very least millions of starving people moving? and why are they starving? they're starving because eastern yup is the breadbasket -- europe is the breadbasket of the world, especially that part of the world. and wheat prices, bashly prices, have skyrocketed over the last two years. we are creating the predicate for a refugee crisis that will destabilize europe and the entire world. we're also, while we're at it, enriching vladimir putin. while we spend $61 billion in ukraine, we're enriching vladimir putin with idiotic energy policies. we're actually funding both sides of this conflict. putin's economy depends substantially on natural gas. on petroleum. and our energy policies, our refusal to empower america's energy producers, the biden administration just a couple of

weeks ago blocked additional exports of liquid natural gas. that enriches vladimir putin's russia. every time you take an action that drives up the cost of energy, you are enriching vladimir putin's russia. so with the one hand we pursue energy policies that enreich vladimir putin -- enrich vladimir putin and with the other hand we send $61 billion to ukraine. i don't think we should fund either side of this conflict but it is the height of idiocy to fund both sides of the conflict simultaneously and that is exactly what are doing thanks to joe biden's energy policies. another unintended consequence, and we have seen this by the way, allied governments in slovenia and poland and other countries are under -- food and energy prize -- prices

destabilize countries, we are pursuing policies that ensure higher food and energy prices. inflation is bad in the united st states, inflation is bad in part because we are pursuing policies in europe that inflame the cost of food and energy. it's funny when i hear my democratic friends say that inflation is not joe biden's fault. it's the fault of what is going on in eastern europe. if joe biden was a little bit smarter and used diplomacy -- diplomacy more aggressively, perhaps what is happening in europe would not happen as long and perhaps we could bring it to a quick close. we are impoverishing our own people on this conflict, $34 trillion in debt, we are on the hook to close to $200 billion to ukraine, but that doesn't include the assistance they will need, that

doesn't clued the food prices, energy prices that this pressure is putting on the wallets of american citizens, it doesn't count all of the ways in which we are distracted by a conflict in eastern europe and unable to pursue smart policies elsewhere in the world. we are impoverishing americans and we are doing it to empower defense contractors and to bring a war to effectively a never ending stage. that's what's happening. we know this conflict has no end in sight, we know only america using diplomatic pressure, we are instead using our diplomatic power to prolong this thing. there are other unintended consequences, and i worry that

we have no statesmen left at the senior leadership of this country. for a generation, we have been told that the important thing is to thufrp our -- thump our chests to talk tough, act tough but not do the things necessary to strengthen our country and make our country more powerful. you hear my friends on both sides of the aisle say that if we don't show resolve in ukraine, that it will invite xi jinping to invade taiwan. and of course i believe an invasion by xi jinping could be one of the worst things that could happen. the argument is that that the chinese will invade. the chinese don't care about our resolve, they care about our strength. in classical foreign policy

schools, deterrence is the combination of resolve and capacity, you have to both want to do something but most importantly, you have to have to the ability to do that thing and we have no capacity to deter the chinese in east asia and help the ukrainians fight a war in eastern europe. for many generations our leadership shipped our industrial base overseas and that left us in a place where we don't produce enough weapons, we don't produce enough missiles, weeb don't produce enough artillery ri sales or the mu -- artillery sales or munitions. every time we spend critical resources on ukraine, we ensure that they will not be available to a contingency necessary for the united states of america. that's not hypothetical and that's not abstract. we even now are sending weapons

to ukraine far faster than we can make them. why are we sending cluster munitions to ukraine right now? and, again, i'll ask, where is the antiwar left? what happened to the left worried about sending cluster munitions, why are we sending cluster munitions to ukraine because we don't make enough artillery shells to send to israel and other partners, we cannot fight a war on multiple fronts because of the leadership made frankly by some of the members of this chamber, we don't have a strong enough manufacturing base to support both of these conflicts. my colleagues will say that this particular bill, this particular legislation has billions of dollars designed to rebuild the american industrial base. but you can't rebuild the industrial base by making weapons and sending them to ukraine faster than you make them for your own country and

for your own defense purposes. the question is, if we start rebuilding our defense industrial base tomorrow, how long does it take? three to five years at the very least. call it three years if we started tomorrow before we could support contingencies in eastern europe and in east asia. so what do we do in the interim when every country does not support enough weapons to support a multiprong conflict? the answer from this chamber is we send everything possible to ukraine. we get as much as possible to ukraine, consequences, let's not worry about those. let's not worry about the fact that we do not have enough weapons to deter aggression all over the world right now and we have no viable pathway of getting there for the next three years. a lot of my colleagues are living in a boomer paradise where america can do everything

all the time without limits or constraints and that is not the world that we live in. frankly it's not the world we live in in part because of decisions made by people in this chamber and the leadership of this country over the last generation, but we are in this situation, let's rebuild our own country before we extend ourselves in a multiprong conflict. this is something out of every history book for how empires fail. countries allow themselves to become eroded, they allow internal division wto weaken their resolve, they allow economic might to degrade and then at the point where they're weakest, they overextend themselves militarily. that is where we are right now. we are at the weakest point in fa generation, in the -- in a generation, in the 1980's our manufacturing was significantly stronger. my colleagues on the other side

will say it's a bipartisan problem, it is not just manufacturing's fault. i would grant that every day and twice on sunday. it was a bipartisan failure that let our manufacturing economy grow weak, but it needs to be a bipartisan solution to figure out what to do until we rebuild it. no one has offered a solution for how to rebuild our manufacturing base quickly and no one has told me what we're going to do while we're rebuilding that manufacturing base. we cannot supply unlimited arms all over the world when we don't even make enough for our own purposes, yet, that is exactly what the united states senate proposes to do later this morning. now, one -- one final observation here about where we are in ukraine. i'm going to read a brief summary here from -- from

produced by my staff. $60 billion in ukraine aid in the $95 billion supplemental would be the single largest ukraine package congress has approved to date. it was put on the floor with less than a day's notice and could obstruct the effort to bring the war in ukraine to a peaceful end, it will provide nothing to secure america's southern border. it would represent 34% of the supplemental ukraine aid almost as large as the first 3 summit bills gained, it is an increase over the previous bill at a time when the battlefield has grown significantly worse. it has done all of this with less than a week of real debate. try to think of any amount of money that we've sent where we have not adequately debated,

reviewed, amended and corrected such a large spending package to ukraine or to any other country. i mean, normally these bills spending $100 billion of american taxpayer money, normally you might expect a real debate. we received text on this on wednesday, february 7 is when we received final text on 0 the package that we're voting on today. $100.05 days of debate -- $10 $100.05 days of debate. the american people have been deprived of an actual debate on these matters from their elected legislature. the united states senate has deprived them of that debate. i don't know why. i think the reason why we are pushing this so quickly because some colleagues are desperate to get to munich to say yes, they

did not secure their own southern border but they got the $61 billion to ukraine. it is shameful to conduct foreign policy through blank check writing to never ending war and it is extra shameful to do it while ignoring the problems of your own country. madam president, can i ask how much time i have sn -- i have? the presiding officer: the senator has four appeared a -- four and a half minutes remaining. mr. vance: i will keep going for another few minutes. i want to make in the time i have remaining a political observation. when you craft legislation that is 370 pages long and you deprive the american people and your senate colleagues of a debate, you oftentimes find that there are things in the legislation that were unintended or maybe they were intended but should have been corrected and

taken out. in 2019, the united states house of representatives impeached donald trump under a sperus and ridiculous argument, it went something like this, there was money appropriated under the us-aid, the u.s.-of a.i. appropriated money and donald trump refused to apply it. and the argument was because he violated this appropriations requirement and because it's in the requirement of the control act, donald trump violated the law and had to be impeached. i find it interesting that given that ukraine aid is a hotly contested political item for the 2024 elections and given that

donald trump was already impeached for the exact same reason that so many congressional republicans seemed desperate to tie the president's hands in the next administration because built in to this ukraine-first supplemental is money that will be spent in 25 and 26, money just as in 2019 that was appropriated and will tie the hands of the next administration. whether it's a democrat or republican, i think we ought to empower the next administration to do diplomacy as they would like to. so for my colleagues desperate to send $61 billion to ukraine, one request which would make is this will come back from the house, the house will not pass this package as it exists. one request is to cut off the funding for 2024, it may save donald trump an impeachment trial.

now, we should not be doing this with such little debate and such little consideration. there are all kinds of things, all kinds of beautiful gems that i'm sure we will identify in this legislation in the coming weeks, as nancy pelosi said once, you have to read legislation after we pass it, i would say that we read it before we pass it, most importantly, i would prefer to debate and challenge the legislation before we pass it. you cannot write $100 billion worth of checks in four days of public debate. you need more time, you need to correct it and fix it and address the problems i mentioned that we put an impeachment time bomb for the next trump administration, you need to fix a problem like this. you in i appreciate some of our colleagues prefer a fake process because that process is

empowered senate leadership. you know who hasn't empowered? it has not empowered the american people. this is ridiculous and this is ultimately in my view a farce. one final observation that i will make recognizing my time is short. i've been a united states senator for a year. it's the professional honor of my lifetime. and i serve across the aisle with distinguished colleagues, with brilliant people, with people who are publicly minded, despite our agreements, but i think this process is an insult to them. we can do better. we should do better. thank you, madam president.

mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: it's a little more than three months ago that senate republicans came together and reached something of a conclusion. we concluded that it made a lot of stones make a commitment to each other and a commitment to those we represent and a commitment to those in the other chamber just down the hall from here that we wouldn't be sending another penny to ukraine without achieving border security in our own homeland. after all, the conflict in ukraine is about helping ukraine maintain its own defensible borders. it's about helping ukraine with

its own national security the meanwhile, we've got a border that's having -- to describe it as porous is an insult to porousness. it is a border through which an estimated 10 million people have entered our country unlawfully, just over the last three years. since president biden took office. then -- now through the efforts of a faithful few, we were poised to treat our promise to americans the way president biden has treated his solemn oath to protect our country's borders as somehow expedient, expendable and apparently now expired. madam president, we cannot send billions of dollars to ukraine,

many, many tense of billions of dollars d. many, many tens of billions of there are as to ukraine while america's own borders are bleeding, while they're wide open, and while we have got many thousands upon thousands of the 10 million or so who have come in over the last three years, who are coming in under circumstances that make them highly suspicious, to say nothing of the millions of others that came in. but just in the last few months alone, we know that thousands have come in from countries that are not in latin america, from countries like syria, afghanistan, china, and a lot of other countries where we have a lot of people who don't like this country, who don't share its values, don't share its viction, don't -- don't share its vision, and did a share its conviction to the rule of law.

they come in here sometimes unvetted, in some cases unseen, but in some respects it's even more troubling. the ones that come in that the government knows about, they are processed and then released. processed, meaning we take down a bunch of information that we know about them and then release them into the country, either under the pretense that they have applied for asylum and might be deemed qualified to receive that form of relief or, alternatively, under the theory that they can be brought in under what's known as immigration parole, a category that's never supposed to be used -- in fact, by law it can't be used categorically to treat all people from a certain country a certain way. no, it's there to be used in unusual circumstances, either

for humanitarian, compassionate needs like, you know, somebody's loved one has passed away and they need to attend a funeral or they need to come to attend to a critically ill loved one, or alternatively a public use exception under immigration parole, such as somebody speaks a foreign language that's badly needed, where they need an interpreter. very few people speak that in this country and they found someone outside the united states. this is a way of getting them into the country for a short period of time. sometimes they're brought in under the asylum theory, others under parole theory, others still are brought in under withheld removal, are told you just don't have to leave now. in many of these circumstances the people who are released into

the interior of the country are told at some point you may have -- you will have a hearing before an immigration judge. and we hope you will come to that and, by the way, your immigration hearing before the immigration judge may well be in the 2030's, may well be in 2035 or later, but, in the meantime, have fun. we'll get you a plane ticket to the u.s. city of your choice. and by the way, those pesky things that american citizens have to worry about when travelling from one part of the united states to another like airplane tickets, we've taken care that. also identification papers. americans have to produce a photo i.d. establishing who they are at an airport. you don't have to worry about that either. we'll fly you anywhere you want. have fun. well, it's not long before

international drug cartels pick umon the fact that -- pick up on fact that this is a great source of revenue for them. it is a great source of revenue and also a great source of facilitating their other businesses when they can traffic human beings in large numbers. you see, these drug cartels are making many tens of billions of dollars every single year smuggling in human traffic into the interior of the united states. and why wouldn't they? people want the american dream. people like the opportunity to live here. maybe for some it's perceived as a great way to earn more money that can be sent back home. maybe some want to live here permanently and make it their home. maybe others want to inflict harm on the united states. we don't really know because we've thrown caution to the wind. we've just under the failed leadership of president joe

biden, we have just brought them in by the millions. it's been a real areally good -- it's been a really good deal for the drug cartels who have made tens of billions of dollars a year as a result of this criminally negligent approach toward enforcing the border. now, their approach to enforcing the border in these respects is nonenforcement. it's deliberate, willful nonenforcement inuring to the great detriment, the great harm presenting in incredible risks to the american people. this has gone on now for over three years. it kicked in, as i remember, right as president biden took office. he started iring executive order -- he started issuing executive orders, undoing things

like the remain in mexico program, the migrant protection protocols, the save third country agreements negotiated by the previous administration, which also had some migrant surges and surges of illegal immigration. but to its credit, the previous administration did something about it by putting in place these programs to guarantee that someone coming into the united states without documentation across our southern border by land thereafter claimed asylum, they would have to wait in mexico, remain in mexico while the application remained pending. why is it that matter? well, statistics tell us that for every person who applies for asylum, every ten people who apply for asylum, rather, fewer than one will actually receive it. some say it's around 90%. others will say it's in the high 90's. the percentages of people who

apply for asylum who are deemed ineligible for asylum, not eligible to receive it, and yet we receive all these people in here. so, anyway, president biden takes office. about that time somebody asks secretary mayorkas, either just before or just after he was confirmed by the senate -- i don't remember which -- they asked him a question. what the would you say to people who are part of these migrant caravans that were by then travelling through southern mexico making their way toward the united states? what would you say to them? now, the kind of answer you would hope and expect is that we should be able to demand that we would receive from the chief of immigration -- chief immigration law enforcement officer in the united states should have been, don't come. don't come.

why? well, because the risks are myriad. we don't want you to enter this country with your first step into the country being an act in violation of our law a you don't want to subject yourself and your family members who may be with you to great risks to life and limb. you don't want to subject anyone, but especially women and girls travelling with those caravans, the risk of sexual assault. the statistics vary on this wildly. at the low end, some say that the number is around 30% of the women and girls who are sexually assaulted in the journey. others say it is much more likely to be in the mid-60% range of women and girls sexually assaulted along these horrible, dangerous journeys.

and, of course, women and girls are not the only victims of sexual assault along the way. men and boys also have that happen to them. what's even worse, a number of these individuals, disproportionately women and girls more than men and boys, end up being subjected to a form of sex slavery. you see, it costs many thousands of dollars to be trafficked into this country by a drug cartel. many thousands of dollars. the higher the risk you are, the more distant the country you come from, especially if it's separated by an ocean from the americas, the more like lay you are to have to pay tens of thousands of dollars. if you're from latin america, some are able to make the payment with a few thousand

dollars, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 had,000 maybe. others pay a lot more if they're deemed high-risk and have to be smuggled in and they can't, for whatever reason, appear through a port of entry. where do they get this money? these are people who, for those of us who have been down to the border, as i have many times, many times even in the last few months, know that the people who are arriving under these circumstances having made this long, dangerous journey, they don't have a lot of motion to proceed. they don't have expendable sums of cash. they can't go into their bank and dip into their savings account and come up up with $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 to come up here. how do they pay for it? some of it they were able to scrounge together, perhaps from contributions from friends and

family, maybe they sell everything they've got, maybe for some that comes close. for a lot of them it doesn't. so how do they pay it? well, there's a word for this, and it's a word that's fallen out of use in commonly spoken american english. for more than a century and a half. but the word is indentured servitude. the word that we had all -- i certainly had relegated to the history books. that's why i was stunned during my last trip to the border down in the mcallen, texas, area, an ar where i lived, serbed, worked among the -- served, work among the among the poorest of the poor. it is an amazing place with wonderful people. during my most recent visit, as

i was visiting with border patrol agents, they told me for the first time since the civil war and certainly since the adoption and ratification of the 13th amendment, which prohibits slavery and indentured servitude, we have new england this country, in the united states of america in the 21st century a significant population of indentured servants in the united states. of these, many servitude. are living in what is essentially sex slavery, others are living in another form of indentured servitude required to live their lives subject to the will and whim and wishes of these international drurg cartels -- drug cartels who make money smuggling these people across and benefit from essentially slave labor from

them. one of my colleagues who made an even more recent trip to the border, just came back from the border a week or so ago, recently told me that for those subjected to the form of sex slavery to which these women and girls are subjected, it may take them six, seven, eight years to pay off what they owe. they're housed in what can only be described as a rudement ri prison -- rude men triprison that doubles as a brothel, they are nominally paid in the sense they are given credit for everything that they do. they're also are charged, sometimes exorbitant fees for room, board, to house, clothe and feed them.

there are detailed records that have to be kept right down to the cost of removing an ankle bracelet given to them by department of homeland security to hontor their -- to be monitor their whereabouts. but this is the reason they may have to work six, seven, eight years in sex slavery inside this country after they arrived illegally, unlawfully in order to pay off their debt to the drug cartels who are profiting to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year. most of the men are put to a different type of work. one way or another moving parcels from one destination to another with their whereabouts closely monitored by the cartels the entire time. let's get back to the fact that

we have a significant number of indentured servants here in the united states once again. why? what master are we serving by doing this? what good is advanced by such lawlessness? and at what cost? at what price? think about what this does to neighborhoods, communities, to schools, to churches. all those people out there who do everything they can to lift up the hands that hang low, to serve their fellow, to find those less fortunate themselves and figure out ways to help them. when their soup kitchens and homeless shelters, even their church pews, even their schools become overrun, they're less able to do what they need to do,

and i fear, madam president, that we, as senate republicans, having made this commitment to each other and to the american people and then having abandoned that commitment as we've done in connection with this, and we will have done should this legislation pass into law without a single shred of border security enforcing language in it, we will have done them a grave disservice after promising to help them. that saddens me. i don't understand why we would do that to them. i don't understand why we would do that to ourselves, why we would do that to the american

people after having made that commitment as we did. this isn't trivial, it isn't light. it isn't things that's fun to talk about. in fact, i detest talking about things like human trafficking, about sex slavery, it isn't pleasant at all. but we must talk about them because if we don't talk about them, we cannot fix them. we alone are in charge of funding this government. we alone, in this body, are equipped to recognize that there are not many ships that pass this direction that are of such import, that have so much of a head of steam behind them that they're likely to pass, and this was a you a "newsweek"ly good -- this was a uniquely good moment

for democrats to recognize. democrats have something to care about, some republicans do too, we've come to find out, but this is an issue that unite the democratic party, they want to send money to ukraine. we will talk about that in a moment. but it's something they really want to do even though we sent $113 billion, even though it is more than anybody else sent, the military aid far eclipses that of any other nation since the war started but of every other nation combined. but that's something they really want to do. we also knew that securing our border is something that republicans care a lot about. i wish it were not only republicans who cared about our border security, and i'm sure

that on some level a number of our democratic colleagues do too, but just maybe not in the same way that we do, not enough to call out the president from their party -- i know that can be difficult but maybe that makes some of them unkfbl. i -- uncomfortable. it's not for me to say. the point is this most republicans in congress feel a strong need to secure the border and most democrats feel strongly about securing ukraine's border, it's an overgeneralization perhaps, but it's a point that republicans in the senate saw and we realized, gosh, maybe, just maybe, we could cobble together and harness this desire to send more funding to ukraine on the left with a corresponding desire among republicans to secure our border. so it was on that fwhafs we made that commitment about three

months ago -- it was on that basis that we made that commitment three months ago. sadly, after we made that commitment, we were told that a few senate colleagues were trying to iron out a compromise. now i know -- i know and like each of those colleagues, have great affection for each of them, i have worked with each of them on different pieces of legislation, and i consider each of them friends. i don't know how it went in the democratic caucus, but i can tell you from my advantage point in the republican conference we were kept completely in the dark on the contents of that legislation until a week ago sunday at 7:00 p.m. it wasn't until a week ago sunday at 7:00 p.m. that we

first got to set our eyes on that document that they had spent three or four months negotiating. now, it had some -- a lot of provisions in it, a lot of language in it, but the border security portions of that bill didn't do what we committed to do. i don't mean to suggest bad faith on the part of any individual negotiator, but it didn't do what most of us understood the deal to be. what we asked for was not a ukraine supplemental aid package with an immigration overhaul attached to it. or even an immigration overhaul package containing some provisions of immigration law that might in the future, under a different administration, prove to be potentially helpful in securing the border. it's kind of what this was,

certainly how i perceived it. but it wasn't something that would actually force this administration to secure the border and provide consequences if it didn't. to up the ante, to make it more difficult for this administration to continue this pattern of enriching the international drug cartels to the tune of tens of billions of dollars every single year through aggressive n nonenforcement of the border. it did not do that. so, look, this was the predictable, foreseeable and by some of us foreseen and warned of consequence of having a negotiation in which one person was asked to negotiate on behalf of 49 people, and also asked not

to keep those 49 people apprised of the precise contents of that draft legislation. for many of us, this was unthinkable. i don't know how you can possibly negotiate on behalf of anyone much lest 49 without regularly informing them of what is going on and even providing text that you've been drafting. alas that was not my decision and i have reason to believe it was not even the decision of our leader negotiator, for whom i have great respect and admiration. it was the decision of the senate republican leader. it was the decision of the senate republican leader apparentlyto keep us in the -- apparently to keep us in the dark and to insist on provisions like those that could have withheld funds from ukraine or

at least delayed the release of some of the ukraine aid until such time as certain objectively verifiable border security metrics, benchmarks of operational control of the border had been achieved for a specified period of time. at one point or another, i think i heard half or more of the senate republican conference specifically asking for that and explaining that that's the type of thing that we would need, either that or something so -- so direct, so clear, so precise as the border security package passed by the house of representatives, h.r. 2, or, you know, at least its core provisions. some combination of provisions like those found in h.r. 2 and

something like the border security metrics package that i mentioned. perhaps even with something in there putting teeth behind provisions in existing law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections. things like that would have gone a long way. i think could have brought most -- the overwhelming majority perhaps of republicans depending on the except contours of the bill could have brought them into the fold and on board with the topic, but that's not how it worked. so when we discovered that that's not the legislation that we got even though it was the legislation we asked for than we anticipated than we committed to each other and to the public and to our voters and to our colleagues down the hall who felt the same way, upon discovering that that's not what

it was within 24 hours it appeared that that bill was going to go nowhere. within 48, maybe it was 72 hours, of the release of that text, all but four senate republicans had voted against that measure. what we should have done, what we could have done, what i still don't understand why we didn't do is then turn forth with to putting together a package that would, in fact, accomplish what we set out to do, which is force the issue of border security on the biden administration as a condition, making the release of additional ukraine aid subject to the achievement of border security, operational control of the border that would be in

place as a condition of precedent. this didn't happen. but after that didn't happen, oddly enough 17 or 18, i think it's back to 17 now, of my senate republican colleagues having made that commitment to each other, to their voters, to our colleagues down the hall, to the american people, to governors, communities, school principals, all these people relying on and affected by our decisions, especially in communities being overrun by people not of our land, people entering not according to our laws, and in fact contrary to our laws, we let all of them down. 17 republicans then decided, well, notwithstanding that

commitment, heck with it, let's just go ahead and pass all the foreign aid stuff. let's pass all the foreign aid without any border security. let's help ukraine with its border security problems, but let's leave ours out there. this may well be the last real opportunity we have to do that in this administration. how many more illegal aliens will be brought in? how many more people will come in who are on the terrorist watch list? how many other people will come in from countries that themselves raise suspicion, given the concentration of people who hate our country, in those nations from which they came? why did these 17 republicans just decide to turn their back

on the promise that we had made and on the people relying on that commitment? i really don't understand. nor do i understand why once we got on the bill, as we approached the bill, we were told by a number of those 17, well, don't worry about it. once we get on to it, we can process amendments, have votes on amendments, it will be fair and open as an amendment process. don't worry about it. then we got on to it. what we were told is that, no, sorry, turns out we don't really need your votes anymore, because 17 republicans agreed so eagerly, so willingly to go along with us, even without any of those commitments. we don't really owe anything to you. so i came to the senate floor, i was here most of the day on saturday, stood here for four straight hours talking about different amendments that i

wanted proposed, calling up amendment after amendment, most of my amendments were germane to the bill, asking that they be made pending. they received objections each day. not from republicans, but from democrats on the floor. those democrats who voiced objections voiced them again and again and again, saying in essence, you as republicans had your chance. you blew tur chance -- you blew your chance, you had your chance at a border security reform package in this bill, and because you didn't take it you don't get any input into this bill. there was nobody else here at the time who was offering up amendments, asking that they may be made pending. so it wasn't a question of

senate being just flooded with people wanting their amendments to be pending at the time. this wasn't one where we had bipartisan objections to it. no, these were just democrats not republicans doing it. what was even more schoureking is that after -- even more schoureking is that -- shocking is that after that hammed, amendment after amendment, germane amendment after germane amendment was rejected, was not allowed to be made pending -- see, when we make something pending we sort of put it in a queue of sorts that says this is something we're going to dispose of, something we're going to address. maybe we'll dispose of it by roll call vote, maybe voice vote. maybe it will be disposed of by a point of order, motion to commit, or a motion to table. maybe if it's a nongermane amendment and we haven't

disposed it by the time cloture is invoked, by the time we bring debate to a close on the bill, it will fall out and just won't be covered. but no, this was just too much to ask. but what was really shocking and really disappointing was the thickety that -- was the fact that even after that happened, a number of republicans, even some of the same republicans who had said yeah, we'll stand with you, not another dime to ukraine until we get the border secure, then had said, yeah, we'll stand with you now that the border security deal we received for the first time a week ago sunday at 7:00 p.m., and that all but four republicans voted against, now that that failed, don't worry, we'll have an open amendment process. and then those same republicans, a number of them, blamed the

failure for us to process even a single amendment on this not on democrats who had made those objections but on republicans, but on the same republicans, on people like and including me. i hadn't objected to a single other amendment being processed, not one. yet i was told i was part of the problem. i don't get it. sometimes i wonder why somebody would run as a republican only to take one of the issues that really should be bipartisan, used to be bipartisan, has now become partisan, but apparently now a lot of republicans don't care about that much, because by golly, they're going to make sure ukraine gets funded, and they don't want any conditions attached to it. then they're going to dismiss,

denigrate any republican who expresses concerns with the bill. not all of those concerns, in fact most of them, related on the amendments that i tried to page pending the other day. a lot of them dealt specifically with things that don't have to do with the border. others did. i talked about those. those were rejected that day. so too did my amendments that deal specifically with the ukraine portion of the bill. for example, i raised concerns about aid that might inevitably -- that might, inevitably will, flow to gaza and end up helping hamas, possibly to the tune of $9 billion or so, on the high end. we know what happened when billions of dollars of

humanitarian aid over the years flowed into gaza. under no circumstance did we say oh, here's a check from the united states of america to hamas. no, they were funneled through different aid programs, a lot of them through multilateral, multinational institutions, like the united nations. the thing is you send money to that part of the country, gaza is unlike anything we've ever experienced, those of us who have grown up in the united states and lived our entire lives here. to describe gaza as a failed state is an insult to failed states everywhere, because it's not even a state. nonetheless, hamas rules gaza with an iron fist. if you send money to gaza, it is literally impossible to keep

that money, keep those benefits out of the hands of hamas and to prevent it from benefiting h hamas. it's one of the reasons why october 7 was made possible, this elaborate network of tunnels, all sorts of things, all sorts of benefits, under the banner of international humanitarian aid that went to gaza, helped hamas, it strengthened hamas. and yes, it led to october 7. now, lest you think that was the end of it, october 7 was just a prelude to other things to come, because by the time hamas and other iranian proxies in the region have their say, what happened on october 7 in israel will look like a sunday picnic.

so, i raised concerns about that. in one of my amendments. in another amendment i raised concerns about the fact that of the roughly $8 billion or so going to ukraine under an economic security package, there's no restriction in there preventing that money from going to pay the salaries of ukrainian bureaucrats, no restriction in there preventing it from funding ukrainian social welfare programs, no restricts in there preventing it from going as similar funds from the united states have gone over the last couple of years in the past into programs that result in the purchase, with u.s. funds, of things like concert tickets for ukrainian concertgoers, things

to shore up clothing stores in ukraine. look, these are things that we're funding, we're financial over -- we're funding over and over again, specifically as a result of this largesse we're pouring into ukraine, and we're doing all this at a time when the american people are suffering under the oppressive yoke of bidenomics. it costs the average american household an additional thousand dollars every single month just to live, just to put gas in the car, groceries in the fridge and the pantry, to afford everything from housing to health care, gas to groceries, and everything in between. you see, when you print multiple trillions of dollars a year, every year for several years in

a row, more than we bring in, inevitably it starts to have the same effect of just printing off more money, which is essentially what we're doing. that means every dollar you have in your pocket, every dollar you receive in every paycheck, every dollar that you might have in your bank account, it buys less, significantly less than it did just a few years ago. now, for the rich this isn't as much of a burden, both because they have more and because when you're rich, if you're enterprising, you can find a way to get richer, a lot richer in f fact, during periods of inflation, like this one. this one just hurts everyone else. look, it's great to be rich at a time like this, and figures from wall street will tell you that. president biden cavalierly says, whenever people bring up

economic troubles, he and those in his administration love to say, oh, no, how can you say anything is wrong with the economy when wall street's doing great? that's some cold comfort. that shows a tone deafness that i'm not sure what to do with. this hurts them a lot when they see their neighborhoods overrun, their schools struggling to keep up with the influx in many communities of new populations of people who don't belong in this country, who have entered this country unlawfully at the invitation and with the blessing of the biden administration. the american people know something is wrong, deeply wrong, even if they're not privy

to exactly the same details that we've been discussing here. they know something's wrong, and it's a profound insult to them that those of us in this chamber would look so cavalierly at their plight, especially after some of us, nearly half of this body, made a commitment that we've now completely throughouted -- completely flouted, ignored, neglected. so, back to saturday. it was senate democrats who objected every time i raised one of these amendments, to even considering any kind of amendment. my democratic colleagues said that, quote, maga extremists had their chance, closed quote, implying that when senate republicans rejected the border bill we somehow forfeited our

right to offer amendments. when did that become the principle of this body? when did we accept that if you disagree with the legislation before the senate, that if you don't plan, intend, or irrevocably commit to supporting that legislation in the end, that you forfeited your right to offer amendments, to offer improvements, to make changes to the bill? to make one provision better or another provision less bad, so that we first do no harm as is our obligation? when did we become slaves do that principle in this body? when did that happen? where is that written in the senate rules? when did that become a custom here or even acceptable here? now, i would hope my republican colleagues would unite to

completely, emphatically disavow this view which to the extent accepted will continue to trample on the rights of the minority party and disenfranchise the voters we represent? but i'm afraid that some of my republican colleagues are now entertaining this view, and in fact fanning its flames, becoming some of its chief advocates. one of my republican colleagues, the senior senator from north carolina, reportedly said yesterday afternoon, quote, you don't put forth 80 amendments and say you won't negotiate in time agreements and be taken seriously. that's what's happening here. these folks are going to vote against it, no matter what, closed quote, if that were the end of the matter. matter madam president, do you understand what's implied with that statement? it suggests if someone is going to vote against a bill, this body should not even consider your amendments.

now, i would hope that this particular colleague was one who i would assume maybe didn't mean that or that he was quoted out of context. maybe he didn't think it all the way through. the only problem is i've heard him say it several times now in private and in public, and he stands by it. i don't get it. this isn't acceptable. this is a rejection of the senate's best traditions, and its long-standing protection of the rights of the minority, whether they be part of the minority party or whether they be people who disagree with whatever is popular at the moment. this view must be rejected so that the senate can once again embrace an open amendment process where the american public can see our deliberations in public. instead majority leader schumer is obstructing a fair and open amendment process but filling

the amendment tree and preventing any senator from making amendments pending on the floor. this procedural tactic prevents senators from offering their amendments and allows senate leadership to screen every single amendment before it's offered from the floor. and to dole out pen yorously, sometimes puhntively those privileged few opportunities for amendment consideration. it allows senators to avoid any tough votes, to avoid surprises, and in short to avoid any real debate. now, when i became a senator in 2011, this was not the standard practice. sure, there were sharp disagreements between the parties as there are now. but members could by and large, come down to the floor, call up

an amendment and make it pending. this change that we've seen was pioneered by democratic leadership about a decade ago and then gleefully adopted by republican leadership as well. in some ways it got more pronounced, even worse over the next few years after republicans gained the majority, and it's gotten steadily worse still since then. it's been the practice that leadership on both sides of the aisle have used for too long to stifle debate and it must end. i offered a motion to table the amendment tree yesterday or i guess that's the day before yesterday now, given that it's now tuesday morning, so that my colleagues could make their own

motions, their own amendments pending. but every democrat and unfortunately even some of my republican colleagues voted against this. this vote shows that democrats are not serious about the fair and open or fair and reasonable amendment process that we were promised before getting on this particular bill. so i had hoped and i had asked that republicans unite and demand a better process from our democratic colleagues. i had urged that we demand an open and honest amendment process on the senate floor so that the american people could see where we stand. now, my good friend, the senator from ohio, has dug very deeply into this disastrous bill and sounded the alarm. this legislation contains provisions requiring the next president to keep funding a proxy war in ukraine, even if the circumstances have changed,

and even if the american people elect a president specifically because he promises to find a peaceful end to this conflict. it's clear that the gop is being suckered into lining up yet another ridiculous, baseless, political impeachment attempt against the next republican president should he become the next republican president, which many of us hope he will, including me. how can any republican or any conservative or anyone who values the rule of law support this? well, earlier in the day on monday we saw how. supporters of this terrible bill have resorted to calling their own constituents uninformed idiots. one member of this body said our base can't possibly know what's at stake compared to well informed u.s. senators.

really? rank and file american voters couldn't possibly be as smart, as well informed, as capable of processing these concepts as a u.s. senator? they couldn't possibly be as well informed as any of us? we, forgive me but i haven't seen much reason for a mensa club on capitol hill the last couple of years. as our majority leader is attacking our own -- our own minority leader is attacking the demist and shortsighted views of people who don't want to throw $60 billion, $60 billion more to prolong the ukraine conflict. these are not the words of people who wish to be elected lawmakers much longer, let alone one data the majority of the u.s. senate. madam president, i'd like many of my colleagues -- i like many of my colleagues made a

commitment and i think it's important as republican senators acknowledge that we made that commitment and not just pretend it didn't exist as 17 of my colleagues seem hell-bent on doing. that's why i didn't support cloture. that's why i will not vote to send aid to ukraine without securing our southern border. on sunday i came down to the floor again to ask again that a fair and open amendment process be held. so i made a motion to table the motion to recommit. i did so, you see, because i care about the rights and the perspectives of my colleagues and being forced to cave to the demands of the leadership of the opposite party was something being forced on quite unfairly, quite wrongly. when i ran for office, i understood that i may have to take tough votes from time to

time. as we're often told, if you don't want to fight fires, don't sign up to be a firefighter. if you don't want to take tough votes, don't run for any legislative office. this is just part of the job. so i ask that each member of this body be able to offer amendments and to debate those amendments as he or she chose. my colleagues decided to decline that proposition voting against it. the senate cast its final cloture vote to end debate a few hours ago. republicans as we approached that time continued to ask for more amendments, but continued to be blocked. to my colleagues, i'd remind them we didn't have to vote for cloture.

not a single republican had to vote for cloture last night. the bill as drafted doesn't have to pass even today, even though cloture has been achieved, it still doesn't have to. but last night, as of last night republicans couldn't resist the temptation, 17 of them, to help. democrats couldn't pass it on their own. 17 democrats chose to help them. if we were to stand together and we were to voted against cloture on the underlying bill, we could have prolonged the debate enabling the opportunity for us to pass germane amendments of which there were many, of which i had introduced many, that could remove or fix many of the flaws that i've previously outlined. so while deeply concerning all of this is, as deeply concerning as all of this is, i do maintain some hope in the fact that

speaker of the house mike johnson has been clear. the bill as drafted is dead on arrival in the house. so i ask the question in closing, why would we vote to send a bill, why would senate republicans, 17 of them, play any role in sending a bill to a majority republican house, one that is destined to fail in the house? doing so is counterproductive and doesn't advance the interests of the republican majority in the house. i hope that as we move forward, we'll do things differently, and i hope that on this vote, i'd ask once again for republicans to stand together and oppose this bill, even if they voted for previous cloture motions. they don't have to vote yes on final passage.

in any event, this debate shouldn't conclude and we should remember that we should not pass legislation that fails to secure our border and ignore the interests of the american people even while shoring up the borders of ukraine. as their elected lawmakers, as those who have been sent by states to represent their interest in the united states senate, i know we can do better. a no vote is a vote to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves. those subjected to indentured servitude, to sex slavery, those whose communities, whose soup kitchens, whose homeless shelters, whose church pews, classrooms are being overrun. we stand with them by voting

against this bill. i stand for the rule of law and against lawlessness, cartels, and all the horrors that go along with them. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. mrs. murray: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on passage of the bill as amended. and the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 30, h.r. 815, an act to amend title 38, united states code, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote: . the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. vote:

the clerk: mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. the clerk: mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth.

mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly.

mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. the clerk: mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey.

mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen.

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

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

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- butler, cortez masto, duckworth, durbin,ernst, grassley, hassan, heinrich, hickenlooper, kaine, mendendez, murphy, murray, padilla, peters, rounds, schatz, schumer, sinema, smith,

stabenow, tester, warnock, whitehouse. ms. baldwin, aye. mr. cardin, aye. senators voting in the negative -- barrasso, cotton, daines, fischer, lee, mullin, scott of south carolina.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. mr. ricketts, no. ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. thune, aye. the clerk: mr. sanders, no. ms. murkowski, aye.

vote: the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, no. ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye. the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. mr. lankford, no.

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

the clerk: mrs. britt, no. mr. rubio, no. the clerk: mr. risch, aye. mrs. capito, aye.

mr. bennet, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye. mr. blumenthal, aye. the clerk: mr. vance, no. mr. wicker, aye. mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. mr. paul, no. mr. hoeven, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no. mr. markey, aye. the clerk: mr. romney, aye.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. reed, aye. the clerk: mr. coons, aye. test.

vote: phish the clerk: mr. merkley, no.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. hagerty, no.

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

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no. mr. kennedy, aye. mr. moran, aye.

the clerk: mr. crapo, aye.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no. mr. booker, aye. the clerk: ms. hirono, aye.

the clerk: mr. budd, no.

mrs. blackburn, no.

the clerk: mr. braun, no. the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. mr. sullivan, aye. mr. marshall, no.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye.