bill itself? >> guest: that is a question. it always seems to be on life support as it is an republican state senate republicans say they want time, they want to be able to amend parts of the bill they think should be fixed, but it's hard to see any momentum really building from that because again -- >> we believe this year to take you back now like to use senate which is returning from recess. comment up a vote on the confirmation of kurt campbell to be deputy secretary of state, and after that lawmakers are expected to work on the nomination of a u.s. district court judge for oregon. you are watching live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. 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. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz.

mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, bennet, blumenthal, booker, britt, brown, capito, collins, cortez masto, daines, durbin, ernst, graham, grassley, hickenlooper, kennedy, lankford, lujan, manchin, mendendez,

murkowski, peters, reed, rosen, rounds, sinema, smith, tillis, van hollen, warren, welch, and wicker. no senator voted in the negative. mr. scott of florida, no. mr. casey, aye. mr. padilla, aye. mr. kaine, aye. mr. tester, aye.

mr. carper, aye. mr. crapo, aye.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye. ms. stabenow, aye. mr. heinrich, aye. mr. ricketts, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye. ms. hassan, aye. mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. cassidy, aye.

mr. kelly, aye. mr. warnock, aye. ms. hirono, aye. mr. ossoff, aye. mr. warner, aye. mr. mcconnell, aye. mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mr. sanders, no.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. the clerk: mr. cruz, aye. mr. cornyn, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. mr. mullin, aye.

mr. rubio, aye.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye. mr. cardin, aye. mr. marshall, aye. vote: the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mr. schatz, aye. mr. schmitt, aye. mr. budd, aye. mr. paul, aye. mr. romney, aye.

the clerk: mr. johnson, aye. the clerk: mr. wyden, aye.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, aye.

the clerk: mr. thune, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. cramer, aye.

the clerk: mr. cotton, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye. mr. lee, aye. mr. young, aye. mr. coons, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. risch, aye. mrs. murray, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, aye. vote:

the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. vance, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. murphy, aye. mrs. shaheen, aye.

the presiding officer: the nays are 5. 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 action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 473, amy m. badge crow of oregon to -- beganon -- baggio

of oregon to be united states district judge of the -- for the district of oregon. the presiding officer: the question is, is it the sense of the senate that amy m. baggio of oregon to be united states district judge for the district of oregon shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn.

ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. 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. vote:

the clerk: mr. tester, mr. thune, mr. tuberville, mr. van hollen. mr. vance, mr. warnerment. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- cortez masto, in vitro fertilizationman, graham, heinrich, hirono, kaine, king,

lujan, murkowski, murray, ossoff, reed, schumer, shaheen, smith, stabenow, tester,warner, welch. senators voting in the negative -- cotton, fischer, hagerty, hawley, hyde-smith, lee, moran, mullin, rubio, sullivan, tuberville, wicker. the clerk: ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. menendez, aye, mr. markey, aye, mr. wyden, aye, mr. murphy, aye. mr. rounds, no.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no. mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. tillis, no. mr. boozman, no. mr. van hollen, aye.

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

mr. thune, no.

the clerk: mr. crapo, no. mr. johnson, no. mr. budd, no. mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. vance, no.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. the clerk: ms. sinema, aye.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. peters, aye. ms. rosen, aye. the clerk: mr. cornyn, no.

the clerk: mr. risch, no. mr. cassidy, no.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no. mr. young, no. ms. hassan, aye.

the clerk: mr. ricketts, no. the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. mr. romney, no. ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, no.

the clerk: mr. daines, no.

the clerk: mrs. capito, no.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. ms. duckworth, aye. the clerk: mr. is schmitt, no. mr. scott of florida, no. mr. paul, no.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no.

the clerk: mr. durbin, aye. the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye. ms. butler, aye.

the clerk: ms. ernst, no. the clerk: mr. coons, aye. ms. cantwell, aye.

ms. baldwin, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no. mr. schatz, aye. the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

mr. sanders, aye. vote:

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye.

the clerk: mr. cramer, no.

the presiding officer: the yeas are 54. the nays are 43. the motion is -- is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, amy m. baggio of oregon to be united states district judge for the district of oregon. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. mr. cornyn: on sunday night, three of our colleagues received a much anticipated text of what has become known as a bipartisan border deal. in fact, this was negotiated by

three main principle senators here in the senate, senator james lankford from oklahoma, senator sinema from arizona, senator chris murphy from connecticut along with the biden administration. i want to express my gratitude to senator lankford for our part for the time and effort he's invested in this process. i know of no one who's worked harder in good faith to try to come up with a solution to our broken border. i know like all of our colleagues on this side of the aisle, he's outraged by the biden administration's failure to secure the border, and he's eager to find a way to change the policies which will provide that security. and i think our democratic colleagues finally realized that the status quo on the border is a huge political liability. well, what senator lankford

hoped to deliver through this process unfortunately has become increasingly clear, has not been attainable. notwithstanding his best efforts, this proposal is not what the country needs, wants, or deserves. and i'd be happy to explain why. given the fact we're operating in divided government, any successful reform requires bipartisan support. as i said, senator lankford worked in good faith with senator murphy and senator sinema who also worked in good faith as well as the white house to craft this agreement. but i'm disappointed that the white house has refeesed to budge on policy changes that would lead to significant improv improvements, by that i mean reduction in the flow of migrants across the southern border.

for example, this proposal doesn't place significant limits on parole. a senator: authority. -- on parole authority. by way of a footnote, parole authority means that the biden administration has been releasing people who come to the border, even if they don't claim asylum. and it's frankly just a population management tool. they're released into the interior of the country, given a two-year permit and a work pe permit. so no matter what we do on the front end in terms of asylum reform or the process to deal with this exploitation of the gaps in our asylum system, the biden administration could still parole as many people as they wanted to under this proposal. as a matter of fact, no changes were made at all to the fact that the biden administration is releasing up to 30,000 migrants from four countries each month

presuming or assuming that they actually should be released into the country without any claim of asylum or anything else, just letting them come and stay and work. this is a huge magnet, a huge magnet to people coming from those countries and that's 360,000 migrants a year, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. this bill also does not end what has come to know euphemistically as catch and release. and it actually creates a new system under which migrants who might express intent to apply for asylum must be released from custody even before an initial screening interview is completed. just to take a look back, i think it was in 2005 when then-secretary michael chertoff

came and testified in front of the senate judiciary committee, and he noticed an uptick in the number of brazilians that were coming across the border. what he testified to under oath they realized that the only way you would provide the deterrence that would prevent people from coming illegally into the country is to detain them. in other words, don't catch and release them. catch and detain them. determine whether they have a legitimate claim, and if they did not, then return them to their country of origin. that actually provided the kind of deterrence that addressed that problem at that time and that kind of deterrence is missing in this proposal. and as i said, it actually creates a new system that can be exploited by the people who continue to get rich smuggling migrants to the united states from around the world. the same criminal organizations that are also involved in

smuggling drugs into the united states. and the only way you avoid catch and release and you provide catch and detain is u need more -- is you need more detention space, and this proposal does not provide adequate detention space, and assures that migrants will continue to be released into the interior of the country. again, a huge magnet or the term followings that the border patrol -- terminology that the border patrol has taught me, he calls this a pull factor. the push factors are the reasons people want to leave their home country. violence, poverty, a desire for a better life. we all understand that. but what the pull factor is the perception that there are no consequences to coming illegally. legal immigration has been one of the biggest blessings.

almost a million people a year are naturalized. they go through the system the right way. they take the citizenship test. they go through the background check and then they become american citizens like you and me. that is an unmitigated blessing, in my opinion. illegal immigration, or outsourcing our immigration policy to drug and criminal cartels is a disaster. well, this proposal also does not make a meaningful investment in enforcement resources to actually remove people who don't have the legal authorization to stay in the united states. that's a job ordinarily performed by immigration and customs enforcement, or ice. so if people can come to the country, can be released either on parole or released while

they're waiting a decision on their asylum claims, and there is no mechanism to make sure that they are repatriated to their home country if they don't qualify to stay, then they are going to continue to come, which is the reason why we've seen roughly seven million migrants come to the united states, and stay, over the last three years. in other words, this proposal does not fix the single biggest policy failures that have contributed to this crisis. i believe this is the responsibility, again, of the biden administration who has done everything they can to handcuff their negotiators and to fail to meet the requirements of what a proposal would look like that would actually make things better, would actually work. i've said from the beginning

that i would only support an agreement or a proposal that would make significant policy changes and change -- by that i mean reduce -- the influx of humanity coming across the border, and this proposal does not meet that requirement. but this is while disappointing, it's not entirely surprising. after all, president biden, the leader of an open borders administration that has ushered in the largest border crisis our country has ever seen. the only reason i think president biden all of a sudden took an interest in the border is because he saw the approaching election and his plummeting poll numbers. since president biden took office three years ago, u.s. customs and border protection as encountered more than seven million migrants. i mentioned that a moment ago. seven million in three years. and that doesn't even count the

1.7 million got-aways. got-aways are people who are seen, although not detained, on cameras and other sensors and who are intentionally evading law enforcement. you can imagine only -- you can only imagine what they are up to, and i assure it's no good. but we've seen under president biden nearly double the number of illegal crossings that we saw during the entire eight years president obama was in office. now, to be clear, congress has not changed dramatically -- dramatically changed immigration laws in the interim that caused this dramatic increase in migration under president biden. under president trump, the laws were essentially the same, and there was no crisis of such epic proportions. this fiasco is a direct result of the policies and the actions of the biden administration.

the president created what is in fact a high-powered magnet for illegal immigration. the problem isn't just that more migrants than ever are crossing into the united states; it's also that more migrants than ever are being released into the united states. the biden administration has gone to great lengths to ensure that people who cross the border illegally can stay here. it's really, if you think about it, an insult to the people who follow the law and immigrate legally. they wait patient any in line. they play by the rules. and, in the meantime, the biden administration is waving through magician of migrants who are violating those rules and who are not waiting in line. instead of detain and deport this administration has focused all of its energy on catch and

release. last month secretary mayorkas told border patrol agents that more than 85% of migrants who were caught crossing the border were being released. now, this is from a man whose responsibility it is to enforce our immigration laws, the secretary of homeland security. and he admitted to border patrol agents that 85% who were caught crossing the border illegal lay were simply released -- illegally were simply released. again, this is not a major shift in immigration policy. the president hasn't tied -- excuse me, the congress hasn't tied president biden's hands or restricted his ability to detain and deport illegal immigrants. president biden has -- was dealt the exact same hand as his recent predecessors when it comes to enforcement authorities. but he simply refused to use

them. which is what gets to the root of the problem here. the white house really doesn't want a solution. it wants political cover. president biden's mishandling of the border has landed him in red ink in the polls. he's looking at the upcoming election, and he's -- he needs to change his posture and the appearance that he looks like he's actually taking this seriously for the first time in three years. but i have no expectation that this will lead to any sort of meaningful shift in enforcement. congress can pass all the laws that we want, but it's the executive branch, the president of the united states, that enforces those laws. and when they are not enforced, under our system, unfortunately, there's not much recourse. after all, if joe biden really

wanted to fix the border breakdown, he could have done so at any point in the last three years. he could have used existing authorities to hold lawbreakers accountable and provide deterrence, which would have mitigated the flow of humanity across our border. instead, he created new incentives, new pull factors, from parole to the cbp one app. president biden has realized that this is such a liability, that nine months before the next election, he's decided that he wants to change his position, at least publicly. but i can tell you, we are not interested in being complicit in a p.r. stunt. we are interested in actually securing the border and deterring illegal immigration. so on wednesday when we vote on

whether to proceed to the proposal along with aid to ukraine, israel, and the indo-pacific, i will vote no on the motion to proceed. to be clear, this is not no. this is not now. in other words, when cloture fails, which is the technical procedural term, it means we need to continue to discuss this and to work it out and to come up with a better solution. but fixing this bill really requires us to go back to the drawing board, and for our -- for the administration to accept some of the border enforcement proposals that we've called for like ending catch and release. voting for this proposal, some 300 pages of technical immigration law changes, three

days after it was released is really a bad joke. there's just no way, given the complexity of the subject matter, that senators can do their due diligence and really understand what the impact of this proposal will be. now, i've spent most of my career in the senate on the immigration subcommittee, and obviously coming from a border state, this is -- we're at ground zero when it comes to this crisis. but many of our colleagues have not steeped themselves in the complexities of immigration law, and we need time -- all of us need time in order to do our due diligence to understand both the intended and the potential unintended consequences. in the three years since president biden took office, the security situation at the southern border has dramatically

deteriorated. i think at last count there were about 170 individuals on the terrorist watch list that were detained at the border. we have no idea -- and the biden administration can't tell you -- how many more individuals on the terrorist watch list were among those 1.7 million got-aways. in the years i've been representing texas in the senate, there have been many ups and downs in migration levels at the border. there have been surges, some caused by events beyond our borders, others triggered by policies from the occupant of the white house. there have also been drops in migration levels, some caused by events like the pandemic, others a result of stricter policies that have actually deterred illegal immigration. in the countless conversations i've had with folks along the

texas-mexico border, everyone has shared the same sentiment -- they have never, ever seen it as bad as it is now. law enforcement, local elected officials, ngo's nongovernmental organizations, and private property owners agree -- this is unprecedented and unsustainable. we need a major policy shift. not a fig leaf. we need a major policy shift to address the biden administration's many failures, and we need a change in behavior, not just in the policy but in actually enforcing the laws that congress has passed. because our colleagues have -- and the biden administration in particular has refused to budge on policy changes that would

actually force his administration to apply the law and deter illegal immigration, i cannot support it as written. but now, as i said, the majority leader, the senator from new york, has teed up a process that would force us to vote on this massive bill totalling i think at last count $112 billion, including this border provision, just three days after the full text has been released. at this point, senator schumer has given our colleagues a binary choice -- take it or leave it. for me, the choice is obvious. i will not vote just not; i will vote not now. we need to continue this process. we need to see a change in behavior. we need to see a change in real policies that will prevent and

deter this fast humanitarian and public safety crisis occurring at our border under president biden's open border policies. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: mr. president, with me today are two of my colleagues from my office, mr. james shea and mr. parker moley. i think with a with a to thank them both for their -- i want to thank them both for their good work. energy suicide. that's what i want to talk about. energy suicide. president biden is committing energy suicide for america. regrettably -- and i mean that -- regrettably, too many

times in the past three years and on too many issues we have seen president biden act as a sock puppet for a faction of neo-socialist americans who don't like our country. who think our country was wicked when it was founded and that it's even more wicked today. and this faction which president biden has supported far too often thinks our country must be torn down and rebuilt, and of course they want to be the ones to rebuild it. and now this faction has turned its sights, with the help of

president biden, on america's hard-fought energy independence. president biden just aided this faction in destroying america's energy independence and committing energy suicide by declaring a moratorium on new liquefied natural gas terminals in america. apparently president biden's new policy is to give up our own oil and gas and buy the energy that we need from countries that hate us. so those countries that hate us will have more money to buy weapons to try to kill us. stupidity, mr. president,

stupidity should hurt more. i realize you can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out. america's ability to be energy independent is one of our greatest strengths. look, we're a big country. we're a big, wide-open, diverse, sometimes dysfunctional, imperfect, but essentially good country. and this is a country, it's filled with oil and natural gas and coal and uranium and plutonium. it's figured with rare earth minerals. it's filled with roaring rivers and just about everything else you need to power this economy, to help families live the american dream. and we even have a little bit left over to help our friends. american ingenuity did that.

now, louisiana is a big part of the equation, and we're very, very proud to be a leader in energy production. not every, every country is as blessed as america. our friends in europe, for example, they were relying on russian oil and gas for their energy when putin invaded ukraine and then cut off their supply. this paralyzed many european leaders. they didn't know how they were going to run their businesses. they didn't know how they were going to heat their homes. they were totally dependent on vladimir putin and russia. personally they had a friend. they had a friend in the united states of america, and we helped them out, and we kept their businesses running, and we kept their homes heated. and you know how we did it? you know what we did it with? american liquefied natural gas.

american liquefied natural gas. energy independence, one way to look at it, energy independence is america's jackpot lottery ticket. now we've worked hard for it, but it's our jackpot lottery ticket. but for some reason president biden wants to light our winning numbers on fire. he's committing energy suicide. dimension that? -- did i mention that? at every turn, at every turn the biden administration has taken steps to make it more difficult, more expensive, and sometimes flat-out impossible to produce, transport, and sell the energy products that we need to power this great country. and these foolish policies, the latest of which is a moratorium

on lng, these foolish policies, they're killing american jobs. they're killing american jobs. they're driving up energy prices. they're jeopardizing our national security. and it needs to stop, mr. president. natural gas is the latest victim. president biden's department of energy recently announced that it was issuing a pause, a pa pause -- that's washingtonspeak. that's washington speak for new permits for liquefied natural gas export projects. can you believe that? liquefied natural gas, it's not complicated. america helped invent it. you just take natural gas which is in its gassiest forms, you cool it, turn it into a liquid,

put it on a ship. you can send it all over the world. that's how we kept europe open after putin cut off europe's oil and natural gas. it was a lifeline for our lives in europe. it's a lifeline for many of our friends in west asia. and president biden, before this moratorium, he promised our allies in europe that they could count on us for their lng needs. and now president biden has chosen to stab america's lng producers and our allies in the back. not in the front. in the back, by prohibiting the development of new lng export terminals. this decision is going to kill dozens, dozens of multibillion-dollar new terminal

projects, including a project in louisiana that we call kalkasoo pass 2. $20 billion down the drain. kalkashoo pass 2, a private-sector project, costs $20 billion. it was set to be the largest lng export terminal in the united states. it would have brought thousands of good jobs to louisiana and to america. it would have produced the energy to keep this country safe, to keep this country warm, and to help our friends. but president biden has put all those jobs and the terminal itself in jeopardy. why? politics. to appease that neosocialist faction that i talked about who don't even like our country. why? but, you know, the ironic thing

about this, mr. president, the whack jobs who talked the president into this said, we want you to help the environment. attacking the natural gas industry actually hurts the environment. you don't have to be an astrophysicist to figure that out. natural gas is cleaner than coal. natural gas is cleaner than cow chips. natural gas is cleaner than wood. that's what millions, billions of our world citizens are going to use if they don't have access to natural gas. as a result of natural gas, natural gas drove a 32% reduction in american carbon emissions. we reduced our carbon emissions 32% from 2005 to 2019, and we

did it with natural gas. and also at the same time we helped families pay half as much to heat their homes. we cut the price of the energy needs of the average america, and we created 1.4 million new jobs. the whole world wins, not loses. the whole world wins, including the economy, when americans produce natural gas. but president biden is going to pause all that success because some meat head activist on tiktok doesn't like natural gas. give me a break. the president's lng ruling is foolish. it demonstrates world beating

vicuity and deep profound stupidity. it is also the result of many actions. it's also the recent of many actions that president biden has taken to undermine america's energy security. but he even took office, remember the campaign? before he even took office, president biden said, and i quote -- it's what he told the american people. quote, i guarantee you, i guarantee you, we're going to end fossil fuels. i guarantee you we're going to end fossil fuels. close quote. since his very first day in office, he's tried to do that. no matter how much it hurts louisianians. no matter how much it hurts our allies and our friend. no matter how much it hurts the

american people. let me give you a few examples. on his first day, first day he was president, president biden blocked the keystone x.l. pipeline. it would have made transporting crude oil from our friends in canada safer and cleaner. it would have been good for the environment. president biden's department of energy reported that canceling his -- his own department said this for god's sake. president biden's department of energy said after he made this decision that canceling the keystone x.l. pipeline cost 59,000 american jobs, resulted in an economic loss of $1.3 billion. stupidity should hurt more. next the biden administration blocked all oil and natural gas drilling on federal lands. he cut off 25% of america's drilling rights. then he placed restrictive emission caps on american coal

and natural gas power plants that would force them to invest in costly new equipment or switch to hydrogen. then just recently he canceled seven oil and gas drilling leases, end future drilling on more than ten million acres. not 10,000 acres. 10 million acres of land in northern alaska. then he approved just three offshore drilling leases, the fewest number of offshore drilling sites approved by any president since leasing began in america. now he's not just killing fossil fuels. he told us he was going to do it, and by god he's doing it. but he's not just killing fossil fuel projects. he's killing projects that are essential for wind and for solar too. wind and solar energy and the electric cars that president biden wants americans to drive

all rely on batteries. duh, that's why they call them electric. those batteries require rare earth minerals. cobalt, silver, copper, nickel. you can't just go to the pigly wiggly and buy those things. you've got to mine them. and we could mine those minerals in the united states. but once again the biden administration wants louisianians and americans to rely on countries that hate us for these minerals instead of mining for them at home. for example, president biden recently announced a ban on all copper and nickel mining in minnesota's boundary waters. all of it. the biden administration's epa

also proposed a rule that will allow governors, blue state governors -- i'm looking at you, california. i'm looking at you, illinois. i'm looking at you, new york. that would allow blue-state governors to block rare earth mining permits in their states. in fact, america's only cobalt mine closed on president biden's watch. foolish political energy policies make life harder for louisiana and american families. electric prices are already up 23% nationwide since president biden took office, and that's just a fact. look it up. go to google. let me say that again. electricity prices are up 23% on average nationwide since president biden took office. gas prices are up 32%. they come down some, thank god,

but they're still up 32%. while louisianians struggle under president biden's energy and job-killing policies, our adversaries can't stop winning. let's take iran. iran's oil imports are at a five-year high. the ayatollah in iran, this guy made enough money to resume funding the terrorist attacks on american bases. he's doing it all over the world. you know why? because president biden lets him. we have sanctions on iran. the president will not enforce them. venezuela, let's take venezuela, another enemy of our country. venezuela's oil imports increased 12% in 2023. you know? -- you know why? president biden took the sanctions off of them.

china's probably the biggest winner of all. even when president biden tries to help the american people afford his surging energy costs, china wins. china wins. for example, i'll give you an example, the biden administration allowed a chinese-opened company to buy up fuel from our strategic natural petroleum reserve. we have a strategic natural petroleum reserve. we buy up oil, millions of barrels, we store that oil underground in case we need it, in case we can't get oil from anywhere else. it's our energy savings account. well, president biden decided to sell some. decided to sell it. you know who he sold it to? china. china.

it was a move so foolish that the house and the senate, which usually can't agree on the fact that the sky is blue, both passed bills to prevent china from ever tapping into our petroleum reserve again. you can't make this stuff up, folks. energy independence keeps america safe, keeps america strong, it keeps america prosperous. and louisianans, i don't know about other states, but i suspect other americans believe like louisianans, louisianans do not want to rely upon the whims of our adversaries to keep our country running. we cannot let president biden commit energy suicide. we can't. to apiece the radical left, the moon wing of his party.

and so i ask my colleagues, mr. president, to join me in pushing back against president biden's anti-energy agenda and his moratorium on liquefied natural gas. why? because stupidity should hurt more. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. to the senator from kansas.

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: plan, i -- mr. president. i rise to ask unanimous consent that the senate adopt our resolution expressing the sense of the senate that the governors of the individual states have a constitutional right to repel the dangerous and ongoing invasion across the united

states' southern border. joe biden has the power to secure our borders. instead, he has chosen to break the law, resulting in the worse border crisis in american -- in american history. frankly, i don't know how the president sleeps at night knowing 300 young americans will die today from fentanyl poisoning. 300 yesterday, 300 tomorrow, 300,000 people have died from fentanyl poisoning since he took office. along with that, there's terrorists, chinese communists , nationals, cartels, and worse, they're all living in the interior of our country. since our commander in chief won't stop this historic crisis, an invasion declaration as defined by the united states constitution allows congress to recognize each state's right to secure their own borders. where joe biden fails to put

americans safely first, our resolution acknowledges each state's rights to secure their borders themselves, as leaders like texas governor greg abbott have. the cartels and the ccp should not have more operational control of our borders than we do. so we've reviewed the big picture here. let's take a closer look. i think the first question we all ask is this an invasion. well, to have an invasion, you have to have invaders. as we try to understand what the constitution means, it's good to go back to some of those founding fathers, when they thought were invaders. it's interesting that james madison called pirates and bar barons innovate -- bar bearans invaders -- barbarians. today, those are the pirates of today. so then, let's talk about is

there an invasion, do we have an invasion on our southern border? i've tried to think what analogies i could give, what it's like when i visited the southern border. we're here in d.c., so i'll paint a picture what i think it would look like if this invasion was occurring right here in d.c.. if you could imagine with me what it would like like if there was 10,000 ships coming up the potomac river over the last three years. 10,000 ships, each with a thousand people from over 180 different nations. 10,000 ships, 1,000 people from 180 nations. let's pretend they come up the potomac river and lay anchor out here at the wharf. those people slowly get off, one at a time. i envision one ship full of known terrorists and chinese

nationals. there'd be 80 ships with aliens of interest, people from countries that wish harm to america. there would be 200 ships anchored out here, where people would hop off the ship and just disappear into the night. 200 ships with a thousand people on it. disappearing in the night. we have no idea who they are or where they are. there'd be another 200 ships, 200 ships with a thousand people that president biden would give parole to. just say you're fine, we don't care what reason you are here for, here's your parole slip. then sprinkled in amongst these ships are criminals, murderers, rapists, thugs, drug traffickers, human traffickers, amendment thieves. does that sound like an invasion to you? next, why do we need to declare this an invasion? well, what our resolution does is give state governors more powers to defend themselves.

if the federal government's not doing their job, it would make sense that the governors have the right to defend themselves, to defend their people of their state. let me explain a little further. now, i'm a physician, not an attorney, defendant not a constitutional lawyer, but fortunately for you'll of -- all of us the constitution was written for the most part by common people, just like us, so that common people like us could read it and understand it. what does the constitution say about an invasion? remember, everybody up here has sworn an oath to defend that constitution. members of congress, the white house, the president, we've all sworn an oath to uphold the constitution. this is what the constitution says, in article 4, section 4, it promises that the federal government, and i quote, shall protect each state against invasion. so that this is a constitutional law that the federal government shall protect each state against invasion. now, we've already established

that the federal government's not done its job with this invasion of 10 million people already occurred. i don't think anyone can argue that point. fortunately, our forefathers anticipated such an incidence, that someday we'd have a president who didn't love this countries, didn't recognize we have a sovereign border and would allow some ten million people illegally across our border. so they have in the constitution from article 1, section 10, clause 3, and i quote, the states have sovereign interest in protecting their borders. so the federal government doesn't do its job, the states have the aged, the constitutional right to protect their being -- the ability, the constitutional right to protect their borders. maybe this a little tricky, but the constitution says in clause 3, section 10, article 1, i quote, no state shall, without the consent of congress, engage in war unless actually invaded.

let me say that again. no state, without the consent of congress shall engage in war unless actually invaded. that's why we're here today. the senate needs to declare our southern border has been invaded to empower the governor of texas to protects his people. look, this invasion has occurred, we've established that. to say otherwise, to say this is not an invasion i think would be a false statement for anybody. the president's not done his constitutional duty. we've established that. thus, we must invoke and concur with the governor of texas that an actual invasion has occurred, and the governor of texas, governor abbott, has not just a moral responsibility but the constitutional right to invoke his power and authority to do everything in his capabilities to protect the good people of texas. now, i commend and compliment operation lone star. they've come up with more than

30,000 felony charges. they've seized over 450 million lethal doses of fentanyl. again, 450 million lethal doses of fentanyl. enough to kill every man, woman, and child in america more than once. so that's why i'm here today, to lend my support and my hope that the entire unanimous consent and support of the senate would be with the governor of texas and the good people of texas. as if in legislation session, and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 543, which is at the desk. i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. padilla: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: mr. president,

res reserving the right to object. these past two weeks have given the american people a clear window into the republican mind when it comes to immigration. they can't decide if immigration reform is the responsibility of congress or if it's the responsibility of the mr. they can't decide if the border is in crisis or if they'd rather wait until after the election to talk about it or try to do something about it. and today, in this resolution, they're doubling down on declaring and, quote-unquote, invasion, and vilifying immigrants, while preventing the federal government from keeping order on the border. so my first message to my republican colleagues here today is this, make up your mind. do you want to get serious about immigration reform or not?

mr. president, they can't do it. and these past few weeks we saw why. republicans believe that fear of our border translates into turnout at the ballot box. and because they believe that a narrative of chaos and fear will help donald trump in november. they're saying the quiet part out loud. they're saying it, they're repeating it, they're amplifying it on social media, and it's the same reason that they can greet secretary mayorkas at the negotiation table during these supplemental request negotiations, with one hand, while with their other hand they file baseless impeachment articles against him. so today's resolution is just as unserious as it was the last time that they brought it up.

let's put aside for a moment the obvious constitutional concerns. put it aside for a moment and discuss what giving immigration powers to governors would look like. colleagues, the fact is you don't even have to imagine. let's look at what's happening in texas. governor abbott has shown us the cruelty and lawlessness of what it would lead to. unconstitutional legislation to terrorize immigrants in texas, putting them at risk of racial profiling and civil rights violations. -- pushed asylum seekers and their families including small children, nursing babies, colleagues, into dangerous waters with deadly consequences.

you want to know why we talk about humanity? this is happening. and razor wire along the border that prevents federal officials from doing their job securing the border. state governments preventing federal officials from doing their job. is that what you want? for the self-proclaimed party of law and order, republicans are acting like anything but. let's not loose sight of the very real danger of this kind of action and this kind of rhetoric. the idea that immigrants are invading has radicalized people in our country to perpetuate terrible violence. in the not so distant past, including the 2019 shooting in an el paso walmart where a white

nationalist murdered 23 people. hispanic families were doing back-to-school shopping, mr. president. my colleague from kansas asked something about being able to sleep at night. since that day i have not been able to sleep as well as night for fear of the same happening in my community, to my family. now i agree that the asylum system is outdated and in need of modernization. we must have a border that is more secure and more orderly and humane, but there is absolutely not an invasion happening as our

republican colleagues have tried to portray. people arriving at our borders are seeking protection for themselves and their families, seeking refuge from violence, and political persecution from oppressive regimes. exercising their legal right to asylum or to seek asylum, a legal right to seek asylum that we established back in world war ii. mr. president, today's resolution would represent a fundamental disregard for the constitution and the rule of law, and it would undoubtedly lead to more cruelty at the border and throughout the country for that matter, not just at the border, mr. president. it is for that reason that i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm proud today to join my colleague, dr. marshall, on the floor to support the state of texas in their efforts to secure the disaster at the southern border. i've been there many times. i would challenge my democratic colleagues, how many times have you been to the southern border in texas to see this disaster? right now the biden administration is actively trying to stop the state of texas from protecting their and our border. meanwhile, democrats are telling the press that they want to fix the border crisis that president biden has created. it's taken three years. but they say that the republicans won't let them. that is not true. the biden administration is suing texas and destroying barriers at the bord er activel,

every day. the taxpayers have already paid for the wall, the extension of the wall that was stopped when president trump or after president trump stepped down a few years ago. president biden refuses to build a wall. he's pushing a bill on us that honestly sets aside money already appropriated for the wall and allows him to postpone new construction indefinitely. there's no plan. this is what they call a border bill. i call it a border giveaway. joe biden is selling off the border for pennies on the dollar that the taxpayers have already paid for. it's online. you can go online and buy in an auction the wall and razor wire that's sitting on the ground

mostly in arizona, and you can buy it for 10 cents on the dollar. he's actively destroying our southern border. this is something from the worst nightmares of our founding fathers, a president who is more concerned about other people's borders and not ours. now about half of the american southern border is also the southern border of texas. there's no saying that the constitution is not a suicide pact. the federal government cannot, i repeat, cannot force texas to let itself be invaded and destroyed. article 4, section 4 of the constitution promises that the federal government shall protect every state from invasion. in fact, the declaration of itches accused king george of exposing the colonies to all

dangers of invasion. article 1, section 10 of the constitution explicitly says that a state may engage in war without the consent of congress if actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit a delay. now, let's look at the facts. at least 10,000 people a day on several months have been coming across our border averaging 7500 a day. the biden administration admits to releasing 85% of that 7500 a day into our country, 85%, just release them into the country. this is in addition to the two million illegal immigrants we've lost track of in the past three years. more than 100,000 americans are dying every year because of drugs which a lot have come across our southern border and

getting worse. you know, that's more than we lost in the vietnam war. and that was a very long war. drugs, gangs, and even terrorists are flooding, are flooding our border. we don't know who they are. can there be any doubt that the founding fathers would consider this an invasion? the population of our country at the founding was about four million people. at the beginning, 248 years ago. the population has grown obviously. we've had more than eight million illegal crossings since joe biden took office. eight million. the sure scale of this is unlike anything any of us have ever seen. so it should be clear the facts and the constitution are both on the state of texas' side. and texas has every right to

protect the people in its state and our country. i'm confident that the supreme court will uphold the constitution on this ruling. but the real solution is not relying on a court ruling. the real solution is for president joe biden to stop destroying the border and put a stop to what's happening. stop cutting the wire. stop suing our border states. stop selling off the wall. stop pretending to want a border bill that we know won't work. stop encouraging, stop encouraging the invasion. he's personally doing that from the white house. stop encouraging the invasion of our country which is cost be americans lives every single day. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

carried out another deadly attack on the houses of u.s. personnel in syria. the houthis continued to threaten the uss international shipping in the red sea. three days after president biden

directed strikes in response to the killing of three u.s. soldiers in jordan, iran and its proxies for demonstrating their particular calculus changed. the person said on friday there our adversaries should know quote a few arm had -- harm an american we will respond. either actions are adversaries are turning the president's words around. they are essentially saying we will attack america at times and places of our choosing. iran and the expendable traces for american blood are demonstrably undeterred and they are hardly beyond one. for three years america's adversaries have luxuriated in a

world that no longer takes us at our word. an embarrassing retreat from afghanistan spawning climate diplomacy with their strategic competitor. failure to take food seriously until it was too late and a series of escalations that delayed lethal aid to ukraine in return. for three years america's foreign-policy has been defined by hesitation, half measures and self-deterrence. president biden has taken art credibility and the american word into it hoping word into a whole. meanwhile our adversaries are aligning in coordinating to an unprecedented degree. as america gets our allies and partners reason to doubt ourselves russia and china are

engaged in a quote friendship without limits end quote. the contrast couldn't be starker but it doesn't help to be this way. take it from practitioners who know that better than anyone. for example just yesterday national security adviser retired lieutenant general h.r. mcmaster had this to say. the abandonment of kyiv would be a gift to moscow, tehran, beijing and pyongyang that access of aggressors. allies and partners would lose trust in america as those in aggressors or rumble them. the result could be escalating complex even more costly than the interconnected wars in ukraine and across the middle east. of course general mcmaster

security pfizer to president trump. former secretary of state mike pompeo in the trump administration put it this way after his recent visit to ukraine will back it will be far more costly and dangerous if putin wins end quote. another former national. by jerry robert o'brien also with the previous administration, expressed his support for supplemental security assistance to israel, taiwan and ukraine saying simply quote the free world has been attacked and we are the arsenal of democracy. it is in america's direct interest to take growing threats seriously, to invest even more urgently in our capabilities and to support our allies and partners on the front lines. the reality of hard power

competition simply does not wait for a president or congress to take it seriously. either we confront challenges we face with clear strategy, stand firm in our resolve or we lose. around the world 21st century autocrats and medieval theocrat will continue to challenge the u.s.-led order that has underpinned both peace and prosperity for generations. and their proxies will continue to target america's personnel and american interests with lethal force.

mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri, the senate is in a quorum. mr. hawley: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: thank you, mr. president. last week the executives of some of the largest tech companies in the united states came before the united states senate, and the world got to see with all-too-vivid detail just what these companies and these executives are doing it our children. and i say children advisedly. i'm talking about 12- and 13- and 14- and 15-year-old kids on these platforms, on facebook, on instadramatic, on -- instagram, on snap who are exposed to the most outrageous, unbelievable, grotesque and vivid child sex abuse material known to mankind. images of exploitation,

solicitations by pedophiles. it is unbelievable, indescribable material. and these platforms are absolutely awash with it, mr. president. and we saw it last week. we heard the testimony. it was so bad that mark zuckerberg, the founder and ceo of met0a, actually -- meta, actually felt forced to apologize to the parents there in the room and the parents across this country who have lost their children to suicide, whose children have suffered extraordinary harm because of the sex abuse material, the exploitative content that is all over meta, that is all over these platforms. which by the way, they're making astounding profit. they are the biggest companies in the history of the world. facebook's share prices went up the days after zuckerberg's

testimony. it's unbelievable. here they are, making money hand over fist on destroying america's children. the numbers tell the tale, mr. president. think of this, in 2014, there were 1.1 million reports of child sex abuse material online that year. that is an incredible number, a million reports. but look at this. by 2022, that number had risen to 32 million reports. 32 million reports of child sex abuse material, child porn, child exploitation, solici solicitations, just in one year. 32 million reports. and that's just the images that are actually being reported. those are just the ones we know about. we know from the testimony of the tech executives, we know from the propertying of news

agencies, we -- from the reporting of news agencies, from the investigations and the parents that these platforms are absolutely littered with, awash with, overrun with this material. and because of that, mr. president, children are literally dying. is it any coincidence that since the introduction of the smartphone and the ubiquity of these platforms in the hands of young people that suicide rates, mental health crises have skyrocketed in this country? oh, and the mrarms know, by -- the platforms know, by the way. they absolutely know. a whistleblower testified before the united states senate committee earlier this past year. he worked as a senior executive at meta, that's facebook. he knows mark zuckerberg personally, he was hired by zuckerberg. he reported to zuckerberg. he had a teenage daughter who

created an instagram account, went online, then told her father, this executive, dad, you won't believe what i'm seeing online. trsh you won't believe -- you won't believe what's happening to me online. so he looked into it, as any father would. then he began to compile the data that he coiled find based on -- that he could find based on instagram's data. here's just a piece of what he found. that are 37% of instagram users between the ages of 13 and 15, let me say that again, 37% of instagram users between the ages of 13 and 15 had experienced unwanted nudity on the platform in the past seven days. let me just spell this out for you. it's largely, overwhelmingly young teenage girls, young women, who are bombarded with, bombarded with the most unbelievable pictures, content, conduct as soon as they get on

to these platforms. 24% of instagram users between the ages of 13 and 15 had received unwanted sexual adv advances, in just the last seven days, had been propositioned in seven days. 17% of instagram users in that same age range, young teenagers, had been -- had encountered self-harm content, how to commit suicide, within the last seven days. these are instagram's own numbers. these were given to us by the whistleblower, who was an executive at instagram. he told mark zuckerberg about it. what did mr. zuckerberg do? nothing. absolutely nothing. here's a picture of a young girl, 13 years old, named issa. issa doesn't actually exist. the new mexico attorney general has launched an investigation into meta, that's facebook and

instagram, and their investigators creating this profile. as you can see from the picture she looks incredibly young. profile picture information lists her as 13 years old. what happens as soon as she gets on the meta platforms? as soon as she gets on the meta platforms, this is all in court documents by the way, read it for yourself, it's horrifying, well, what happened was she was instantly added to a chat group with known pedophiles. what happened was her account was instantly bombarded with sexual material from older men. what happened was she was instantly sent multiple images of child sex abuse material, over and over and over and over. oh, and the tech executives, they know all about it, mr. president. and they're not doing a thing about it. why? because they are not accountable. here's the bottom line --

this is the only industry in the country that can make a product that will literally kill you, and if it does you can't do anything about it. if it kills your child, you can't do anything about it. go it harms you, you can't do anything about it. think about this. in this country, if a coca-cola manufacturer makes a bottle that explodes in your hands, you can sue him. if the drug company makes drugs that are full of adult rated products that cause harms that are not disclosed, that kill people, you can sue them. if an automobile company makes cars this explode, you can sue them. not these companies. no, not these companies. these companies have ar special immunity from -- have a special immunity from suit. how do they get that? why, it was given to them. by who? by this body. this body, almost 30 years ago, gave these powerful corporations a total blanket immunity.

they cannot be held responsible. they make products that kill. they cannot be held responsible. that's why we're here today, mr. president. the senate judiciary committee has heard testimony over and over again. we've written bills. we've marked them up. the bill that i want the senate to address today is one that has passed the senate judiciary committee, get this, unan unanimously. unanimously. every democrat, every republican. what does it do? simple -- it allows victims, it allows victims to have their day in court. it gives victims of these tech platforms the same right that victims of some car company or drug manufacturer or other product maker would have, the right to get into court, the basic american right to be heard, the right to hold accountable the most powerful corporations in the history of this nation. that's what this bill does. i'm proud to cosponsor it.

i'm proud it received unanimous support in the committee. mr. president, i'll say this, we have had hearings and hearings and hears. we've had talk until there's no more talk to be done. it is time for congress to act. mr. zuckerberg's apology is nice, but that's not going to help the victims of child sex abuse. what will help the victims of child sex abuse is the right to hold these companies accountable. it is time for congress to act, because let's be honest, congress helped create the problem. you want to know why there is sex abuse content overwhelming the internet? because congress enabled it. congress did. congress did. the refusal now to allow victims to have their basic rights in court is allowing that child sex exploitation to continue and continue and continue.

it's time to break the cycle. i said after zuckerberg and the others came before the committee, after they apologized, i said now it's time to congress to act. let's take the work we've done, let's put it on the floor, let's act. let's see where we are. let's do something for stricts ims. let's -- for victims. let's right the wrongs this body helped create and let's give victims the right to be heard. so mr. president, as if in legislation session, and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 69s.1199. further that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to on. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i very much share the stated rules of the stop csam

act. this is a toxic plague on the internet. there are real victims who need real support and criminals who must be hunted down and locked up. i take a backseat to no one when it comes to helping kids and punishing predators. however, this bill would waken the single strongest technology that now protects children and families. that strong encryption. it will make it easier to punish sites that use encryption to secure private conversations and personal devices, while stop c-sam sponsors argued that the bill does not target encryption, the bill explicitly allows

courts to punish companies that offer strong encryption. it also would encourage scanning of content on users' phones or computers before information is sent over the internet, which has the same consequences as breaking encryption. mr. president, weakening encryption is probably the single biggest gift that you can give to the predators and the monsters who want to stalk and spy on kids. sexual predators will have a far easier time stealing and extorting photographs for children, tracking their phones, and spying on their private messages once encryption is breached. doing so threatens the privacy and security of every single law-abiding american. i also think it's surprising that the senator is asking to pass the bill at the same time the sponsor is reportedly circulating an updated version of the bill with a number of

changes. all though that new version has not been made public, it would be a mistake to pass legislation that apparently is still in the process of being revised. mr. president, what this is all about is are you going to talk about doing something that's effective or are you going to actually take effective action? and i have approached doing just that. we ought to focus on giving a law enforcement owe -- the law enforcement officials the tools needed to find and prosecute criminals responsible for exploiting kids and spreading vile materials online. that way, we can help kids from becoming victims in the first place. let me also say, mr. president, that we can do this if members suppor bipartisan invest in child safety act, the bill

directs $5 billion in mandatory funding to do three things which would ensure we had an effective response for the families and the parents. one, give law enforcement agencies the tools and personnel they need to catch the predators who are creating and spreading c-sam. fund community-based programs to prevent at-risk kids from becoming victims in the first place. three, invest in programs to support survivors of abuse. any legislation, mr. president, that doesn't include these pieces is missing the point. therefore, i object. mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: mr. president, there you have it. there are the big tech talking points. the problem is they're entirely false. i have the bill text in front of me. the text that passed unanimously out of the senate judiciary

committee that explicitly exempts encryption technology, page 184, lines 15 and following, page 185, lines 1 through 18. you can read it for yourself. explicitly exempts it. it's not true at all. it's flatly false. mr. president, i have been on this floor over and over and over again on this issue. and every time we're told not today, not this, a little more of that, maybe if it were more bipartisan. this has unanimous support from the judiciary committee. unanimous, every republican, every democrat. and we all know the truth here, that until victims can get into court and have the rights and dignity of every other american, challenging any other company, this will not change. congress created this problem. congress created it by giving the most powerful companies in the world a sweetheart deal that they still have to this day.

it's an easy choice -- are you with the corporations or are you with the american people? are you with the big companies or with child victims? that's the choice, mr. president. i say to those who continue to support 230, with no exemptions, no reform, no recognition of the incredible danger it has unleashed for children, that they're on an island. this state of affairs cannot continue. it cannot continue to be that if big tech sells products that kill kids they cannot be held responsible. they cannot continue to be that only these company, the most powerful in the world, get a pass nobody else gets. because nobody should get it. mr. president, i'm committed to coming to this floor and forcing votes as long as it takes, as long as it takes, ununtil we get -- until we get justice for victims until they're heard,

until these companies are finally held accountable. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to briefly respond to what my colleague has just repeated, and then because -- and then, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent for five minutes to speak in favor of a very talented jurist in oregon who will be voted on shortly. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, first with respect to my response to our colleague from missouri, this is clear on a point that technologists are clear on. this bill would weaken the strongest technology that protects children and families online, strong encryption, and

this bill explicitly allows courts to punish companies that offer strong encryption. that is right at the center of my objection. and i'm going to move now to my brief remarks to respect to our judge from oregon. mr. president, i come to the floor today to reiterate my strong support for judge amy baggio's nomination to serve for the u.s. district court for the district of oregon. judge baggio has a proven track record as both a jurist and litigator. she spent a decade as a public defender in her career on the bench. she has presided over hundreds of civil and criminal matters, and handled 42 trials, half of which were jury trials. and i note because members have been asking with respect to her values in terms of prosecuting and dealing with cases and her attitude towards criminals in

one case the judge sentenced a man to many more years for first degree sexual abuse than anyone had thought was even being discussed, certainly longer than was sought by defense counsel. so it's a testament to judge baggio's fairness and professionalism that during her career as a judge she has never once had a party file a request for a different judge. in addition to being fair, she's consistently demonstrated an ability to make thoughtful decisions that protect communities and their values. mr. president, i urge my colleagues and i gather we'll be going to the vote now to support a very dedicated public servant. and i emphasize that, a public servant who's got a real track record as a public defender in her career on the bench. i urge my colleagues to support judge amy baggio. the presiding officer: pursuant

to the previous order, the question comes on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy.

the clerk: 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. the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven.

the clerk: mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly.

mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. the clerk: mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley.

mr. moran. the clerk: ms. smith. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy.

mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed.

the clerk: mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. the clerk: 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. the clerk: ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville.

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

vote:

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- butler, cardin, carper, casey, coons, duck worth, fetterman, graham, heinrich, kaine, kelly, king, markey, menendez, murray, ossoff, reed, schatz, smith, stabenow, tester, warner, whitehouse, and wyden. senators voting in the negative -- blackburn, brit, cassidy, crapo,

grassley, hagerty, hawley, hyde-smith, johnson, marshall, paul, ricketts, scott of florida, thune, tillis, vance, and wicker. mr. lankford, no. the clerk: ms. sinema, aye.

mr. manchin, aye. mr. risch, no. mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mr. cotton, no. mr. hickenlooper, aye. mr. tuberville, no. mr. scott of south carolina, no.

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

the clerk: mr. rubio, no. the clerk: mr. lujan, aye.

the clerk: mrs. capito, no. the clerk: ms. collins, aye. mr. cramer, no. ms. baldwin, aye.

ms. hat san, aye. mr. van hollen, aye. -- ms. hassan, aye. mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mr. rounds, no. mr. mcconnell, no.

cleric cleric mr. brown, aye. the clerk: mr. brown, aye. mrs. shaheen, aye. mrs. fischer, no.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye. mr. moran, no.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye. mr. sanders, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no.

vote: the clerk: ms. hirono, aye.

mr. hoeven, no. mr. padilla, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: ms. ernst, no. mr. cornyn, no.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, no. mr. boozman, no.

the clerk: mr. lee, no.

the clerk: mr. romney, no. the clerk: mr. daines, no. mr. young, no.

the clerk: mr. durbin, aye.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye.

the clerk: mr. budd, no. the clerk: mr. braun, no. the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

vote:

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

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no.

the clerk: mr. welch, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

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

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 54, the nos are 44 and 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 notified immediately of the senate's

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: are we under a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. in december, president zelenskyy came here to congress. he came to us because he is fighting for his country's future and for his citizens's lives. this supplemental spending bill, the portion for ukraine, will fulfill our commitments to our allies, defend democracy, and

save innocent lives. let's be absolutely clear about that. ukranian civilians will live or die based on what we decide to do here in the senate, in this chamber. are we going to ignore the requests, the pleas, the cries for help from our fellow champions of democracy in ukraine? president zelenskyy has told us that ukrainians will continue to fight with or without us. by that, he did not mean that they don't need us. no, they need us more than ever. with our help, they have pushed back against the russian invaders. without our help, they will run out of ammunition to hold back the russians. our white house has conveyed this message.

quote, we are out of money and nearly out of time. that's our government speaking. our white house has warned us that, quote, while our allies around the world have stepped up to do more, u.s. support is critical and cannot be replicated by others. putin himself told us the deadly stakes. he said ukraine will only have a week to live when the ammunition runs out. and ukrainians are running out of ammunition. now the u.s. could choose to stop funding, but the ukrainians can't choose to stop fighting. nor would any of us, if war came to our home towns. if you had to defend your home, if you had to defend your family knowing that if you stopped fighting that death would fall from the sky as bombs and rockets obliterate your

communities. that as russian soldiers march down your quiet street, your neighbors would be tortured, raped, your children stolen, your family executed. would you stop fighting even if you ran out of ammunition? and those actions are what russia has already done in the cities and towns they ran over in ukraine. we know it will continue to happen if they run over other cities. so the ukranian people really are fighting for their lives. and we are here debating whether we're going to abandon them. this is a conversation i can't believe we're having. i can't believe with all of the foreign engagements we've been involved in, that when a fellow republic which has repeatedly pushed hard to be out from under russia's thumb, which had the orange revolution, which threw a

president out of their country who wanted to betray them, who are now fighting the streets against this russian invasion, i can't believe we're having this conversation here in the senate with so many colleagues ready to abandon ukraine. but this is certainly a critical debate. ukraine is not some regional conflict on a far-away map. putin himself put it this way in october. he said, quote, this is not a territorial conflict or even the establishment of a regional geopolitical balance. he continued. he said, the question is much broader, more fundamental. we are talking about the principles on which the new world order will be based. that's putin. and what are the principles that

putin chamz in that know world order? we know what they are. the end of freedom of speech, the end of freedom of assembly, the end of freedom of religion, the end of citizens through the integrity of democratic elections, chewings their own leader -- choosing their own leader and their own futures. and there's another principle that is very much embedded with putin, and that's the continuation of vile crimes against humanity, of rarngs torture, and execution. and putin is not the only authoritarian in the world with this set of principles. we've got the ayatollah in iran to xi jinping in china who share his vision, who have closed ranks behind him in this fight, this fight in which they evade sanctions, legitimize tyranny,

undermine the precious value of human rights, freedom and democracy. they're watching the united states very closely. they're watching to see if senators in this chamber are going to vote to abandon ukraine. they're going to see if senators in this chamber are going to abandon our partnership and alliance with nato in support of the people and the republic in ukraine. they're watching to see if they can outlast our fickle political attention span. they're watching to see if they can invade their neighboring countries, execute the citizens in that country, take over those adjacent nations all for more power and more profit. it is so important that democracy stand shoulder to shoulder in this fight. we know that's what we need to do. that's how we won the cold war. and before that, it's how we won

world war ii when we defeated another axis of authoritarian. twats 1940 when germany and italy signed a pact to support each other. back then many americans believed that we could stay out of war in eastern europe by hiding behind the slogan of america first. and then the bombs fell on pearl harbor. the war in europe then, like the war in europe today, isn't some regional conflict that we can ignore, not some regional conflict that doesn't affect us. it's a universal struggle about whether people in ukraine and here in the united states have the right to live in freedom and peace or whether repressive authoritarians can conquer democracies. and the authoritarians today

view it as a threat to power, a threat that must be destroyed. dictators do not stop. dictators must be stopped. putin has ruled russia for a quarter of a century, and he wants even more time to continue his establishment of those principles against freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the principles of crushing dissent. putin has ruled with total and merciless control and power and and he wants even more power. what makes us think ceding some of ukraine will be enough to placate him? we've seen this story before. the last time the world naively tried to mrai indicate a madman was when neville went to munich in 1938. he told hitler, like some

colleagues in this chamber today want to say to putin that he could have a slice of an adjacent country, in that case czechoslovakia, and england would look the other way and declare peace in our time. but that appeasement of hitler didn't produce peace in our time. instead, that appeasement encouraged his appetite, made him stronger, set the stage f the unimaginable horrors of world war it. appeasing putin today is as wrong strategically and morally as appeasing hitler was 86 years ago. think of the lives we could have saved and the incalculable destruction we could have prevented had we stopped hitler in 1938. we have that same question before us right now. every student of history, every student of politics, if they

could go back in time would tell chamberlain do not appease hitler. that will not work. for the same reason, every student of history and politics today is telling us don't appease putin. appeasing putin would be a mistake of the same magnitude, one that future historians will connell democrat as the mega -- will condemn as the megamistake of the 21 century. we must say no to appeasement. we must say no to the neville chamberlains of our time. some of my colleagues asked the question can we afford to defend democracy? munich and pearl harbor teach us we cannot afford not to defend democracy. a threat to democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy

everywhere. experts estimate that putin is spending some 30% and possibly quite more of his government budget to fight this war. we here in the united states, we're spending 1.5% of our government budget to support ukraine. that's pennies on the dollar. a penny and a half of our federal budget, that's all we're asking. the ukrainians are fighting and giving with their lives and their injuries to save their democracy, and all they're asking of us, 1.5% of our federal budget. we're not putting americans in harm's way in the process. we're just being asked 1.5% of our government budget. but that 1.5%, that is so important. it is that 1.5% combined with the european partnership that is supporting the people in

ukraine. it is those pennies, that is.5% that is ensuring that ukranian soldier don't run out of artillery shells. it is those pennies, that 1.5% that ukranian soldiers won't run out of air defenses. it's those pennies that will ensure ukranian soldiers will not run out of ammunition. if putin conquers ukraine, like hitler conquered czechoslovakia, if he sees the u.s. will not stand with its democratic ally, where will his attention turn next? where will his attention turn to his next project? he is a frustrated kgb agent who saw the dissolution of the ussr, the soviet union, as the biggest calamity of his life, and he wants to do everything in his power to take back as much as he possibly can in his lifetime. that's his mission. so anyone who thinks you can appease putin the way

chamberlain tried to appease hitler, you are just wrong. imagine the cost when russian tanks roll up to the border of poland or estonia or latvia or finland. all nato members are sworn by a treaty to defend each other, and that includes not just our money but our soldiers. it makes so much sense to stand with ukraine today and stop putin in ukraine than to hand over ukraine and then defend the rest of europe from his aggression that will surely follow. and think about the message that we're sending to china regarding taiwan. china is watching us very closely. china says if putin can outlast the united states in europe and ukraine, well, we can certainly

outlast them when we attack taiwan. so standing with ukraine today is the right stance nupt to de -- if you want to deter china from attacking taiwan to. we could have stopped hitler in 1938 just like we can stop putin today. this is a war between democracy and authoritarianism. and this senate floor, the battle is right here, right now, this week. the decisions that we make week about funding ukraine may be the most consequential of our careers. the united states in this fight is the only truly indispensable nation. if we are leader of the free world, if we are the last best hope for democracy, then we have to actually be that hope for democracy. we have to heed the lessons of history. we have to stop dictators like putin in their tracks, and we

need to do it now. when president zelenskyy was here before congress in 2022, he said, and i quote, the struggle, this struggle will define in what world our children and grandchildren will live, and then their children and their grandchildren. it will define whether it will be a democracy for ukrainians, for americans, for all. he continued, this battle cannot be frozen, this battle cannot be postponed, this battle cannot be ignored. my friends, defending ukraine is not some charitable operation where we can decide to give a little more or a little less and feel good about it. defending ukraine is global and national security. putin and his authoritarian allies, they want to show the world that democracies don't

work. we here in the u.s. senate need to show the world that democracies do work. the senate should debate the supplemental security spending for ukraine this week in this chamber. the senate should vote on this supplemental security for ukraine this week in this chamber. and this senate should pass this emergency funding supplemental for ukraine here in this chamber this week. for ukraine's democracy and for our own. thank you, mr. president.

mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask that the senate consider the following nomination, nicole shampaine, for her nomination to the ranking of ambassador during her tenure of service as united nations representative to the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. the clerk: nomination, department of state. have, calendar number 480, nicole shampaine. the presiding officer: the question ecurse on the nomination.

all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is agreed -- the nomination is confirmed. mr. merkley: i ask that the senate proceed to legislative session and senators be permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. officer officer without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, i have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of senate resolution 544, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 544, designating the week beginning february 5, 20 this as national tribal colleges and universities week. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed.

mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: woks. -- without objection. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to senate resolution 544, which is at the desk. and that appears to be the same resolution i just spoke to. let me check. i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12:00 noon on wednesday, february 7. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar item 30, h.r. 815. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: mr. president, if there is no further business to

come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the previous order. today the senateawmakersconfirme deputy secretary of state. members also work to the nomination of amy to be a u.s. district court judge for oregon. tomorrowawmakers are expected to hold the first vote on the border security bill $118 billion measure 60 votes needed to pass. when the senate returns watch live coverage here on cspan2. >> tonight at hearing with treasury secretary janet yellen on potential vulnerabilities in the u.s. financial system. you can watch her testimony before the house financial services committee began at 9:02 cspan2 see spend our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org.

♪ c-span's "washington journal." live it form involving you to discuss the latest issues the governments of politics and public policy from washington d.c. and across the country. coming up wednesday morning we'll talk about border security and foreign agent package and the mayorkas impeachment vote california out mcclintock and mark. ♪ see spans "washington journal" joint in the conversation live at 7:00 a.m. eastern wednesday morning on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. ♪ c-span issue unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> is extremely rare.