-- to be able to allow us to have the debate that we had for the gang of eight bill. that's why i voted no, because i didn't see any willingness in my -- and i might be proved to be correct because now the democratic leadership has joined with the republican leadership to shout down the border bill, through a few amendments on the ukraine bill and saying, aren't you happy now? no, i am not happy. i am not happy. i admit it that i wanted to secure the border before i helped ukraine. everything you say about ukraine is right. i was not kidding to our colleagues in the house. we've done a half-ass job here trying to secure the border. we shut this thing down, unlike any other time i've been involved in immigration. i've taken a lot of hard votes. you've taken a lot of -- tough tough been kidding around many. i understand it, senator lankford, i admire the hell out of him. i think y'all produced a really good product in some areas but it wasn't enough.

i want a cap on parole. let me tell you why i want a cap on parole. during the trump, obama years, the average people paroled into the country was 5,600. in the last two years, president biden has paroled over 800,000 people. so the parole was better. but we need a cap to stop the abuse. i'd like to have an amendment on whether or not we should kappa role at 10,000 her year. but -- per year. but i'm getting that on the ukraine bill. so to my colleague from arizona, no, no, no. this has not been a real effort to find border security in a bipartisan way. we took your product. take it or leave it. the reason i voted no to proceed has exactly been reaffirmed here. we stop the process, we jump into ukraine. we're going to do it this weekend. and it's going nowhere in the house. ms. sinema: would the senator yield to a question?

mr. graham: for those of you who want to help ukraine, you've made it harder. we're going to lose a handful of republican votes over here because they felt they were shut out on the debate about the border. ms. sinema: would the senator yield for a question? mr. graham: no. we're going to lose votes over here. you don't have a snowball's chance of getting it passed in the house. we closed it out. i could see the game being fixed. i am here as a proud supporter of ukraine telling you that you hurt the cause of ukraine by trying to shortchange a debate on the border. your product was good, but i want to make it better. i've got a national border patrol council letter about three things that would make it better. i'd like to introduce it in the record, if i could. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you very much. i'm going to close this thing out. here's what's going to happen. you may get this bill passed without any border, but it's going nowhere in the house. the house has made it crystal

clear to get money for ukraine and other foreign countries we've got to help our own. our border is on fire, and i'll give you credit, senator from arizona, you've been trying to fix it. i appreciate what you've tried to do. but the system we've employed, to my colleague from arizona, is unlike any i've ever seen. that we're going to take a consequential moment in american history trying to break, secure a broken border and not even bring it to the floor for a real debate. and the reason i voted no to proceed is because i saw what was happening. our people on this side have been obsessed with ukraine to the point of ignoring our border. there are people -- ms. sinema: yield to a question. mr. graham: -- going to vote no to ukraine who have always believed the border was an excuse to try to get ukraine. ms. sinema: would the senator yield for a question?

mr. graham: the bottom line is that this idea because 41 of us vote no you close out the border. how about setting down and reopening the border debate, to have a robust debate like we did with the gang of 8. the reason i voted noes i could see where this thing is going. the bill you produced, while i like parts of it, was dead in the house. i'm trying to find a way to make it better if that's possible. to president trump who said he doesn't want to deal with this until next year, i want to deal with it now. we could be attacked tomorrow. i want to let people in south carolina, i consider this a direct threat to the united states. i want to do something. i want to do it announcement i don't want to -- i want do it now, not wait until november. ms. sinema: senator, are you aware the only way to offer amendments on a bill being considered in the united states senate is to first pass the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed? that the vote we took yesterday at 1:59 p.m.?

mr. graham: are you aware of the fact that people routinely vote not to proceed until they get some kind of understanding of what's coming next? and here's what came next. not one effort to sit down and talk to the 41 of us, what would you like to change your vote? the fix is in. we jump right into ukraine. we're going to do it this weekend. we did the minimum on the border when it comes to changing a bill that has many good qualities, so you're not convincing me, i'm the problem. i've seen this. you have not. i've seen a debate on this floor with senator bennet when we got the crap kicked out of us for weeks. we gave everybody who didn't like what we did a chance to come down here and say their side of the story and kick us in the ass. that's the way the process works. we did not do that here, so you're losing votes on ukraine. you're losing me in terms of trying to fix this problem because i can't tell our house

colleagues that you should accept this product because we have not done what i think needs to be done to try to secure our border. ms. sinema: will the senator yield to a question? mr. graham: with that, i yield the floor. thank you. ms. sinema: that you want. mr. graham: no. can i take that back. i've got to say something to my friend in poland. this is the polish prime minister, like poland, been a great nato ally. there are republican senators of america. ronald reagan who helped millions of us to win back our freedom, independence, must be turning in his grave today. shame on you. to the prime minister of poland, i could care less what you think. to the prime minister of poland, if ronald reagan were alive today, we wouldn't have this broken border. to the prime minister of poland, i want to help ukraine. i want to help make a stronger nato. but my country is on fire. we've had seven million people come across a broken border. how would you feel if seven million people came in illegally

into poland? would you have this attitude, we've got to put ukraine ahead of poland? i am not going to put ukraine, israel, or anybody else ahead of america. i am going to try to create an outcome where the bill gets through the house. it's got to get through the house. and to our house colleagues, we have not done everything we could. we have let you down. now i yield. the presiding officer: of course. ms. sinema: thank you. i think it's probably useful to take a couple of moments and do a quick refresher on how senate process and procedure works. in the united states senate, when a bill is introduced and when it comes to the floor, we have to do what's called a motion to proceed. and the motion to proceed and the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed is a 60

v vote threshold in the united states senate. it is a filibuster. it requires comity, compromise and requires individuals of different parties to work together to solve problems. and often it has been an object of contention in this body. but i, i support the filibuster because i believe it requires us to work together to solve problems. hear everyone's ideas and incorporate them as we move forward on legislation. but of course before you can actually amend a piece of legislation on the senate floor, you first must pass the motion to invoke cloture. we held that vote yesterday at 1:59 p.m. i've got the copy of the roll call vote right here in front of me. unfortunately there were only 49 senators who voted yes to move forward on yesterday's package. there were 50 senators who voted no to move forward on the package. of course what the -- cloture

was was on the shell of the bill. the substitute that would be filed is this bill right here. this bill is 370 pages long. most of this legislation is the border bill, which we spent over four months negotiating in a bipartisan way. i was very grateful that senator graham's team and senator graham himself were integral parts of that conversation. so this bill is subject to debate and subject to amendment, but only, only after a motion to invoke cloture is passed, which requires 60 votes. now my good friend from south carolina indicated that he would like to offer some amendments. some of the ideas that he was discussing are ideas that i very much support. i would look forward to debating and perhaps even supporting one or more of his amendments. but alas, we are unable to consider those amendments because yesterday the senate chose to vote no on the motion

to invoke cloture to move forward on this legislation. therefore, we are not able to amend or debate this bill. the senate later moved forward with a piece of legislation very similar to this but missing the entire border section. so we are now in a period of waiting until our next vote to invoke another cloture in which potentially, if unanimous consent occurs in this body, we could consider additional amendments. however, it could be more difficult to consider some of us those border-related amendments since the package now does not include any of the border language that we carefully negotiated over the last four and a half months. so, mr. president, members of the senate, folks who are listening, just to be clear, it seemed clear to me -- and i think to everyone in the united states senate -- that had we passed this motion to invoke cloture yesterday with 60-plus

votes, we would be currently debating, offering, and voting on amendments to the border provisions of the bill that was drafted. and each of those amendments would have been germane, which means they would have been voted at a 50-vote threshold, a simple majority to move forward. alas because this body voted not to move forward on cloture we have moved on to a different piece of legislation, one that does not include the components. while there may be an amendment offered over the next several days it will be a different debate than the amendments that would be offered before. i know my friend from south carolina is currently drafting an amendment, which i appreciate. the amendment that he is drafting for current discussion would have to incorporate the enspiert of the border bill package with some minor changes to the language that we drafted and voted on yesterday in order to consider his amendment.

so i would suggest that perhaps if we had wanted to have a robust debate, an openness to an open amendment process, the time to do that would have been yesterday at 1:59 p.m. thank you, mr. president. i yield. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. first let me commend my colleague from arizona, senator sinema, for her great and tireless efforts to develop a bipartisan immigration reform package that, as she indicated, we could have placed on the floor with our vote yesterday so that we could be now talking about modifications, changes, improvements to not just the immigration sections, but also to the other sections. but my republican colleagues, in large numbers said no.

and i think that was a grave mistake. if in fact we are facing a crisis on the border, voting against legislation to correct this crisis seems to me to be very difficult to justify. but it is good news that finally on a bipartisan basis the national security legislation is on the senate floor for debate. it's a start, but it shouldn't have taken this long simply to get to the starting line. the delays and continued efforts to slow walk the process by some can have serious and negative repercussions on our national security. it's been nearly six months since president biden initiated this request, so long ago that it was addressed by the former speaker of the house, not the present speaker of the house.

and i can recall last october, as we were talking about aid to ukraine, as we were talking about aid to israel, my republican colleagues, many of them stood up and said fine, but we've got to do something about the border. so for months we've been engaged in a process, again great regard for senator lankford for his efforts, senator murphy of connecticut, and senator sinema for what they've done. they brought together a truly bipartisan piece of legislation. senator lankford is one of most principled conservative voices here in the senate. my colleague from connecticut has a very strong liberal basis, as i would say myself. but they came together. and rather than being welcomed as a contribution to debate and

progress on national security and border security, senator lankford has been demeaned in his own party, been condemned by his state committee, accused or threatened by commentators that he would be destroyed because he had the temerity to try to develop a compromise on an issue of national security and national importance. so we've come in the last six months through a very secure, secured and strange path to reach the point we are now. but at least we have a chance to aid and assist people who are fighting desperately not only for their freedom, but for our democracy all over the globe. for the last six months the ukranian people have been keeping up their fight against putin's brutal invasion with

tremendous bravery and skill and with dwindling resources. today they're battling through another difficult winter, trying to withstand indiscriminate russian attacks against the civilian population and infrastructure. we of course, i believe, have a moral obligation to assist ukraine in this fight, but it isn't just charity. it's in our national security interest to do so. we know that if putin succeeds in ukraine, he won't stop. he will seek to destabilize other countries in the region, including our nato allies. he will continue to sabotage the international economy and threaten our interests. this supplemental funding bill would provide $60 billion to help ukraine with the training, equipment, and weapons it needs to rappel russia. and bringing up ukraine's military strength, we will also

be building up our own capacity. indeed, the vast majority of the funding in the bill would go directly back into the u.s. industrial base. over the last two years we have had an extensive debate about ukraine in this body. it's ironic to recall that until recently my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been highly critical of the united states for taking too long to provide assistance and for not sending the right stuffer to help fight off putin. now they have a chance to deliver the equipment. american-made equipment, and support ukraine needs, while also strengthening america's industrial base and american workers. we need this bill to move now, and we need the house to act on it. make no mistake, denying aid to ukraine has been and continues to be a gift to vladimir putin.

but putin is not the only one who benefits. china is watching how america and the democratic nations of the world respond. as xi considers taiwan, he is scrutinizing putin's playbook and the international response. he is measuring and judging if, when push comes to shove, the united states can just be waited out, can just be seen asp asphaltering -- as faltering because they don't have the commitment to democracy and the modern international order forged after world war ii. china, russia, iran, north korea, they would relish seeing american support for ukraine buckle, and they would relish seeing this supplemental fall. in contrast, passing this supplemental would send a powerful message to our allies. the bill includes nearly $5 billion in security assistance for taiwan and our

partners in the indo-pacific. similarly, the bill includes $14 billion in security assistance for israel, our strongest ally in the middle east, in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack by hamas. in addition, the bill includes $10 billion for the state department and usaid to provide humanitarian assistance in gaza, ukraine, and other crises around the world. again, the bill would dedicate nearly $35 billion for replenishing u.s. weapons and strengthening our defense industrial base. it also includes senator scott's and senator shared brown's bipartisan fend off fentanyl act. my colleague from south carolina has talked about the crisis at the border. one aspect of that is the movement of precursors and fentanyl across that border. this legislation would help interdict those movement of

drugs and supplies, and it would be a significant attempt to adjust issues emanating from the border. and that would be, or appears to be, ignored by my colleagues. mr. president, i believe that democrat and some very courageous republicans have gone the extra mile to put together legis legislation, the previous legislation particularly, that incorporates improvements to our border security and this legislation, which addresses one aspect of the border, fentanyl, but quite critically addresses the issue of how do we maintain the fight in ukraine. now, i hope our republican colleagues can stand with us and get this bill through. this is an historic moment.

what is at stake is the survival of the international order based on law, based on mutual security with organizations like nato, maintained over the years by the courage of millions of american men and women, but forged in the fight after world war ii and in the postwar years. what is emerging to undercut that great international order is a new autocratic system of oligarchs and demagogues who measure progress in their own personal power and personal wealth, not in peace and prosperity for all of their citizens and the citizens of the world. this is not a routine measure

check-the-box. this is about the future of our whole world. and i hope we can stand up and recognize that we must support this legislation. we must assist ukraine and israel. we must provide humanitarian assistance for those who are suffering in gaza. we must maintain the international order of democratic nations, united by a common interest and committed to peace and prosperity for the world. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleague for his kindness in letting me go ahead. mr. president, as israel's war with hamas drags into another month, i know we can feel hopeless, to know with every passing day the chances that

we'll get the hostages home safely are dwindling. but above all, we must not abandon them. we must not abandon hope. we must tell their stories and do everything we can to bring them home. i recently met a woman, yarden. her little sisters romi is a hostage. she said early on the morning of october 7 she woke to the sound of her sister's phone call. at first, she was confused. she knew her sister was supposed to be having the time of her life at the music festival. instead, rromi was calling her scared to death, saying missiles were fired with no shelter at the festival. romi and her best friend tried to drive away, but got stuck there a traffic jam. suddenly they saw people shouting and running, get out of the car! there are terrorists. arena for your lives. they hid in a bush as gunshots

sounded. over the phone, she asked if there were police anywhere around her. yes, she whispered, one policeman, just one, facing a multitude of terrorists. another friend, ben, came to rescue the girls with his car, and the group began to drive away, picking up another man, obir. for ten minutes, the group thought they would be safe, but romi called her mother, saying mom, we were ambushed, they're shooting at us, ben is most likely dead, gayem is shot, opir is wounded badly. i was shot in the arm. if no one comes quickly, i will be dead. romi was on the phone with her mom and sister for four and a half-hours that day, including when captures. the family says she has asthma and chronic sign isitis and she could be struggling to breathe

without her inhaler, the gunshot wound is not properly treated and she doesn't have food, freshwater or air. romi's sister says she gets nauseated when she thinks about her sister. she gets nauseated when she uses the bathroom or fakes a shower, because she doesn't know whether her sister can do that safely. she misses romi desperately and describes her as a magnificent young woman, natural leader and advocate for just. she loves dancing, traveling and hanging out with friends. her family says everyone who meets her falls in love withler immediately. but she is -- with her immediately. she is her family's private sunshine and the glue that holds them together. romi, like all the people still in hamas captivity, deserves to live her life to the fullest. she deserves to have her story told. we have to keep telling it, and never abandon hope for her, her family, or for the thousands of

other lives affected by this horrific, horrific crisis. i yield the floor. mr. tillis: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. and i thank the senator from new york for making those statements, and i'm glad i was able to yield time to hear them here on the floor myself. mr. president, today is one of those days where i wonder if people know, who are watching c-span or watch reports or in the gallery, what the heck is happening. i thought i'd come down here and maybe tell you what's happening. for about four months, senator lankford, senator sinema, and senator murphy got together with the charge of trying to come up with a bipartisan approach to

the situation at the border. i think, by most objective measures, everyone -- i know, because it now even shows up in polls -- recognize we've got an out-of-control situation at the border. we have clearly people that should come to this country and to ask for asylum, but it's been abused. the cartels are making about a billion dollars a year in charging tolls coming across the border. if you don't pay, you probably get killed. you get about one chance to cross without paying a toll, $5,000 from central america, $50,000 from china. but if you try crossing that border, i've been there, they've got a line of sight, you try to cross without paying that toll, paying a transnational criminal organization, they're going to kill you. now, they do let some people coming across without having paid a toll, but they've got to work it off once they get here.

they're effectively indentured servants doing the work of cartels. this is not hyperbole. this is a briefing that i've gotten from law enforcement officials, democrats, republicans, independents, in the biden administration. this is real. this is not politics. not from me, anyway. so, james lankford, representing the republican party, went down, tried to negotiate a deal, and he worked hard at it. james lankford is from oklahoma, a ruby red state. james lankford is covered to be -- considered to be one ever the most conservative members of the u.s. senate. and to see members of my conference and people out in the country criticizing james lankford as some sort of a squish or some sort of a sellout really tells me that the people here have to know, so they must be misinforming people, and the

people out there are believing it because they're hearing people here say james lankford sold out. couldn't be further from the truth. the fact is the bill they negotiated it still needed a little bit of work, but it's a dramatic improvement over the status quo. why did we think we had to go down this path? because president biden has apparently forgotten over the last three years all of the executive orders he's rescinded that have caused the border situation to get worse. president biden needs to be told by his advisors that he has tools without a single bill being passed here that could bring the situation at the border under some semblance of control, but he's chosen not to. so now we've got some of our members, my members, who think we've lost the argument, that for some reason, because we weren't able to get this border bill passed, that somehow republicans own the responsibility for an out

out-of-control border situation that started after president biden got sworn in. ladies and gentlemen, we did not have this problem, you could have whatever arguments you want about president trump, but the one thing i will tell you about the border, it was under control under president trump and it's out of control under president biden. no law has changed. no authorities have expired. president biden has chosen not to use authorities he has today. and so i wanted to come down here and set the record straight, first on senator lankford. i don't know if any other member has come down to talk about him. i voted yesterday not to move forward on the package, because i've always said unless we can convince more than half of our republican majority that this bill, that they would support this bill, it didn't make sense to send a bill to a republican-led house that didn't have a majority of the republicans here in the senate. that's just knowing how a bill becomes law and knowing we needed the strengths of that

message in order to have any prayer of getting the bill passed when it goes to the house. the border bill is where it is, and it's a shame. it's an opportunity lost. i guarantee if we're in power in the white house, if republicans are in power, we're going to regret some aspects of this bill weren't passed. the bill was also endorsed by the border patrol council. the border patrol council is the law enforcement agency on the border. when i hear the border patrol council say they've endorsed something, they have their necks on the line. their lives. border patrol agents have lost their lives over the past several years because of dangerous encounters at the border. so when i see the border patrol council endorse something, ladies and gentlemen, even if you op post the bill -- oppose the bill, understand that law enforcement, those people on the line at the border endorses this bill. clearly they want more. they've communicated to us they want more, but they said this was positive progress.

but that's an opportunity lost. and i'm okay with that and i'm at peace with having voted against moving forward on it because i knew we wouldn't have a majority of our conference. but what now what do we have before us? we have a bill that is primarily focused on providing aid to ukraine, to israel, and to taiwan. so it's called a supplemental bill. it's an appropriation. it's us having to authorize the use of these funds. now, we were supposed to leave today for two weeks. we were supposed to go on recess. and senator schumer made a decision that i happen to agree with. he's decided that we're not going to leave here until we settle this issue. we have some people say well, we need time to think about it. you know, this is a planned recess. we need to move on and step back and reflect. make negotiate another border

bill. that's not going to happen. now let's talk about what's before us. do we care about this page or this chapter in history? i do. i mean, some people want to go away or think about it, but i think about right now in 24 hours a day since february of 2022, ukrainian soldiers in trenches trying to defend their hom homeland. i know on tv and to everybody else, it's just something happening over in europe. think about these people who are fighting for their existence. and we're sitting here saying maybe we can take a couple of weeks before we decide on it? putin would love nothing more than that. ladies and gentlemen, if we withdraw from ukraine, if the united states, the leader of the free world, says that we're no

longer interested in defending fre freedom, encountering russia, russia will win. and at some point forward, we will regret the day that we avoided helping the ukrainians fight their war because we are most likely, those who would make that decision, are making a decision to some day put american lives at risk at a war somewhere. maybe in russia or maybe in europe but maybe in china. the people who are watching the decisions that this body is going to make over the next few da days, xi jingping is probably more interested and more hopeful that we fail to make a decision to support ukraine than vladimir putin. this world is small today. we don't have as the leader of the free world the luxury of only being focused on one place at a time. we have to focus on ukraine and defend freedom there. we have to focus on the south

china sea, taiwan, and the risk there. and we have to focus on our friend and ally israel in the middle east. we have to make the tough decision, and sometimes cut through the noise and ge back home and -- and go back home and explain to the american people how critical this decision is. don't make the mistake of thinking it's just a channel change away from watching something else that's going on in the world, ladies and gentlemen. people's lives are on the line. tens of thousands of people have died. women have been raped. children have been kidnapped. and putin is okay with that. does this united states stand down when you're talking about that kind of a dictator, that murderer and thug? god, i hope not. and i don't care how painful it is politically for somebody to go back home and explain this. it bears no resemblance to what

people in israel felt on october 7 and to what people in ukraine have felt for the last two years. and it will be the same in identify wan if we -- in taiwan if we don't act. so over the next couple of days, you're wondering why nothing is happening here, why there are no votes. well, leader schumer laid down -- they call it a motion to proceed. and at least 60 people needed to vote on it in order for us to proceed to considering the bill. so now we have a bill here on the floor. and that bill has funding for ukraine. it has funding for israel. and it has funding for taiwan. now, you're wondering why are we not down here voting and doing other things. because right now we're doing what they call hot lining votes. we're combhun indicating to all -- communicating to all the offices certain amendments that we want to pass, but then

because the senate, any individual member -- i'm tom tillis from carolina. ism a he not supposed to be talking to you because it's a violation of the rules. i'm not really talking. i'm just looking in that direction. anyway, you have to get consent to get anything done. right now we have people saying we must have amendments on the bill. we must have amendments on the bill. and then they're privately saying but i'm not growing to give up a second of time between now and monday to let those amendments occur. so we can't have it both ways, guys. it's fine. if on monday you get angry because no amendments were actually passed, it's because you haven't been able to cooperate. this is a give and take organization. if you don't show some flexibility yielding back time, then we're just going to sit here until the mandatory time occurs. then we're going to have a vote. then people are going to be mad because they're going to say even the minority leader or majority leader had this baked

in all along, and they were never going to allow votes. that couldn't be further from the truth. if you as a member of the senate want to cooperate, we could get a slate of amendments done here. we can get an agreement, that they could be heard, we can vote on them but it's not growing to happen likely. so i just feel like we've got to be honest with ourselves and recognize that if we don't come up with agreements, it's not because it was baked in. it's not because any leader already had it planned and is the puppet master to everything going on here. it's because members are making a conscience decision to grind cooperation to a halt. now let me just go back to where i started. the stakes are high here. temperatures are high but come on, guys. we're u.s. senators. get over it and do your job. temperatures are high here, but the reality is you should kind of cast aside the inconvenience that working this weekend may represent to you and think about the inconvenience that hamas has

put on the israelis. that putin has put on the ukrainians. that's a real inconvenience. what we are doing here is living out the privilege and the honor of being u.s. senators, and i expect my colleagues to grow a sp spine, do the work of the senate, and go back home and explain what it is we're doing and why it is we're doing it. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the distinguished gentleman from delaware. a senator: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today to speak in support of the national security supplemental

appropriations bill, that is the business before this body. after a disappointing failure to move ahead with a bill that included critical border security provisions, we now have before us a chance to pass and send to the house a bill that would invest tens of billions of dollars. the men and women of ukraine continue to fight tirelessly in the depths of winter on the front lines of freedom. to spend billions more on coming to the aid of israel as it continues to battle hamas and $10 billion invested in humanitarian aid, it will provide critical support to those facing starvation and deprivation in gaza, in ukraine, in sudan, in somalia and a dozen other countries around the world and to invest in our partners in the indo pacific. it is absolutely critical that we continue to fund yucca's response to the brutal russian

invasion. in 2014 is russia invaded and seized crimea, but it's in 2022 that putin sent in hundreds of thousands of soldiers to attack ukraine from the north, from the east and to occupy 20% of ukraine's land. many predicted ukraine would fall within a matter of days, yet they still fight on bravely today, showing what is possible with faith and persistence, determination, and perseverance, and the support of 50 countries from around the world. our president has assembled add remarkable coalition and together they have contributed more than we have to ukraine's security and defense. i was in europe hat a conference just a few weeks ago. i traveled with my friend and colleague, republican senator rounds. we went to poland, sleigh vaqqia and to this -- slow backia and to this conference.

i had the chaens to meet with president zelenskyy, his defense minister to hear about how their economy is reviving, how they're exporting more grain now than they did before the war, how with american investments through usaid they've brought critical parteds of their -- parts of their economy back. but i already heard without these funds, without the munitions, without the budget support, without the humanitarian aid, president zelenskyy predicted that putin will ultimately win. i cannot imagine -- i do not want to imagine the tragedy that will befall europe and our place in the world should we allow this to happen. putin will only stop when we together stop him. when we were in poland, senator rounds and i heard loud and clear from their leadership the confidence that if putin were to succeed in ultimately sub-gooating the -- subjugating

the american people, they will be knocking on poland. i met with the parliamentarians, three battle particular states long -- three baltic states long occupied, today free. their members are convinced that should putin be allowed to succeed in ukraine, they will be next. his forces will be knocking on their door. folks, to be clear, either we come toll their defense at scale and in force and with american troops or nato is dead and our role as leader of the free world is over. i've listened here on the floor and in person, on television and at caucus lunches and meetings as my republican colleagues have said over and over that they support ukraine strongly. now we have a chance to prove it. and to show it. i had the honor of taking the liberty medal from the national

constitution center to kyiv with our former colleague, senator rob portman of ohio, now retired. it was a harrowing but uplifting journey, a chance to meet with president zelenskyy and his whole leadership team. to get in a his office was quite a journey, through a maze of tunnels, in darker and darker corridors. but to see the spirit and determination, the persistence with which zelenskyy, his team, and their troops and the people of ukraine continue this fight is to be challenged to your very soul. to know what it looks like when people who have tasted freedom are willing to risk their very lives to defend their country from the aggressions and the predations of the russians. i don't need to tell you, but it is probably worth repeating that the horrific human rights violations committed by russian troops against ukrainian

civilians must also be answered. i had the chance to meet with ukrainian refugees, both in kyiv on that former trip and in poland just a few weeks ago, and to hear from ukrainian women what was done to them, what happened to their husbands, to their children, to their hometowns is a reminder of the savagery of this war and the necessity of our standing firm with ukraine. ukraine is running out of ammunition and running out of time. and the hope that they have in the united states as the nation that is the indispensable country leading the free world will run out if we fail to come to their defense at this moment. i'll close with something that i heard from my parents when i was a child. there was a song popularized on the radio not long after ap

apparel -- pearl harbor. a chaplain is reflecting on what he saw and what must be done next. the littler eeks are "praise the lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free." this song by frank lesser penned by an american not long after we were attacked at pearl harbor. he concludes, "-i can't afford to be a politician. we're all between pre-ddition and the deep blue sea, for praise the lord and pass the ammunition, and we'll you a stay free." the men and women of this senate, i can only hope and pray that you will pass the ammunition forward to those who stand on the front lines of freedom, who are facing rentless russian attacks and who even today in the depths of winter watch the debates on this floor to see whether this nation will stand, whether we can be counted on, when our president says we will be with you to the end,

that commitment must mean something. we must pass this supplemental. mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a question? mr. coons: absolutely. i yield. mr. durbin: if i'm not mistaken, i believe the senator is also considering attending the munich security conference. mr. coons: i am. mr. durbin: as am i. for those unfamiliar with that conference, leaders from around europe and and you the world gather -- and around the world gather to discuss security around the world. if we are there, we are bound to be asked as a first question just what is the united states' position on the defense of ukraine. mr. coons: we will. mr. durbin: has the senator come you up with an answer? mr. coons: the answer will be given by this body in the coming few hours and days. i went to europe with my friend and colleague, senator rounds, just a few weeks ago and in poland and slovakia and at a conference in switzerland gave the answer, we are confident we will fund ukraine. today i am not certain. in this question, in how we

answer it, in how this body acts hangs the answer to whether the united states continues to lead the free world or is willing to be america first, america aloan, and surrender to putin. mr. durbin: as a student of history, i'm sure the senator remembers, as i do, the length canny ordeal when the -- the lengthy ordeal when the british came to us and beg $us -- begged us to come to their assistance. we waited but we didn't commit until the fatal day, december 7, 19s 41, when the japanese attacked pearl harbor and we were drawn in the war. can the senator think of a time in history when the united states has walked away from an ally fighting for its life? mr. coons: not with the significance and severity of this moment. for a couple of reasons -- one because all of the world is engaged in watching or in supporting, as i mentioned

before, 50 nations are contributing munitions, financial support to ukraine's fight. this is as global a fight as we've had since -- wellw, the second world war. the clarity of the aggression by russia against a sovereign peaceful nation that in no way precipitated this conflict is as sharp and clear as my conflict 0 our lifetime. i cannot imagine the consequences for our reputation, not just at a conference in europe but in history, were we to abandon ukraine now. mr. durbin: i would like to ask the senator fthrough the chair again, we've seen the revival of an alliance which was so important 50 or 60 years ago and now is critical. that is the neigh a lines. we've seen not only the strength of that alliance but we've seen nations like finland and sweden announce that they want to be part of that alliance in the future. what does it say of the nato

alliance if the united states walked away from ukraine? mr. coons: i think that would weaken the united states, i think this would weaken nato, it with think it would weaken the collective conference. the finns and swedens know what it means to stand alone against russian aggression, to fight hard, to stand tall and to push them back. their memory of the winter war of 1939-1940 is critical to their national identity. they have a capable and sophisticated memory. the swedes were a dominant military centuries ago. but they remain neutral even in the second world war. for the weeds and finns to see russia's aggression and say we want in show that they appreciate the significance of this moment. by adding finland to nato, we have doubled russia's border with nato. we've brought into nato two very

capable nations and militaries. but we've also increased, i think, our moral commitment to stand firm and to stand strong. nato has only invoked article 5 once in our defense after the attack of 9/11 and nato came with us for 20 years to afghanistan. i've stood with the leaders of countries most americans don't think about every day. take, for example, denmark, a small nation that fought alongside us for decades in afghanistan, that lost dozens and dozens of their soldiers. they met their pledge. -- for collective security in nato. would -- we need to honor that pledge. mr. durbin: my last question relates to the aftermath if we abandon ukraine. i have a special connection and affection for the baltic nations as well as poland, which is so ably represented in the state of illinois and the city of chicago. we're very proud of that fact.

what does it say to those countries who are literally in the sights of putin as the next victim, if we walk away from this situation in ukraine? mr. coons: it says to the people of poland, to the people of lithuania, to the people of latvia, to the people of estonia, nations that long knew the boot of soviet occupation and oppression, that they should be afraid, that they cannot count on the united states, that they must provide for their own security. in the trip i just took to poland, polish leadership said even though there has been a change in their election, they will not change. they are committing 4% of their gdp to their defense. they are welcoming americans to participate. as you well remember, my colleague from chicago -- from illinois, we went to poland and we went to lithuania together just before russia launched its second broad-scale invasion of ukraine. we saw americans training

alongside poles. we saw americans training alongside other baltic nations right on the border with belarus. then the war began. the sense of the history of war. the missiles and bullets were flying. as russia's invasion of ukraine began at full scale, we did not know what would happen. if every meeting, in every conversation, the folks we met with, senator, said it was crucial that the united states be the guarantor of nato, be the backbone of this collective alliance that has kept us safe and free. and with one last reference to history, the one previous time america first was a watchword spoken across this nation was in 1939 and 1940 when charles lindbergh, a respected aviator joined a nation-wide isolationist movement to say

that we should stay out of the wars of europe. a lesson was nearly tragic, as hitler's armies advanced across europe without the united states coming to the rescue of our allies. we waited and we waited and we waited until japan attack add us. it's only because germany declared war on us that we got in the war in europe. we waited too long. we could have saved millions of lives. we could have stopped the march of naziism years before it got out of control. many of us were raised on the lessons of that chapter of our history. we should not forget them now. mr. durbin: i thank nigh colleague. mr. coons: thank you. on this point, the lessons of history are thick not just in this chamber where the debated that formed nato took place, not just in the capitals of europe but around the world where other authoritarians are watching to see whether we will stand, whether we will defend, and

whether we can be counted on. we must pass this supplemental. thank you, mr. president. with that, i rise to offer remarks in honor of a dear friend who passed recently. david bullock brown, an attorney in the state of delaware, a leader in the delaware community, a neighbor and friend. born in wilmington, delaware, 1946, david passed on january 22. devoted to his family, a tireless servant of our community. the sort of example of a life of humble servant leadership that makes our world better because david was in it. he went to the same high school as my brother, a.i. dupont high school. he was a basketball and track star. he attended the university of north carolina chapel hill. he went to the university of virginia law school. he worked here in washington as an attorney before returning home and joining potter anderson

and carune, a firm he served as chairman. he mentored -- david mentored junior associates and championed the firm's ranks of female lawyers. one said david made everyone feel heard, seen, and valued. through an incredible lifelong commitment to pro bono work and. mr. coons: jeanine said that

david was skilled at high-level vision setting and equally skilled at sweating the details of specific causes an cases. he was always ready to greet the staff at dbls with a hug or encouraging word and to give them his undivided attention. david was also chair of planned parenthood of delaware, chair of the combined parent for justice, a board member of the delaware historical society. in fact, he helped champion the creation of the historic mitchell center for african american heritage at our historic at society. he was on so many boards, i could take an hour and could not list them all. delaware theater company, the downtown whichilmington coopera characters the music school of delaware. for his service, he was appreciated and recognized by some simplify us in the first state. he received the gopher's volunteer beijings of the year award. he received the christopher

white award, chris white, an example of service to justice. david was a devoted family man who loved riding horses with his grandchildren, fishing with siblings at a family cottage in wrightsville beach in north carolina, and who was a gracious, thoughtful, kind, brilliant, capable neighbor, friend, citizen, and attorney. david is survived by his beloved wife gwen, their family, ellie, sophie, max and river. on behalf of all of us in the state of delaware, i want to convey my heartfelt condolences and deep thanks for how many times david took time away from family, took time away from the productive practice of law to contribute to our community, to make a difference in our society and to make our world a better place. i will deeply miss david brown, and i hope you know how much of a difference he made to all of

us with his life of dedicated service.

going to talk about the federal budget. in the projections we released today the deficit grows from $1.6 trillion in 2024, to $2.6 trillion in 2034. measured in relation to the economic output deficits during the period are 50% larger than their historical average over the past 50 years. net interest costs are major contributor to the deficit. this growth is equal to three-quarters of the increase in the deficit from 2024 to 2034.

initially the interest costs are similar to the amount of discretionary spending both for defense and non-defense activities. by the end of the period at $1.6 trillion interest outlays are roughly 1.5 times larger than either defense or non-defense spending. also boosting deficits are too underlying trends. the aging of the population and growth and federal health spending per beneficiary. those trends put upward pressure on mandatory spending. measured in relation to economic output federal debt held by the public rises from 99% in 2024, to 100's 15% in 2034 passing last year's historical peak in the debt to ratio continues to rise reaching 172% by 2054.

from 2024 to 2033 for deficit is up 7% smaller than we projected last year. primarily as a result of the fiscal responsibility act of 2023 and the subsequent continuing resolution. together those laws reduce the growth of discretionary spending including the debt service legislative changes reduce deficits by $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years. in our projections, the deficit is smaller than it was last year at this economic output is greater partly as a result of more people working. the labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people mostly because of higher net -- more workers mean more output and that in turn leads to additional tax revenue. as a result of the labor force would estimate from 2023 to 2034

gdp will be greater by $7 trillion revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise. we are continuing to assess the implications for revenues and particular we are still analyzing the immigration legislation that has been considered in the senate. two key factors partially offset that deficit reduction relative to last year's projections for. the first is net interest costs rise as a result of higher interest rates and the second, the cost of energy related cash are much higher than the joint committee on taxation projected. that calls for new election standards market development actions taken by the demonstrations to implement the tax provisions. turning to our economic projections the u.s. economy grew faster in 2023 than it did

in 2022 even as inflation slowed. economic growth is projected to slow in 2024 amidst increased unemployment and lower inflation. cbo wants the federal reserve to respond by reducing interest rates starting in the middle of the calendar year. in our projections economic growth rebounds in 2025 and moderates in later years. since every 2023 when cbo published the last full economic forecast agency has lowered its projections on economic growth and inflation measured by the price index. cbo also expects interest rates to be higher from 2024 to 2027 then it rejected last year. after 2027 cbo's current and previous economic forecast for economic growth are generally similar to our previous

situation. let me stop here. i'm happy to take questions and i'd be grateful if you would just say your name when you ask the question. >> at like to start with the tax cuts, deficits would be up for trillion over 10 years. [inaudible] >> that's the biggest contributor to the deficit and is offset by range of technical such as the 2022 reconciliation wretches -- legislation in the higher deficit and there's a

range in each direction and there's a full discussion in chapter 3 of the report. it starts with figure 3-1 on page 76 and goes through the details. [inaudible] >> it's connected to references that it expires in deficits go down and revenues go up. >> that is correct and you can see those effects in our revenue statements from 2025 to 2026 the revenue share of gdp goes up by a little bit less than 1% of gdp and that's attributable to the expiration in the --.

>> david lauter with reuters news service. good to see you again. i'm just wondering if you could take us through the clean energy tax credit adjustments here. you have a foreign to $28 billion figure which are the new estimates of gas tax revenue from epa changes. can you break out what the inflation reduction at part of this is, how much of those estimates higher than what shape pp came up with. >> i'm just flipping pages. you see on page 86 of the report it's, it's almost two full pages that goes through some of the details. a challenge here is that it's a new baseline. compared to the baseline on

which the 2022 act was estimated originally by jcp. if and to baseline to go to baseline against estimated wasn't 2022. that's a whole set of changes. what makes it difficult in an apples-to-apples comparison, i can discuss some of the key components in some of the biggest is the epa rule. this is an epa rule that so far has been opposed that would take effect in the 2027 model year. in our baseline that's in at half strength. it's our normal procedure for robust than imposed. that would do two main things. one main driving force is this shifts producers and consumers

more heavily and then that would affect the cost of the tax credits for electric vehicles and that would affect the exit tax for fuel. so that's the biggest, the biggest single piece. >> there were 150-somethings though he and? >> on the ev side there's lots of things going on. i'll keep going and circle back to this and i want to see if john cronin might want to jump in as well. rks six months sincee through lahaina and our country, maui. we continue to see the heart and resilience of our communities as we recover and remember the lives lost. as roifrp efforts continue -- as

recovery efforts continue, i am grateful to the thousands of people who have come together from literally all over the world to support our neighbors in maui. maui's recovery will take time, resources and continuity of effort. i will keep working with my partners to ensure maui has the resources it needs to recover and rebuild. on a separate, very important, note, mr. president, the national security supplemental package we are debating demonstrates our strong support for our allies at the time -- at a time of rising global instability, recognizing that an investment in our partners is also an investment in our own national security. while the funding for ukraine, is israel, and the indo-pacific currently included in this bill is critical, missing from this bill is the text of the recently

renegotiated compact of free association. agreements with the pacific island nations palau, micronesia, and the marshall islands. in exchange for economic assistance, the compacts of free association provide our country with exclusive military access to these countries and their territorial waters. with their strategic location in the south pacific, these countries provide the strategic buffer between the united states and china. at a time of rising tensions in the pacific, these compacts are a critical component of our ability to operate in the pacific, especially as we work to counter china's growing influence in this region. our military leaders have unanimously pointed out the importance of these compacts,

most recently admiral paparo, nominated to lead u.s. military operations in the indo-pacific, reincorporate rated the -- reiterated the importance of the compacts in his confirmation hearing. these date back more than 40 years, but our relationship with these island nations dates back to world war ii. first agreed to in the early 1980's, the compacts have to be renegotiated and approved by congress every 20 years. over the past four years, u.s. negotiators worked with their counterparts in the nations to agree to new compacts. that will govern our relationship with these countries for the next 20 years. imagine, if we get this done, with this bill, we will have accomplished what we need to do in our relationship in support for our compact nation allies

for the next 20 years. mr. president, these compacts have broad bipartisan support, including from both the chairs and ranking members of the foreign relations, armed services, and energy and natural resources committees. these are the committees of jurisdiction over these compacts. they understand how critical these agreements are to our posture and readiness in the pacific, and the harmful message, frankly the harmful message it would send if we do not get these compacts agreed to. believe me, china is watching to see what we do in our support for our friends. just this week, the presidents of all three compact nations, palau, micronesia, and the marshall islands, sent a letter to congress in which they wrote, quote, although we understand that delay in the lation's

approval -- in the legislation's approval, it has jenrated uncertainty among our people. as much as they identify with and appreciate the united states, this resulted in undesirable opportunities for economic exploitation by competitive political actors active in the region. of course, they're talking about china. as i mentioned, china is watching, and would love nothing more than for the u.s. to gall or fail -- to fall or fail to pass these compacts. failure for the u.s. would present china with a golden opportunity to bring the cofa nations close to their sphere of influence, significantly undermining our credibility and ability to operate there this region. beyond the serious national security implications of the compacts, nearly 100,000 citizens of the cofa nations live, work, and pay taxes in our country. moreover, cofa citizens enlist

in our military at higher rates than u.s. citizens. with this bill, we stand with our allies, yes, with the compact nations, our allies in the pacific. we're not just talking about alleys in europe. these nations are our allies in the pacific, just as important. just as important to our flannel security -- to our national security. we are introducing an amendment with strong bipartisan support to add to this bill the text of the compacts. i thank senator risch, the lead sponsor of this amendment, for his leadership and partnership in this effort. as we work to support our allies around the globe, i urge my colleagues to stand with our cofa partners and support our amendment. mr. president, i yield.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin. hopefully everyone else got it. we will come back to the question. we have high interest rates and the forecast by projections and we did in the previous budget projection and that has a big

impact on net interest outlays so an increase in net interest outlays you can think of that is two-thirds resulting from a higher rate of a one third resulting from the large amount of debt and there's a lengthy footnote in the report that goes through that calculation of the two-thirds, one third. we can find it. if you look at our economic chapter in chapter 2 are hopefully is very handy for everyone by the numbers document you can see we do not get paid by the for this but i hope everyone including our viewers on c-span will download it and look at it. it's very handy i hope the very handy document. you can see we do have higher rates. the profile at the beginning of this year was at 4-2 and rises

throughout the year. earlier today was around 4.1. the forecast we made in the beginning of december it's not exactly perfect but it's there for the interest rate right now. we have literally two things going on. part of it is a modest increase in the premium over the near-term horizon so even as the fed in our projections has paused with interest-rate hikes on the short indyk curve and starts to lower the funds rate around the middle of the year. that's a the first rate cut in our forecast wasn't me and we had a total of three of them this year. so even as short-term rates are coming that we have longer-term rates going up modestly still in

24 and 25 and it's partly the term partly more debt driving rates up and then inflation continues to moderate that target. we see the long-term rate coming down and you are bright just to go back to the question you asked you are right though that our long-term is still pretty moderate. >> you haven't changed that in louisville it happened. the lie remains an impact. the loss of remains an impact. to what degree is the pent-up

supply if you'd like of the jump that will continue into future years projections and also he touched on it immigration bill in the senate that if any publication or find what would it be a well-designed immigration fiscal perspective cooks >> let me take those in concern. in chapter 2 of the report there's a impact on immigration on the economy and then on the budget. then there's the budget. as claire said it's a salient impact in our economic projections and then from there to her budget projections. the labor force is larger by 5.2 million people by the end of the ten-year window.

everyone is flipping. it's on page 50 and 51 box 2-1 and you can see the chart i put on the screen is on page 51 showing the change in the labor force from we had last year reflecting mainly net immigration. so let me take a couple things. one is the effects of the economy and the budget, the economic impact is the larger half of the increase labor force with more people and more workers the larger economy and then from there it has budgetary impacts and immigration has many effects, social effects to security effects and many things like that in the course the cbo is economics -- the not saying

those are the only effects. some of the biggest fiscal effects might be on the other levels of government, state and local government around the country and the fiscal effects and effects on discretionary spending into the activity of the federal government that responds to the immigration surge is discretionary spending so we don't project that out. then on the revenue side the calculation we did is that those additional workers would raise the amount of gdp by over 7 trillion as i said in that would correspond to roughly a trillion dollars in additional revenue. and i think the next piece of the question was the projection

of the surge going into 2026. the data shows it's difficult to know today how long this will last and how long will the immigration surge last? we don't know. it's a key source of uncertainty in our projection. we have this going through 2026 and then tapering back down and going roughly two-hour surge rate of population growth. it's something we are just going to follow and see what happens over the next several years to the surge in immigration and a course if we were changing legislation how would we model that? i think i answer the question

and i apologize if i didn't answer everything. >> clearly it's a big thing at the moment immigration legislation [inaudible] >> it's a challenging question for cbo because we steer clear of the normative answer. it's a founding agency in our 49th year. we provide the analysis. don't tell them this is just a well-designed and not well designed. some of the analysis we have done will answer the question. so first you see in our body of work is the number of people. we have also looked at the composition of recent immigrants so it's difficult to know with

precision who are the people who are coming across the border now. but we do have information on who are the recent immigrants and what are their ages and what are their skills and so on, so we use that information to model the economic budgetary impact of that in part is how we came to the conclusion for the change in the labor force and a disproportionate share of immigrants that are of working age. from 16 up to age 54. so that's one and we looked at the education and the composition of workers and we

have taken out and said okay what kind of skills do they bring and what does that mean for innovation for entrepreneurship and businesses and what does it mean for their initial ages and what does it mean for productivity in the u.s.? you will see in the boxes the discussions immigrants would go into a sector of the economy with relatively low productivity. over time as their skills rise they would shift and some of that effect in lowering average productivity would line an intern translate into wages. that's the kind of analysis we are doing in the sense of to come back and answer your question, if the congress has immigration legislation if it would be passed in the senate now or something else that changes the composition of immigrants for cbo with provide

that economic -- economic and budgetary analysis. >> you do take account of the revenue effect because growth is faster but you don't take account of the -- fx. and obviously state and local is different. >> i can go through that again. the state and local we know it's there and that's outside of our purview. the discretionary spending again we know it's there and that the surge in immigration has an effect on discretionary spending. for future years, for future years the cbo discretionary

spending in a mechanical way under statutes that discretionary spending projections depend on inflation so could be the surge continues and policymakers might devote additional discretionary resources and we wouldn't have that kind of projection and on the mandatory side we would analyze that as well. so many of the immigrants coming in received work authorizations. someone comes in with parole would receive a work authorization generally around six months or so after they come in with parole and then they could fit into the social security system and contribute and then of course they would be benefits because eventually they would retire. the benefit side of that generally would be a wind tunnel for someone's retirement.

but we would have the revenue upfront in our projections. >> do most of these people get worked per night's? work permits after some period of time? >> it's a mix because someone who comes in with parole, becomes eligible for a work authorization within a year generally at the six-month mark. and then in the labor force etc. someone who comes in not through parole but through some other mechanism, some other channel it just depends on the specifics and that's a discussion here and also in the demographic reports that we released in january the discussion is immigration. we would track the different

channels. for example there's a term that the border patrol uses is a got away so someone who comes in is not in contact with them. they generally would not receive authorization unless and until they made a claim and it's adjudicated. then there would be a differential impact [inaudible] >> they would, yeah so we look at people like that can understand many of them would work just without authorization. we have a look at the different revenues and begin to the revenue effect on state and local revenues and extending at the state and local level and sales taxes to the federal impact is somewhat lower.

>> is there anyway to save the percentage of illegals that are in this surge and what percentage of those people are illegal? >> we do have a breakdown in the chapter that goes through -- i'm sorry this is in the demographic report that the demographic report from january has a breakdown for this category in our projections. if i'm sorry i didn't bring it with me but that has a breakdown. >> caitlyn with politico. obviously we know you are are not that this is commenting commenting on legislative proposals. already republicans have taken these figures and said this is why we got to create a fiscal commission this is why we are pushing for the upcoming fiscal 24 funding package. can you just comment on the

trajectory of where you see where that's going? i know they are smaller than the projections last year. if you can comment on that and maybe the efficacy of creating something like a commission is supposed to taking other actions? >> of course i would be glad to. it seems to me the first message of the projections is a familiar one in the fiscal trajectory is daunting. you can see in the deficit chart behind me if i flip to the next one with a debt of course the debt is rising and doesn't get better so that's familiar. on the other hand it is a little bit less bad than it was in our projection last year that the effect of the fiscal responsibility act of 2023 and the subsequent continuing resolutions.

so it's a not enough to solve the problem, to remove the fiscal danger but it's enough to be meaningful and to show up so that's the way i think of the situation now. in terms of the fiscal commission the cbo would support that in the course we work through the budget committees in both the house and senate in the house budget committee of course this considering that legislation. and wherever the congress goes we would report that and they have done that in the past. we will have to get that for you. it's a binder of cbo analysis from past -- so when it comes the time for that story we will do that from oregon. a senator: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: the supplemental

emergency package we're considering addresses a number of issues, including very importantly the challenge of supporting the ukrainian people. mr. merkley: it also includes $9.2 billion for humanitarian aid around the world. and some of this aid -- of that aid will assist with the humanitarian challenge in gaza. but i want to address that challenge in gaza today in far more detail and argue that we need to do more, that we are so connected to the circumstances in gaza because of our very close relationship with israel, that the united states has a moral imperative, a moral responsibility to launch a massive effort to address the humanitarian challenges in gaza,

to address the shortage of water, the shortage of food, and the shortage of medical supplies. we have worked conscientiously to dramatically increase that aid. we've done so month after month after month. but that effort has produced only a trickle of aid compared to the need. and the circumstances in gaza continue to deteriorate. so the united states needs to operate or launch operation gaza rescue or give it some other name but a bold and dramatic intervention in the humanitarian circumstances in gaza. let me be clear. israel had every right to go after hamas after the horrific assault by hamas terrorists on october 7 on villages in israel.

but how israel conducts that war matters. hamas is israel's enemy. the palestinian civilians are not israel's enemy. and the palestinian civilians are not our enemy. israel's approach to the war, however, has produced horrifying, unacceptable levels of deaths and injuries and suffering for those palestinian civilians. that has to change. it's why i've called for a cease-fire. it's why i've noted, though, a cease-fire will not endure unless it includes a return of the hostages and an end of hamas control in gaza. i salute today the biden administration's intensive efforts to produce a cease-fire, a 40-day cease-fire, and hopefully a permanent

cease-fire. but yesterday those hopes were shattered. and while such an outcome might still develop tomorrow or the day after, there's no certainty at all that it will come about. and it's why we can't simply hinge our hopes for addressing the tremendous suffering in gaza on the possibility of a cease-fire. there's no farn tee -- guarantee when those will be successful. and with each passing day, the situation in gaza is getting a lot worse. the netanyahu government's approach to the war has dramatically increased the suffering of civilians. at the same time they have slow walked the provision of humanitarian aid. senator van hollen and i want to rafa crossing, rafa gate. we met with the most seasoned humanitarian workers to be found in the world. they told us about their work having been in sudan and in

yemen and on the front lines in ukraine, and they said the combination of factors that they saw in gaza made this worse than any other war or conflict they had ever been at. the worst humanitarian catastrophe that a group of seasoned aid workers had ever witnessed. netanyahu's government's war strategy has inflicted suffering on innocent civilians in multiple ways. president biden described the netanyahu government's bombing and shelling as indiscriminate and that indiscriminate bombing has resulted in a breathtaking number of civilian casualties and injuries. now counting more than 27,000 dead, not including the estimates of those who might be trapped in the rubble.

this number every few days, it goes up by another thousand people. and more than double that number, some estimated 67,000 palestinians with significant injuries. and among the dead, among those 27,000, more than 18,000 women and children have died. you know, these numbers, they're numbers. they're hard to get your hands around. so think about it this way. if 18,000 women and children were lined up holding hands, they would form a line 13 miles long. picture yourself going on a hike for 13 miles and with every stride another dead child, another dead woman. or picture it this way.

if you were to spend one minute with each of those 18,000 individuals before they had passed away, it would have taken you more than 300 hours to have met each of them. and of course, it isn't just the dead and the injured. we see the huge impact in the form of the challenges faced by expectant mothers, mothers carrying children, mothers delivering children. more mothers are having miscarriages. more mothers are having still births. more mothers are annie nick because of malnutrition and that anemia is producing more postpartum hemorrhaging. more mothers are enduring c-sections without anesthesia. if any of you have had the privilege of being in the room

with a woman delivering a child and imagine a c-section without anesthesia, you can imagine just how horrific that is. and, of course, the bombing has had devastating impacts on the infrastructure, all kinds of infrastructure. we have an estimated 70,000 homes destroyed, 300,000 homes damaged, 1.7 million people internally displaced inside gaza. 1.7 million out of 2.2 million gazans. that is just an enormous percent, an enor us in number. -- and enormous number. and that isn't all. because so little aid has gotten in that hunger is rampant. of those who are estimated to be

at the highest level of hunger in the world, by far the majority are in gaza, as compared to the rest of the world, the entire rest of the planet combined. 90% of people in gaza surviving on less than a meal per day. the impacts of that malnutrition also add to the impacts on new mothers in the form of women who are malnourished and cannot breast feed. and if you can't breastfeed, you need to have clean water for formula. but the u.n. reports that about 70% of the people in gaza are drinking contaminated water. clean water is extremely hard to come by, and if you provide formula with contaminated water,

then the odds of a baby surviving drop dramatically. on the medical side, there were 36 hospitals in gaza before october 7. there are 13 that are still functioning. and they are not functioning well. they're short of basic medical supplies like anesthesia and antibiotics, drug supplies for diabetics or hypertension, a whole host of issues that they face. you know, the supply of food, water, and medicine can be provided through trucks. before october 7, 500 trucks a day entered gaza. over the last seven days, the u.n. reports that an average of about 170 trucks came in per day. it is not enough to meet even

the most basic food, water, and medical issues in gaza. with each passing day, the situation is getting worse and worse and worse. why so few trucks? two reasons -- the first is that israel has set up a very complicated system to inspect the trucks before -- they had such an inspection system before october 7 and they were able to inspect and allow 500 trucks a day to enter. but they've set up a convoluted system now that senator van hollen and i witnessed at rafah crossing where truck drivers, after loading up their supplies, often wait up to a week to get permission to cross into gaza. during that time they have to wait until they can go to sanaa.

and there the load is inspected, often all the palettes are taken off. they're looked at very carefully and there is a whole bunch of items that have been precleared because they are medical food and water items desperately needed. but at that site, the inspector may simply say, i'm not accepting that item. and then not just that item but the entire truck is rejected, and the process starts all over again. senator van hollen and i went to a warehouse full of these rejected items. they were medical supplies and food supplies, medical and food supplies and bladders that you could put into the back of a pick-up truck or onto a flatbed to carry water and deliver water. all rejected. in fact we were told about one of the items being rejected were kits for -- sanitary kits for

assisting the delivery of a child. i said, how could one reject a kit for the delivery of children? the answer was, the inspector said, there is a scalpel in this kit -- and that's a knife. so these kits cannot be allowed. we have women delivering babies without being able to go to the hospital because the communications have been shut down. but when they do get to a hospital, not even the basic supplies have necessarily arrived to assist the doctors to provide the right care in the right way at the moment a rom is giving birth. -- at the moment a woman is giving birth. so if you make it through this complicated, bizarre inspection process that is designed to slow everything down, if you finally get permission to go through rafah gate khar rex m shall loam gate, then the problem is, how are you going to get from there to the warehouse?

how are you going to get from there to the hospital? because there is a war going on. bombs are dropping. shells are being fired. tanks are shooting shells e so you need deconfliction to be able to deliver humanitarian supplies. who can deconflict? only one entity -- and that's israel. and israel has refused to do so. so now imagine. the truck comes income tax the egyptian truck driver comes in and says, now these must be transferred to a palestinian truck and a palestinian driver and how do -- how is the palestinian driving goings to know? is it how is the palestinian driver going to get safely to the truck? how are they going to get to the warehouse when there is no deconfliction? so people have been dying trying to deliver aid to the hospital or the aid to the warehouse.

the failure to have a sane, efficient inspection process, which weigh know is possible because israel was able to do that for 500 trucks a day before october 7, in combination with the complete failure of deconf deconfliction, as resulted in a very small amount of aid getting in. that's the challenge. that's the challenge truck driver's face with broken roads and falling bombs and artillery shells, risking their lives as they do every day. but making it extremely difficult. for months, president biden, secretary of state blinken, defense secretary austin, other senior members of the administration have been urging the netanyahu government to change course. they have urged the netanyahu government to adopt a strategy against hamas that does not produce this tremendous number

of civilian deaths, civilian injuries, and massive suffering. and netanyahu has stiff-armed the american government. oh, of this he'll made some little changes here and there, but the same basic fact -- massively insufficient supply of food and water and medical supplies. i've heard how members of the administration, the top team have had very testy, very difficult conversations with prime minister netanyahu and with his other core leaders. but you know what? no matter how much reask, how matter how we ask, the same result. massively insufficient humanitarian aid. so president biden's requests to change war strategies has been rejected.

president biden and his team's request to massively increase humanitarian aid have been rejected. and the circumstances get worse and worse and worse in gaza with every passing day. president biden and his team did the right thing by trying to urge israel to make those changes. but the netanyahu government has been very clear in the end that they are not going to do so. so the strategy, however w passionately intentioned is has failed. and this leaves under the circumstances, the united states of america,s it leaves us in a terrible place. we are israel's closest partner. the suffering in gaza now becomes part of our story. it becomes part of our responsibility, as israel's largest supplier of economic aid, it becomes part of our

responsibility. as israel's largest supplier of military aid, it becomes part of our responsibility. as israel's largest supplier specifically of bombs and artillery shells that the netanyahu government has used in that indiscriminate bombing that president bush talks about -- that president biden talks about, it becomes our responsibility. and, thus, if it's our responsibility, we have to act. the united states must act. asking poll lately or asking urgently or asking passionately or asking often to israel is not enough. that strategy, it has failed. that's why it's incumbent on the united states to immediately stand up a rescue operation, operation gaza rescue, to get that massive humanitarian aid into gaza, to deliver the food, the water, the medical supplies.

it's time to make sure that every one of the 13 remaining hospitals, 13 out of 36, 13 remaining hospitals have all the medicines and medical supplies they need. we can do that through immediate and sustained helicopter deliveries. we can do that from -- with direct deconfliction with the israelis because they're the no going to the shah down american hospitals delivering aid and how do we know that deconfliction can work in that setting? because it's already been done. jordan has been delivering on repeated occasions assistance through airdrop deliveries. if jordan can do this, the united states, with our massive capabilities, being can do so. it's time not just to ensure that every hospital has everything it needs but to ensure there is enough food and clean water to alleviate the massive hunger and the massive

challenge of citizens unable to currently get clean water. we know that dirty water will produce disease. we know that sustained undermule triggs, or malnutrition, starvation will produce significant challenges, illness, the combination is terrible, even before you add in the massive injuries from the bombing and the shelling. we can get that food, we can get that water into -- into gaza. it's a 40-mile coastline. we can deliver food and water from sea to shore. it is our responsibility to do so. we are at this point, because of our close relationship and partnership with israel, we, the united states, are complicit in the starvation, the hunger, the thirst, the illness, the

brokenness, the suffering of the gazan people. so i direct my comments to president biden and his top team -- you all worked very hard to find a path throughsr get the aid in and it has failed. i commend you for trying but now it is our responsibility, our moral responsibility, to no longer be complicit in this humanitarian catastrophe. we must act and act now. i encourage president biden and his team, meet today. send the orders to ships today to get off shore. launch the plans today to be able to provide those medical supplies to thhospitals. provide those plans now for sea-to-shore delivery of food and water. communicate with israel that we are going to do this because we will not be complicit in this

humanitarian catastrophe that is ongoing, that we value the life of every civilian, every palestinian civilian, we value the life of every palestinian woman and child. and we, the united states, are going toage of president biden, i encourage you not to only meet with your team to plan this but announce it to the american people. the american people are deeply concerned about our close association with this humanitarian disaster. the world is very concerned about our close association complicity in this humanitarian disaster. so speak to us, the american people, that team biden will act not in a weak, not in a -- not in a week, not in a month, not when the war ends.

but now. there is no time to waste, and this is a moral imperative. it is the united states that so often says to the rest of the world what has gone on here and why have you allowed it to happen? this is an unacceptable humanitarian catastrophe. that is the united states talking to the world. but now we have a humanitarian catastrophe that is in our hands, our responsibility, and we have to carry that responsibility squarely, directly, and act immediately and boldly. american complicity in the suffering of the palestinians living in gaza must end. thank you, mr. president.

mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

so let's review where we are at here. all of my colleagues said about making ukraine made perfect sense to me. we have to help ukraine. i thought it was a bad idea to

get a iraq in 2007 and i issued a statement on the worst withdrawal in 2011 and said i respectfully disagree with president obama and the sacrifices in jeopardy by today's announcement. i hope i'm wrong in the present is right but i fear this decision has put in motion events that welcome back to haunt our country. so we got out at afghanistan and president biden chose to do that. i've got a stick and here i will put in the record. i was very clear that if we get out at afghanistan and pull the troops they will be for emergent about al qaeda and isis and there will be great of peoples is this decision by president biden is a disaster in the making.

so, the lack of republicans agree with those two things in my republican colleagues believe ukraine will be worse than afghanistan. the idea of pulling the plug on ukraine will not affect our national security is a fantasy. it's clear to me that getting out of iraq in 2011 was to send and lead led to the rise of radical that literally took over half the country. they kill people in paris and here and everywhere else and now we are back in iraq. we have never -- we should have never gotten on the first place in the bottomline about afghanistan, it was a long slog and people wanted out but the taliban took over within weeks and the taliban being in charge of afghanistan led to other people in the world thinking hey america's week now is the time to pound so and 2021 the withdrawal from afghanistan

taliban takeover and 2022 russia invades ukraine and that's been a complete disaster. in 2023 hamas attacked israel killing more jewish people than at any time since the holocaust. in 2024 iranian proxies are killing american soldiers and running wild throughout the world. other than that everything is pretty good. having said all of that my point is i want to help ukraine israel and taiwan. i really do. i think it's in our national security interest to do all of the above but i have also said from day one i want to help other countries but we have to help our country first. what did i mean by that? i mean the borders not just broken. it's a complete nightmare. the national security disaster in the making.

7 million people coming across the border illegally are a lot of people, watchlist so it's been a nightmare and we try to sit down in a bipartisan way center murphy sinema lankford and others sit down to come up with a bipartisan proposal that i thought did a pretty good job in many ways. however having said that i didn't think it was enough. i was hoping they would have built on what they did but here's where we are at. the house declared its insufficient the republican -- >> would the senator yield for a question? >> yes. >> thank you, thank you. senator was listening carefully to your speech and you thought the bill we drafted introduced yesterday was a good start but not enough. i'm wondering if you would remind us how you voted yesterday on the motion to

proceed to the bill that had the border package. >> i would be glad to but i voted no because i didn't see a process in place or willingness by my democratic colleagues to allow me to express that i think it could be better. the gang of eight, you weren't here. senator mccain was, we worked hard and senator bennett was involved in all this stuff and 2013 and we let the bill come to the floor and people amended it and we days and weeks so that's why voted no. >> my colleagues -- >> here's what i'm saying. this is ben at half best effort to deal with border security. >> i'm speaking. you can speak later. the people of at the house we have not really tried hard to secure the border. we took a well-meaning product and people worked really hard and i've applaud you and others

were coming up with a product that had a lot of good things in it but not enough for me. we closed up the border debate and you may give me a few things on ukraine about the border. that's not the way it works around here. >> can you yield for a question? >> no. to my house colleagues you can do better than us. don't send this back to h.r. to but it's not going anywhere. you couldn't get all republicans for h.r. to. we lost one republican in the democrats so this idea we have done enough on the border, i am not done. i'm not willing to help ukraine tool we do a better job helping ourselves. i've given people involved credit for working hard to get a product but the system in place now, take it or leave it and the reason i voted no as i didn't see any willingness by anybody to allow an amendment process where we could deal with the border issue.

>> i have an amendment on ukraine bill. >> question? >> no. that's backwards. we don't do it that way. in a gang in update we had a robust amendment process and let me tell you i think there are things we can do to make it better. what's the 5000-dollar day encounter to shut down the border. here's what the border council said. 5000 encounters a day is a catastrophe. a thousand counters a day is a substantial improvement in its an emergency but i was hoping we could talk about that. we may get a vote on that on ukraine bill. we have closed out a debate on the border. >> a question? >> yes. >> senator you've been here for longer than me but it's my understanding in order to get to the portion of the bill are we

offer amendments on the floor the first half to pass the motion to proceed and it's also my understanding that it was offered by leadership and the three sponsors of the border bill which your team gratefully helped us create, that we would haven't opened amendment. so would you help me understand why you voted against the motion to proceed. before we were able to offer an amendment. >> i think people on our side in your side wanted to do the border thing as quick as they could so we could get to ukraine and i don't trust the system here to be able to allow to have the debate that we had from the gang of a bill. that's why voted no. i didn't see any willingness and i'm proved to be correct because now the republican leadership has joined at the democratic leadership to shut down debate

on the border bill and a few amendments on ukraine bill and saying are you happy now? no, i'm not happy. i'm not happy. i wanted to secure the border before a help ukraine and everything you said about ukraine is right. i was not kidding to the colleagues in the house. we have done a half best job trying to secure the border. we shut this down unlike any other time i've been involved in immigration. i take a lot of hard votes and you have been kicked around and i understand it. i admire the out of it him. you a good product but it wasn't enough. i want to on drugs. let me tell you why when a cap on parole. the average people probe in this country is 5600. in the last two years president biden paroled over a hundred thousand people.

it's better but we need a cap. i'd like to have an amendment on whether not we should at 10,000 a year but i'm getting that on ukraine bill so to my colleague from arizona, no, no, no. this is not been a real effort to find border security and a bipartisan way. we took the project, take it or leave it and the reason i voted no is exactly reaffirmed here. we stopped the process jumping into ukraine and we are going to do it this weekend and it's going nowhere. for those of you who want to help ukraine you have made it harder. we are going to lose a handful of republican votes here because they felt they were shut out in the debate about how to secure the border. we are going to lose votes over here. you don't have a snowball's chance in to get through the house because we take the border

issue and we didn't address at the way it should have been. we close it out. i could see the game being fixed. i'm here as a proud supporter oh ukraine. so, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: so, mr. president, it's a very good thing that today the senate cleared the first procedural hurdle to pass the national security supplemental. for the information of senators, the senate will convene tomorrow at noon to resume postcloture debate on the motion to proceed. if no dpraement is reached -- if no agreement is reached, the senate will vote on the motion to proceed at approximately 7:00 p.m. tomorrow evening. as i said this morning, we still hope to reach an agreement with our republican colleagues on amendments. democrats have always been clear that we support having a fair and reasonable amendment process. nevertheless, the senate will keep working on this bill until the job is done.

now on a few more procedural matters, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, calendar 482, jeffrey prescott to be ambassador for food and ial. that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, jeffrey prescott of the district of columbia to be u.s. representative to the united nations agencies for food and agriculture with the rank the ambassador. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. all those in favor say aye. the nomination is confirmed.

mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 46, s.709. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 46, s.709, a bill to improve performance and accountability in the federal government, and for other purposes. ask the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i further ask the committee reported amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motheringses to reconsider -- and the motions to reconsider be considered without any further action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions -- s. res. 548, s. res. 549, s. res. 550, s. res. 551, s. res. 552. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding en bloc? without objection.

the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 553, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 553, honoring the life of jean a. carnahan, former senator for the state of missouri. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent 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: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted.

mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned under the provisions of s. res. 553 until 12:00 noon on friday, february 9, 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 number 30, h.r. 815, postcloture. further, that all time during adjournment, recess, leader remarks, and morning business counts postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, and pursuant to s. res. 553, the senate stands adjourned until 12:00 noon on friday, february 9, 2024, had

and does so as a further mark of respect to the late jean a. carnahan, former senator f