complicated than a pea i can'ts know -- than a piano. much of this is funded by the koch brothers. now one is deceased. but the koch industries political influence operation

which is a powerful network. look at this loper case. the lawyers who represent the petitioners in this case are working for free supposedly, ostensibly for a public interest law firm called cause of action. this supposed public interest law firm discloses no donors and does not report any employees. as "the new york times" discovered in this article, those lawyers actually work for americans for prosperity. the central battleship of the koch brothers political front group armada. that armada, by the way, is very cozy with some of the far-right

justices of the supreme court. indeed, propublic cla has reported that justice clarence thompson has repeatedly flown out to serve as the celebrity draw for the koch political operations fund-raisers, including funding that landed at americans for prosperity. as is now standard practice in these cases, a flotilla of dark money front groups as amici curiae purporting to be funded. these front groups are frequent flyers that spout anti-regulation arguments before the supreme court regularly, like, for instance, the major questions doctrine i mentioned earlier. from the creation of these

doctrines and right-wing hot houses, through their amplification by front groups, the common thread through the whole process is massive secret funding from billionaire special interest. the amici supporting the petitioners in the loper case, include the buck eye institute, the cato institute, the competitive enterprise institute, the landmark legal foundation, the mountain states legal foundation, national pro to work legal defense and the united states chamber kf commerce. all of them have received hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of dollars from these right-wing donors, from donors

trust, from the coke capital found -- from the koch capital fund, from the bradley foundation and exxonmobil. these two, donors trust and donors capital fund allow ultra wealthy interests to give anonymously. the money comes in from the donor who wants to be secret, it lands at donors trust, they put it under their own name and there is no record of who the donor was. donors trust has been described as the dark money tafrn tm of -- atm of the right. it has laundered over a third of a trillion dollars -- a third of a trillion dollars into climate

denial operations. many of these same amici also received koch family foundation funding and bradley foundation funding, those are two other top ten funders of climate denial. fossil fuel corporations like exxonmobil have also directly funded some of these amici. this is an operation. this is a part of a scheme. exxonmobil has given significant money to the cato institute, competitive enterprise institute, the landmark legal foundation and national right to work foundation as well as the pacific foundation. that's what we know. there could be other money that went into donors trust and into these groups and the exxon name was laundered off the funding. some of these a manchin ci -- some of these amici received

funding from leonard leo. he has been the operative for the billionaires in the court capture operation. and this is a chart of some -- some of the front groups that leo coordinates. this question of capturing the court in order to undermine public safety regulations, trump white house counsel don magon actually called these two operations two sides of the same coin. we have it from inside the white house that these schemes are coordinated. the loper amicus, advancing american freedom, received

$1.5 million from leonard leo's concord fund, this group, between 2020 and 2021. leo's concord fund operates under the fictitious name judicial crisis network, and operating under that fictitious name spent millions of dollars on the court capture. for liinstance, on advertisemen for the right-wing nominees to flood the airwaves with tv ads supporting them. and, by the way, it also supports republican state attorneys general who then challenged federal regulations the billionaires don't like before the sympathetic judges that were put on courts through this operation. just to give you an idea, the concord fund and the 85 fund are

the two kind of base entities. they operate out of the same location with overlapping staff and funders and directors. i would argue that the corporate veil between the two could be pierced with a banana, and that operation of these two entities, a he could joined 5 -- cojoined 501-c, they have a fictitious name filed under corporate law through which they operate. it is not a separate thing. it is a fictitious name for in this case judicial education project for the 85 fund. these eight organizations are,

in effect, the same organization. out of it, money gets pumped up to these entities which is leonard leo's means for extracting money for himself for services provided to ensure that this piece of the operation can go forward and capture the court. that's the background of all of this. so the judicial crisis network shows up here, it's a pretty significant tell that there's more going on here than just independent organizations bringing their views to the supreme court. and it's not enough to flood the supreme court with this fake onslaught of coordinated amici curiae, there's also been a coordinated editorial campaign. in fact, it's been hard to miss the editorial campaign launched to create favorable ideological terrain for the captured court's

justices to end chevron deference. the right-wing apparatus has cranked out op-eds in just about every major publication across the country in the past week. it has been a surge of propaganda, pushing that falsehood about unaccountable bureaucrats. one particularly owedus appeared in the pro-pollute caterwaul wall street -- polluter "wall street journal" editorial page. it was written in "the wall street journal" editorial page by mr. david rivkin. mr. rivkin is described as

follows by "the wall street journal." mr. rivkin served at the justice department and the white house counsel's office and the reagan and george h.w. bush administrations, period. but he's done so much more. for instance, he is leonard leo's personal lawyer. this guy, with what my office refers to as the leo bug of phony front groups, has this guy who authored "the wall street journal" as his personal lawyer. rivkin is the same guy who a smontszs back -- months back gave leonard leo -- to justify alito's travel on a private jet

accompanied by, oh, leonard leo, no less. and he's the same guy who in a current case before the supreme co court, before alito, who has not recused himself, is attempting to secure a tax giveaway for billionaires. rivkin's cosigner, mr. andrew grossman, is described as a senior legal fellow at the buckeye institute and an adjunct scholar at the cato institute. okay. that's a pretty fair description. by the way, if you go back here, there's the buckeye institute, there's the cato institute. they've already briefed the case. the lawyer who writes the brief is now just pumping his own amicus brief in "the wall street

journal" editorial page with the lawyer for leonard leo who did justice alito the big favor of trying to head off a senate investigation into alito's travels. so it's a pretty rich mix. and if you look at all of this what you discover is that this whole scheme is actually pulled off by a very small number of people on the billionaires payroll. they're very busy constantly switching hats and running multiple front groups out of the same enterprise so it looks like there's more. filing multiple briefs in a supreme court case so it looks like there's more, but it's actually a pretty small

billionaire-funded operation. it's just been diabolically affected and it has begun to pay off for the billionaires. in the u.s. s. res. v. the epa, they adopted what is called the major questions doctrine, same one i mentioned earlier. and that in turn has prompted an onslaught of challenges to administrative regulatory authority from which the administrative law legal landscape is reeling, there is enormous upheaving by the supreme court into american law. it would actually add insult to that injury for the court to breakeven more press -- breakeven more precedent by

attacking chevron, and, frankly, they may not really need to because the major questions doctrine is such a powerful question in their hands against administrative regulation, they may not need to do much to chevron. they've got a weapon. it looks like from the argument that the court is actually poised to attack chevron deference. if it does, it not only will add to the dangers, to americans' health and safety, which regulations help protect against, but it will also move the unaccountable supreme court further into the policies making function -- policy making function to the elected political branches. in short, it's a power grab by the unelected judicial bench at the behest of and benefit of

polluter billionaires. and they have done this on the speshus -- on the false grounds that these administrative agencies are unaccountable. well, even if that claim were true, it's hardly solved by moving the locus of decision to the least accountable part of the government, to the united states supreme court. if your problem is the decisions are being made in unaccountable fashion by bureaucrats, then moving it to even less accountable judges is not a solution to the problem, but the fact of the matter is they're wrong about the bureaucrats because of the cra, because of the appropriations process, because of congressional oversight and because of executive appointment to the control of these agencies. it just ain't so. but it's a lie that is repeated

and repeated and repeated and begins to be echoed by the justices of the captured court. to sum up, by all apeeshss -- appearances, a koch operation funded legal theory supported by koch operation funded amici is about to be deployed by koch operation funded lawyers to convince koch operation funded jus justices to achieve a long-standing goal of koch industries, the ability to pollute more easily and more cheaply. to twist american law through those techniques for that

purpose is a deeply degraded thing. it would be a tragedy for the american people but you know what? it's the scheme in a nutshell. it's why all the effort was put together, the hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to capture and control the united states supreme court for creepy billionaires. to be continued. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: madam president, we find ourselves in a situation in

which every state in america is a border state. now, it didn't used to be this way. and as one who has spent two years living along the u.s.-mexico border where i served as a missionary in my early 20's, i'm familiar with border towns, familiar with what they go through. i can tell you from that experience where i lived and worked among the poorest of the poor along the border, among a lot of people who were recent immigrants themselves, some documented, others not document ed, i can tell you that no one fears uncontrolled waves of illegal immigration more than people living along the border, including and especially those who are recent immigrants. it is after all their jobs, their neighborhoods, their children's schools, their communities that are placed at risk every time there is an uncontrolled wave of illegal

immigration. now, since i lived in border communities in the early 1990's in south texas, things have gotten a lot worse and they've gotten exponentially worse over the last three years. things got so bad in the last month that we were setting all kinds of the wrong records. day after day we were exceeding the maximum number of daily migrant encounters our border patrol had ever observed in the history of our country. these are not the kinds of records that we want to break, nor are they the kinds of records that when broken are without consequence. very real, very tangible consequences to the american people. starting, of course, with those living in border communities but extending through all 50 states

as all 50 states are seeing, feeling, experiencing, and paying the cost, the high cost of this wave of lawlessness. it is not a victimless crime. just as the drug cartels are being enriched to the tune of many tens of billions of dollars a year, smuggling their human traffic along international boundaries, and just as the human traffic that they carry is bringing in enough fentanyl that killed over a hundred thousand americans last year and enough fentanyl that if distributed to enough people would kill every american many times over. when that many people -- we're talking somewhere in the age of eight to ten million people. maybe it's even more -- enter a

country unlawfully in such a short period of time, just three short years, there are all sorts of consequences to that. and among them happens to be erosion of the rule of law. whether that many people come into the country and their first experience with this country, their very entry into this country's borders is itself an unlawful act, it doesn't body well -- bode well for the rule of law in america. it doesn't send a positive sig that will for what kind of country -- signal for what kind of country we're becoming. we've experienced that in every one of our states. we've seen crimes committed that never should have been committed because they were committed by people who should never have been in this country to begin with. and all of this is before we even get to the question who exactly is coming across our border. our border patrol agents have observed all kinds of things in recent months and years, but especially in the last few months. people not just coming from central america anymore, not just coming from central and

south america, but from all over the world, from all kinds of countries that you ordinarily wouldn't expect to be represented in large numbers crossing illegally across our southern border into the united states, countries like afghanistan, like syria, like china, and many, many others. we've seen many hundreds coming across who are on the terrorist watch list, known terrorists. we've seen a whole lot of others. many hundreds by some measures, thousands who likely have entered who are from kungs and -- from countries and otherwise entering under circumstances that are cause for alarm. and yet this is going on with the acquiescence, some would say with the blessing of a presidential administration which appears to have ordained this very result, invited it and effectively guaranteed it.

this has been really good for the drug cartels, madam president, who have been enriched to the tune of tens of billions of dollars every single year joe biden has been in office, every year, but it's been really bad for the american people, especially america's poor and middle class and anyone living near or on a border or any community where people have been displaced or where people have been ravaged by the effects of criminal activity carried out by those who should never have been in this country to begin with. the problem got so bad over the last few months, the state of texas decided that it had to act. you see, texas las a really -- texas has a really long international border at the southern end o along the border the state of texas saw areas that were being

traversed constantly, traversed constantly and yet perhaps not patrolled as well as they would have liked. and these were places where there were no adequate barriers natural or otherwise that could keep people out but the state of texas knew that could be protected if barriers could be placed there. so the state of texas started putting up barriers along some of these stretches of border. and in particular -- along a particular 27-mile stretch of border. the biden administration struggling to process these many thousands of illegal ail generals -- illegal aliens crossing our border every single day with all kinds of things to do to try to stop this or at

least act like they're trying to stop it or at least process them or whatever it is that they've been ordered to do that day, apparently this was too much for the biden administration because president biden directed the department of homeland security and the personnel along the border in texas to go in and start taking down these barriers. putting up ladders across some of the barriers, cutting holes in other barriers, cutting constantino wire in other circumstances. so the state of texas said good hea heavens, that doesn't seem right. doesn't seem right that, you know, we're besieged by these people who want to break our laws in order to enter our country, and the president is the sworn -- the chief executive officer of the federal government, and it is the

federal government that's responsible for protecting us from invasion. remember, an invasion can occur either by an organized armed military force or it can be a nonorganized, nonuniform ed, nonmilitary force that's just entering another country en masse without authorization. that is the federal government's responsibility. it's one of the chief responsibilities, one of the most important responsibilities. but because the federal government wasn't carrying out that responsibility and because the state of texas saw a particular 27-mile stretch of border where texas could make a difference by putting up some barriers, they put it there. but that was not okay with the biden administration. they had to go take it down. who knows how many additional illegal immigrants came in as a result of personnel that had to

be deployed to start taking down these barriers and cutting the wire. but they did it. now, the state of texas stepped back for a minute and said, you know, it's really unfortunate that that's what the biden administration wants to do with its scarce resources. it's really unfortunate they want to make the state of texas less safe and with it the rest of the country. but it also doesn't really seem -- i don't know -- constitutional. you know, there are a couple of provisions of the constitution that deal specifically with protecting the country against an invasion. one of them can be found in article 4, section 4 of the constitution which says that when a state's being invaded, when it's under siege in some way, they should be able to appeal to the federal government for help in resisting that. well, when texas asked for help,

it got quite the opposite. there is another provision, article 1, section 10, clause 3. that provision says in essence after telling the states that there are a bunch of things that they cannot do, states are not allowed to wage war, for example, states are not allowed to enter into an international compact, you know, with a foreign country and do certain things like that that are akin to what the federal government is rather uniquely empowered to do. but there's an exception at the end, and it's an exception that applies when the state is being invaded. that states have the power to do that. so perhaps informed by these and other provisions of the constitution the state of texas filed suit in u.s. district court in texas trying to seek an injunction, that is, an order telling the department of homeland security, look, you can't mess with texas. you can't