in such clear ways and that, of course, should give us all hope towards a path of freedom. >> well, with those beautiful words, join me in thanking, them [applause] >> today, former president donald trump is holding a campaign rly in florida less than a week before the republican national convention is set to begin in milwaee where he's expected to officially accept the 2024 g.o.p. nomination. you n watch the events in flida live at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span now. our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. ♪♪ the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced,

unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policies debate and decided all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> the u.s. senate is gavelling in to consider a few more of president biden's nominees, a member of the defense nuclear facility safety board as well as a couple of judicial nominations. three vote series are planned today the first at noon eastern. live coverage. u.s. senate here on c-span2. ... the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. let us pray. gracious god, you are known by many names, worshipped in many

houses, and you we live, move, and have our being. strengthen us now in the work that you have allowed us to do, that our country might know your grace, your justice, and your mercy. center the concerns of the marginalized and may the words of the prophet live in our lives. let justice roll down like waters. and righteousness as a mighty stream. grant that our work might bring good news to the poor and all of god's children might be blessed. in the name of the god who loves us and to freedom and freeze us into loving. amen. please join me in recite be the pledge -- reciting the pledge of aleague yarns to the flag -- allegiance to the flag.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., july 9, 2024. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael g. warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, defense nuclear facility safety board, patricia l. lee of south carolina to be a member.

more than ten $20 about 35% 35% of our national debt stems from two economic shocks to the economy. the 2008 financial crisis and pandemic. as we've heard over and over again at all hearings the economic shocks from climate change may well be worse. i suspect the direct would be the first to greet his tenure baseline projections are shot if we experience another massive shock to the economy. ignoring looming systemic economic shocks to the economy would be imprudent, even dangerous. prior to the 2008 financial

crisis the committee held no hearings on brewing trouble in the mortgage markets, nor did this committee held a single hearing on the economic risks from global pandemics. if this committee or any committee had more effectively of those living shocks and congress had bitten acted to better regulate mortgage markets to invest in vaccines velvet and pandemic preparedness, lives would've been saved and trillions of economic harm avoided. and a first hearing we held under my chairmanship i spoke about science as the headlights for humanity. a well-run committee can shine the headlights of knowledge, including knowledge about climate have come into the future to head off the dangers lurking there. our national debt is not only the result of those to the economic shocks, of course. it is also result of repeated rounds of republican tax cut that primarily benefited giant corporations and very, very wealthy individuals. the bush and trump tax cuts skewed to the wealthy and big

corporations have added another $10 trillion to the national debt. if not for those tax cuts, the debt to gdp ratio, our best physical safety metric, would be declining in perpetuity, helping the wealthy avoid taxes is such an infatuation that house republicans even brought the united states to the brink of default trying to prevent the irs from cracking down on wealthy tax cheats. the third great driver of our physical perils is an aging population. as our population ages we spend more on social security and medicare. add in the developed worlds most inefficient healthcare, and you've got a huge fiscal cost. cbo has found reforming how we pay for healthcare and increasing participation in accountable care organizations and other value-based care enterprises can save money without cutting benefits.

indeed, cbo found actual and projected federal health spending over the 2010-2033 period was $6.3 trillion, ex $.3 trillion lower than predicted, , which i attribute o improving quality and moving to value-based care. i am pleased we working with ranking member grassley and other republicans on delivery system reform proposals to do more of that. democrats have always pledged to protect and preserve social security and medicare. for years republicans sought to cut both programs. now they say they don't. if so, that is wonderful news and i applaud it. if we all agree that we're not cutting social security and medicare, and we all agree that their trust funds become cash and solvent in approximately ten years, there's only one solution left, raise new revenues. to find social security and medicare. we can do this by d corrupting

the tax code so that the corporation and billionaires don't pay less in taxes than firefighters. my medical social security fair share act will protect social security and medicare forever. or leaves for as far as actuarial science can see. imagine if american families could erase from the list of worries what it social security and medicare won't be there for me? what a blessing that would be. for 18 months we've heard a citi course of republican voices expressing alarm about debt and deficits and calling for this committee to focus on israel job. it's hard to reconcile that with republicans voting for the 2017 reconciliation bill that cut taxes for the wealthy and large corporations and blew a a $2 trillion hole in the deficit. it is hard to reconcile that with republican plans to extend those cuts and at almost $5 $5 trillion more to the deficit. and it's hard to reconcile that with republican calls to spend

an extra $6 trillion on defense with no proposed offsets. and what is the republican plan for the looming insolvencies of the social security and medicare trust funds? back to republicans live in a fantasy world of a balanced budget with extended trump tax cuts and funded social security medicare defense and veterans programs. can't happen. cbo says it's arithmetically impossible, even republicans cut everything else to zero in the entire budget. to get real about debt and deficits we have to avert climate driven shocks and persistent climate inflation tequesta de-corrupting the tax code so that the corporations and billionaires are no longer a favored free writing elite, and we have to bring down health care costs without cutting

benefits with commonsense delivery system reforms. which is why i focus on those things. senator grassley. >> before i read my statement, -- what you said about salsas good and medicare, and annette criticizing what you said. i'm going back to this comes up, why can't you guys can do something about saving so scary and medicare? and i, i use history as an example. i always start out by saying you know why nothing gets done in washington, d.c. about medicare and social security now? there's no break-ins and tip o'neill in this town anymore. because they found where were going to be -- reagan and tip o'neill -- ten years on these two programs, they were right there in 1983 or 84 or whenever it was.

and they raised taxes. they cut benefits. they changed formulas, and probably did a whole lot of other things that i don't remember. and, and they probably thought they were doing something for 20 years, i tell my constituents, but they did something for 50 years out. we still go to 2033. and, and they did it because they got together and said, you know, these programs are i guess then there are only talk about social security. social security was so important we can't let it go broke. and, and they built up a surplus that we are still using of trillions and trillions of dollars, and that's going to be spent down by 2033. and if we don't do something, sosa security is going to be cut. it's going to be cut by i i gs

23% or something. so i guess i'm trying to come if there's any comment that in trying to make to you, it is that they didn't just raise taxes. they got together in a program that was bipartisan and probably passed the senate 90-10, and i and i voted for. well, mr. chairman, i thank you for agreeing to my request for today's hearing with directors wego. it's been nearly four years since the cbo director last testified before the senate budget committee, the nation's budget outlook. that's far too long or what is traditionally been a routine occurrence in the budget committee, particularly given the budget hole we dug ourselves into. federal reserve chairman powell stated earlier this year that it's, quote, pastime to get back

to an adult conversation about elected officials, about getting the federal government back on a sustainable path, end of quotation. today and the budget committee that conversation is finally taking place. director swagel, thank you for coming and and i think you'g to tell each of us things that we rather not hear, but that's part and parcel of having what chairman powell called an adult conversation. so in moving beyond the partisan blame game of who is most at fault for our fiscal mess, president biden try to play this game at the recent presidential debate in an attempt to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. the reality is that president biden has been dragged kicking and screaming to agree that even modest spending restraints as part of last years fiscal

responsibility act. the fact is our nation's that will soon top 35 trillion. next years interest payments will exceed $1 trillion, and in ten years social security will go broke if we don't take bipartisan action to save it. i shouldn't say go broke because you are still going to have revenue coming in that will pay 77% of what benefits are today. cbo has warned congress for decades that we face a fiscal reckoning due to ballooning mandatory spending. that reckoning is now at our doorstep. absent action, rising debt will leave future generations facing higher interest rates, lower incomes, greater inflation, and the risk of full-blown fiscal crisis. avoiding this requires a robust discussion of revenue and

spending. as i've said in previous hearings, i have a record of going after genuine loopholes and wasteful carveouts, and i'm open to reviewing tax subsidies. now a very good place to start is with those in the so-called inflation reduction act, , which cbo has had actually increases inflation. ending the laws subsidies for luxuries, luxury evs and other regressing giveaways that have exploded in costs could net hundreds of billions of savings. contrary to claims from the left, taxing the so-called rich is no silver bullet for fiscal outlook. even confiscating, i want to emphasize confiscating, not taxing, all income over

$1 million would not close our $2 trillion deficit. history proves that high tax rates failed to raise significant revenue. so i'm repeating something i said here a couple meetings ago. taxpayers and workers and investors are smarter than we are in the united states senate, because we've had 93 marginal tax rates. then 70% 70% marginal tax r, 50%, 30%, backed up to 40%. and you can go on and on, but regardless of the rate, we brought in about the same amount of democracy faces a test of survival in 2024. almost eight years ago, donald trump was elected president and commenced one of the most chaotic periods our country has seen in our lifetimes. under a trump presidency, republicans tried to rip away

affordable health care for tens of millions of american families, and they nearly succeeded. under a trump presidency, republicans packed our courts with radical judges who took america back half a century by repealing roe v. wade. this week, the senate will take up a simple resolution cosponsored by every female senator in our caucus, and myself, that asks a very simple question -- where do senators stand on freedom of choice? do we believe that a woman should have a basic right to reproductive care? do we agree that the rights protected under roe should be federal law? freedom of choice is perhaps the defining issue for americans this year, and this week every senator must show where he or she stands. of course, there's more. under a trump presidency megacorpses -- megacorporations and the wealthy saw their taxes go down and profits go up, while

middle-class families paid more for prescription drugs and child care and other basicness tist. -- basicness at thises. the pandemic was far worse than it needed to be, because donald trump refused to confront it head on. and refused to be honest with the american people. we live in constant anxiety about the next -- we lived, back then, in constant anxiety about the next tweet from the white house. our allies saw trump and questioned if they could trust him, while autocrats saw trump and wanted to being like him. it's no wonder trump paid fealty to putin and buddied up to kim jong un. it was downright un-american. trump wants to did it all again. for all the chaos and disaster of the first trump presidency, it pales in comparison to the threat of a second trump

presidency and the threat it would pose to our democracy. over the last few weeks, there's been a lot of attention about policy platform drafted by the heritage foundation, arguably the most influential conservative think tank in america. the platform, in effect, is the trump manifesto. the project is staffed by over 200 former officials of the trump presidency and is connected to trump cabinet members, former campaign advisors, political appointees and more. if you read through this manifesto, it's very clear what the hard right is telling america -- put us in power, and we will gut america from the inside out. trump's manifesto calls for the most conservative agenda america has ever seen, one that makes 1964 barry goldwater look like a moderate. it lays the groundwork for a nationwide abortion ban, and called for removes mifepristone

from the market. it defunds the department of education and calls for reversing democrats' clean energy agenda, while empowering the biggest oil and gas polluters. is the trump manifesto calls for silencing and attacking all of donald trump's political enemies. the hard right is done speaking in euphemisms. they're saying it straight to our faces -- if you disagree with donald trump, watch your back. to see this happen in america is bone chilling. maga's political threats are reminiscent of the autocratic fervor in europe in the 20th century. for the first time, we're wondering could it ever happen in america? hope not. all keeps goings -- keeps going. it defunds federal law enforcement and replacing thousands of federal personnel with individuals loyal, above all, to donald trump, and finally, of course, the trump

manifesto calls for more tax cuts for the very wealthy, more tax cuts for corporate elites, more tax cuts for maga corporations and oil and gas polluters. this is really the end goal of maga extremism -- tax cuts for the top 1%, dystopia for everybody else. donald trump promised that he would be a dictator on day one, and this manifesto is the playbook for how he will follow through on that threat. it's dangerous. the damage may be irreversible. the destruction could be unthinkable. and it would be a betrayal of everything that our framers fought for, that the union fought for, that the greatest generation fought for. donald trump cannot, must not be allowed within ten miles of the oval office ever again. now, on nato, this week, the united states will welcome nato leaders to washington for the 2024 nato summit.

western democracy faces perhaps its gravest threat since the cold war. so this year's nato summit comes at an inflection point. russia's invasion of ukraine rages on, putin's cruelty, cruelty shows no sign of softening. we read yesterday a hard breaking an -- heartbreaking and infuriating report. russian missile strikes owe blitted a -- owe blit realtyed a -- obliterated a wing of a children's hospital. shooting a missile hat a children's hospital? it's vicious, it's knappsy, and shows -- it's nasty and shows what a skoupd rel putin is. my hard breaks -- my heart breaks for those children in hospitals. the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, drowning in grief. again, this was the largest children's hospital in the ukrainian capital. where kids with cancer were going. a place that should be off limits to anyone who is a

decent, honorable human being, who has at all a heart. putin has none of that, no decency, no honor, no heart. it shows how utterly morally bankrupt putin's invasion of ukraine is. a lot of hard right extremists, led by donald trump, tried to kill ukraine aid earlier this year, but putin's attack against a children's hospital shows why it is essential for america to stand with ukraine. they are fighting an evil brute in russia, and the worst thing america can do is show weakness against putin or tell ukraine we'll abandon them. i'm glad we stepped up earlier. as nato leaders gather in d.c. this week, nothing less than the future of western democracy is at stake. president biden will bring an unmistakable message to our nato allies, as well as adversaries

watching across the world -- america will never turn its back on nato. my senate colleagues and i will be honored to welcome the leaders of nato here at the capitol this week, as well as president zelenskyy of ukraine. in the senate, we'll send president zelenskyy and our nato allies the same message we've shared from day one -- america will never turn its pack on you. the -- turn its back on you. the same cannot be said for donald trump. remember, donald trump called nato obsolete and said that he would encourage russia to do, quote, whatever the hell they want, unquote, to our nato allies. amazing. this is the wrong message to send to nato with so much at stake around the world. it's another example why the maga hard right can't be trusted to lead on the global stabling -- to lead on the global stage. the fire grants and safety act we passed in the senate, helping our firefighters get the commonality they needed -- get the equipment they need, added more firefighters they need,

making us all safer, making our firefighters safer, and finally renewing the old fire grants and safer act that senator dodd and i passed in 2002 is a great thing. today, the president will sign it. i salute president biden for supporting this legislation and helping us get it through the congress. i salute our firefighters, both paid and volunteer, who rush to danger to protect us when there is danger aflowed. so god bless them, and i'm glad the fire grants and safety act that backs them up will be signed into law in a few hours. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> that's correct. and interest payments have gone up but as you said the not interest payments have gone down. >> to put this into context, take a look at this graphic here, which shows from 1994- 1994-2054, how revenues and spending will work. social security has gone up and is a consistent with an aging population? >> that right. that results from an agent vibration. >> health-care spending has has gone up even more pictures that relate to an agent by pleasure? >> right, both aging population of rapid growth in health costs. >> the other mandatory spending had a huge surge right here. can you explain what that was? was a covert? >> that's covid. spending because of the senate rules, the spending in the regulation bill, i'm sorry the covid spin the end end of t1 reconciliation spending was all

mandatory. >> and here's defense discretionary spending. and then this is nondefense discretionary spending. what you can see has been fairly constant over all of those years. years. this is a place our republican friends want to focus all of their attention related to debt and deficits but i think as we can see even if you view road that out, we still wouldn't get out of our problems, great? >> that's correct. that even if discretionary spending was entirely eliminated, that wouldn't take the deficit to zero. >> and then as has been pointed out, interest costs are what are going up. that's the biggest number. and is it true that tax cuts have an effect on the interest obligations of the country? >> that's right. the rising interest payments as

you noted reflect both higher interest rates and also more debt, and the tax cuts lead to less revenue which mean more debt. >> so what i've added here, this is what our actual revenue has looked like, if the bush tax cuts have not been extended back in 2012, here's what our revenue would look like. we would be darn close to operating in an effective way. so, you can ascribe an enormous amount of our problems to the extension of the bush tax cuts, according to -- are these numbers correct? can you vouch for the extension of the bush tax cuts having that much of an effect on revenues? >> i would have to look at it. i haven't, you know, from this distance i can't see it. but certainly the 2012 extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax act had an effect on revenue as you

said. >> pretty massive effect on debt and on deficits because of lost revenues, correct? >> that's right. >> and one other one i want to show you. if you look at what's been added to the national debt, this is trump time, 3.6 trillion was added. and that was covid relate so we can understand that was a little bit of an emergency. but the 4.8 trillion was non-covid, added to the debt. by contrast, there still 2.1 trillion left under biden, but to .2 trillion in non-covid. so does the math add up that under biden the addition to the debt is less than half been under trump? >> i mean come on it had to the numbers, but as you said the

debt, the dollars per debt and debt ratio went way up especially during the pandemic but even before that the debt ratio went up. >> senator grassley. >> mr. chairman, you referred to analysis of claim to compare trump and biden fiscal records. i've criticized both presidents for not doing enough to control spending and deficits, but i don't put much stock in a study of biden fiscal mr. mcconnell: in 1949, 12 nations gathered here in washington to establish the north atlantic treaty organization. 75 years later, our nation welcomes nato's 32 members back for a pivotal summit. the most successful military alliance in human history has

shepherded the free world through serious challenges. from nuclear-armed cold war to vicious terrorist attacks to a new chapter of multipolar competition. in -- this has always been a collective effort but has always required american leadership and today america and our allies face a serious task of resolve. russian aggression, iran-backed terror, unchecked nuclear proliferation from north korea, and china's bid for he had gem me aren't just regional concerns. it's an increasingly coordinated threat to american security and

prosperity. the trans-atlantic alliance faces doubts at home and abroad about the credibility of our commitment to uphold this order. all nato allies will share the risk if it is undone. all of us will suffer if autocrats and despots succeed in rewriting rules and redrawing maps. even still on the occasion of the washington summit, there are encouraging signs that nato is rising to meet the challenges. two years on, brutal russian

escalation hasn't just woken european allies from decades of neglect for their military capabilities, it spurred a sea change in defense policy all across europe and a renaissance of investment industrial bases and cutting-edge weapons. across europe, america's allies are investing 18% more on their defenses than they were a year ago. more than two-thirds of nato's members have now met or exceeded the alliance's 2% defense spending target. and just as important, many are committing 20% of their defense budgets to procuring new weapons

and capabilities. but the latest data to more than confirm the end of our holiday from history. it also approves a what i've been -- it also proves what i've been explaining for years. when america leads, allies invest here in america. two-thirds of our allies investment in defense procurement is going to buy american-made weapons and systems. right now u.s. industry is filling more than $140 billion in contracts booked by european allies. many allies also are expanding their own defense industrial capacity and encouraging -- an encouraging and necessary step that will make nato even more

resilient. of course, one of the most encouraging developments since the last nato summit has been the addition of two strong new allies with highly capable militaries and cutting-edge industrial bases of their own. it was a tremendous honor to work closely with the leaders of finland and sweden throughout their asession -- being a section to the a -- accession to otoalliance and i am proud to host them this week. today the enemies of western peace and prosperity are giving us good reason -- good reason -- to take the strength of our alliances and partnerships even more seriously. the authoritarians in rogue states seeking to undermine us are all working together. we can't afford not to do the same.

that's why all nato allies need to take hard power more seriously. with a 2% defense spending target as a floor, but not a ceiling. why these spending increases must be built into base budgets, not treated as one-off emergencies. and why contracting and procurement have to move at the speed of relevance, not the speed of bureaucracy. these lessons apply as much to america as they do to our european allies. and they apply even more so to our neighbor to the north, canada, one of the only allies without a planning to reach the -- without a plan to reach the 2% spending target. it's encouraging that as nato members address the deficiencies of our own security obligations, we join this week by essential

non-nato partners who are taking increasingly clear-eyed approaches to their own security. the presence of leaders from the indo-pacific is an especially powerful reminder of our shared stake in the future of a western order that preserves the freedom, navigation, territorial integrity, and the right to self-determination. i'll have more to say as the week goes on, but i'm grateful for the opportunity to welcome america's friends to washington at this critical time, and i'm hopeful that together the alliance will make headway on the serious business before us. on one final matter, last week a federal judge in louisiana blocked the biden administration's de facto ban on new permitting for the export of america's abundant liquefied

natural gas. as i've said before, the administration's so-called pause is bad policy for a whole host of reasons. it hurts good-paying american jobs and could drive energy prices through the roof. of course, when the flow of lng cellulose down, it also -- slows down, it also presents close allies and trading partners with the prospect of increased reliance on dirtier energy from less savory places. the majority of exports go to consumers in asia an europe. as the biden administration tries to choke off american dominance, russian export dominance is actually surging to meet demand. russia is lining its war chest with the spoils of its energy.

the president's own energy secretary describes it as the dirtiest form of natural gas on earth. it is a dizzying move that until now has put grain activists in the driver's cismd it doesn't past muster in federal court where a judge ruled in favor of the 16 states who sued to block this ridiculous, ridiculous moratorium. the judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the department of energy failed to justify the pause on lng exports and that they, quote -- this is from the judge -- failed to consider the impact on national security, state revenues, employment opportunities, funding for schools and charities, and pollution allegedly caused by

increased reliance on foreign energy sources. well, mr. president, there you have it. the courts have slapped down the biden administration's disregard for the law. now it's time to release american energy projects from the regulatory purgatory where they've been trapped for far too long. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin. >> yet we continue from our republican friends that we should target irs funding as part of the increasing deficit. last question. how does the resending funds provided to the irs under the inflation reduction act impact revenue and deficit? >> so in our calculation a

dollar the coast of the irs result in an additional two dollars of revenue. so for a net of one. so the rescissions on that increase the deficit. >> thank you. appreciate that. >> senator marshall is up now. senator padilla has to go and preside, so i think with senator lujan permission we will reverse the order will be marshall, padilla, the next republican, and then senator lujan. >> i'm happy to yield to senator padilla if he needs to scoot. >> want to go ahead? don't worry. you will be next. that's kind of you, thank you. [inaudible] >> thank you both for your accommodation and consideration.

thank thank you, mr. chair,s opportunity. mr. director, how are you sporting? >> thank you. very well. >> thank you for being here. i'm pleased that this opportunity to talk to you about a subject that i've been interested in a long, long time, and i'm speaking specifically to the dynamic of immigration and its impacts on our economy. come from the state of california, the most popular state in the nation, the most diverse state in the nation, home to more emigrants and its largest economy than any state the nation so we know full well immigration and contribution of immigrants is critical to the economy and critical to the growth of the united states. and now thanks to the hard work of the cbo you of all crunched the numbers and now project a

u.s. revenue will be 12., $1.2 trillion higher over the next ten years because of the impact of migrants, migrants in the workforce as we sit seet today. and i would imagine that given my republican colleagues obsession with our debt, that they would welcome the news that cbo also found that this increased immigration, migrants and impact on the workforce leads to lower deficits. so seems like something that they would embrace. so would you please speak to the cbo was able to quantify the economic benefits of immigration, and what the impact would be on revenue to the federal treasury if more than 10 million undocumented immigrants, many in the workforce, , were to be deporte? >> yes. so we haven't, we haven't analyzed the deportation but

there's a sense in which it would be the opposite of the immigration increased that you mention. so we said this about a $9 trillion increase in gdp from immigrants coming in. they add to the labor force. they pay taxes. they fill jobs. as deportation would would in some sense reverse that, that it would be a big negative hit the gdp. the labor force and revenue would go down. >> seems pretty logical to me so thank you for that. i know you are from the cbo, not the department of labor, but i also think if you look at the data that is out there, even with the level of migration we've seen in the course of the last decade, we are experiencing record sustained low levels of unemployment. and wages continue to rise here so for those concerned, those who spread a false rhetoric that well, emigrants are taking

american jobs, or there a downward force on wages, that has proven to be false. do you have any data that would suggest otherwise? >> no, that's right. there's a sense in which the immigration surge explained how our economy continue to grow rapidly and create jobs, even when the labor market say two years ago look to be tight. immigrants adding to the labor force, these are additional jobs and additional income. >> so also want to ask about a related dynamic that is a priority concern for this committee. senator braun has joined us and is always one of first, if not the first to raise concerns about the debt. were talking of the contributions of immigrants to the workforce and to the economy, at the net benefit that there's been on revenues, debt reduction, et cetera. but we also, speaking to this committee rightly, about the

solvency of our social safety net programs, particularly social security and medicare. between 2010-2020 the u.s. saw its slowest population growth of any decade since the 1930s. and it presents a huge challenge to those social safety net programs that rely on current workers to find the benefits for america's retirees. and we know that immigrants helped sustain the programs like social security and medicare even though they don't benefit from this programs themselves. in 2022 alone emigrants paid emigrants paid over $570 billion in federal, state and local taxes. so would you please discuss the impact on the solvency of our social safety net programs if, due to potential change in our immigration policies, that we would realize significant reduction in our workforce? >> so we look carefully at the composition of immigration surge, and they are very heavily

skewed towards working age adults. these are emigrants have a hype at principe to work they have a strong incentive to work on the books once he received authorization generally within six months. -- propensity. many of them will face a hearing in seven seven to ten yead working on the book full-time. so all that means more revenue for social security, increases the financial, representative rizo financial situation of social security system and yeah, again, it's just like the overall revenue. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator marshall, for your courtesy to senator padilla. it is now your floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome, director swagel. if there's one thing clear from this meeting, it's that my friends across the aisle have promised they will raise your taxes, that that is their solution to everything is to

raise your taxes. folks, we don't have a taxing problem in this government. we have a spending problem. the tax, the trump tax gets delisted that if you lower taxes, grows the economy and increases the tax revenue. it's a rising tide raising all boats. i think it's quite evident. no one can argue that. it is an arguable. but what's not arguable is that, that indeed these tax cuts indeed have worked in the past. dr. swagel, let me ask you, do you ever reviewed your work in the past? do you go back and look at the last ten years and say what percentage will be off in our scores? >> we do. we go back for major legislation and analyze what interns will become right and what we got wrong. >> what has your scoresheet look like speaking in general? >> so we compare ourselves to

other major forecasters, and we do pretty well. there are some things -- >> no, you don't do well. you just missed the deficit this year by half $1 trillion. that's not doing well. i just, don't you think you're off ten, 20, 30, 40% on most of the big numbers? >> right. from february to june the deficit went up by 27% mainly because of actions taken by the administration. so the student loans, fdic actions on medicaid that right, we are providing you with the current speed is so through executive yet they added goodness three or four, goodness, guess a trillion dollars. >> that's right, between student loans and the other pieces. there several hundred billion dollars. >> would you have the ability to score, if we did our job come if we all, overhauled the budget act of 1994 and divisions with the president said in a budget on time, if we did a meaningful bipartisan senate budget

resolution and we went back to regular order and the house did their job, if we did a a real budget, with that of impact on how much money we spend and is it something you could help generate a cbo score for? >> i mean, we would certainly support the congress in doing that. it's hard to say what the outcome would be, you know, of regular order would certainly be a change. i can't tell you what the physical speedy certainly in the private sector do a meaningful budget and then use that as the blueprint not allow and administration to tack on like he just mention almost a trillion dollars of unsuspected spending through executive fiat, which is unconstitutional the way they did it. as mentioned before, the 2024 budget deficit is going to be $2 trillion. we're going to spend 2 trillion more than we take in in this year. the administration added 2.1

trillion with the american rescue plan, another $800 billion with the inflation simulation act. people called inflation reduction act. called the inflation reduction act. it's actually inflationary as well as over another trillion unilaterally as you make it through executive action, student loans 400 billion. they redefined the thrifty plan, another $300 billion billion dollars. and then they did some who do with the aca and another $300 billion as well -- voodoo. want to talk about snap for a second. we're in the middle of trying to write a farm bill and i'm concerned about the politics at play in supporting a piece of legislation that is extremely important to everybody. farm bill 85% of the farm bill is farm bill is snap payments, nutritional programs. the largest part of the farm bill also has the highest fraud rate and the error rate. there's been an annual repayment rate of 10%. stopping the error rates, stopping the fraud, stopping the overpayments resulting in the

$100 billion in savings to the step program over the next ten years. so if we get rid of the fraud and abuse and tears it would save $100 billion over ten years. giblet fixing the error rate in step with the cut to the program? >> to make sure the beneficiaries who are supposed yet to get the benefits are getting them and not other people. >> okay. the bipartisan farm fonda d out of the house ag committee has a provision in the top which preserves snap benefits and ensure the benefits can modestly increase with the cost of living. now, my friends across the aisle call these provisions the largest cut to snap in history. in your opinion you consider this a cut? >> so after we saw what the administration did with the thrifty food plant within had to assume that in the future that could be such large increases again. and i said before that was about

200-$250 million of additional cost. that gets built into the basement of what the houses that is scale of that back and so there's a sense in which they are preventing a future administration from doing the kind of increase that was done. >> that meant net at the end of they will be spending more money on snap in the future than we are today. >> that's correct. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you again for your courtesy, senator marshall, and thank you, senator lujan for your courtesy to your call expect your recognize. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. director, radiation exposure, this program was to provide compensation justice to those americans who suffer devastating health impacts of inferior weapon development and testing. despite being treated 34 years ago, people in states like new mexico, which is where the first nuclear bomb was tested without warning to people in these communities, or left out of the

program. even the author of this legislation, may he rest in peace, former senator from utah, orrin hatch, he referenced this before he passed away about mistakes were made in this legislation and how new mexico is one of those mistakes not being included, not including post-1971 workers, which are uranium mine workers the work in the minds after 1971 side-by-side with people that qualify for the program doing the same jobs. these americans, many of whom were the unwilling and unknowing victims of radiation exposure have waited too long for justice. the senate has not passed my bill to strengthen with -- twice but we have yet to get a full analysis of the impacts of the program. meanwhile, house has refused to act. as a result the clock ticks on and americans continue to wait. those from new mexico to utah to

idaho and many of the states have fought cancer. too many have died. and even watched family die. alone, being ignored. all without recognition from the government that made them sick. now, dr. swagel, as you work to get the full score i i would e you or your analysts, and preferably all of us to get together in a room to meet with me and my staff and walk me through the state-by-state breakdown of who would benefit from this improved program. when you commit to securing that meeting? >> yes, sir. because of the past legislation took to the senate floor, as you said you didn't get a full cost estimate from cbo. we have given some rough guides on the cost but you have my commitment that will come to you and take you through the

estimate. a a challenge for us is a state-by-state part just because we're set up to do federal costs. and so analyzing wednesday at the time is a challenge but we will, and do as much as we can to make sure you get the information you need. >> have you done state-by-state analysis before? >> you know, not of this program. we have some programs but not this one. >> dr. swagel, you conducted analysis from wyoming? >> i'm sorry, sagan? >> the state of wyoming. >> no, we haven't. >> yes, cbo has and if he done it for new mexico? >> not separately. >> i've been told because the mistake that was made by cbo with initial score, i was aplenty getting into this but this can be something clued in the record as to what the capability are or are not, wyoming and mexico had to be reviewed because there was a mistake of including analysis of wyoming when wyoming was not included in the original bill and new mexico was. so cbo had to look at that from

its initial score to where we are, the score the cbo came up t with initial drop was $160 billion, , $150 billion. this program was started back in 1990. its cost us a lot of money, 2.2 billion. it's hard for me to understand without seeing disaggregated data of the program grows exponentially from 2.2 over 30 years to 75% higher. so i think it's important for us to get to there. i think the other offices will also be very interested in presenting the facts to the congress, to my colleagues come to the american people about what this is and what this is not. i very muchpu are. mr. thune: i ask that are it be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: the supreme court recently concluded its term. as predicted, democrats met the decisions they didn't like with

howls of outrage. we will fight to rein in if the outrageous abuses of this brazen court, one democrat offered tem prattly. we must expand the court now, another cried, before it, quote, destroys our democracy and our planet, end quote. yet another announced that she would be filing impeachment articles against a supreme court justice, or justices, presumably for the high crime of ruling in a way had she -- in a way that she didn't like. mr. president, for years now, since at least the last administration, democrats have been engaged in a concerted campaign to paint the supreme court as illegitimate and extreme. we've heard about stolen seats and maga justices, and other

melodramatic statements meant to persuade the american people the supreme court has somehow been hijacked. but what it all boils down it, mr. president, is this -- democrats think that the only legitimate supreme court is a supreme court that rules in line with democrats' policy preferences. that's it, mr. president. that's what all of this boils down it -- all of this boils down to. democrats can dress things up with a host of why this court is illeg illegitimate, but the truth of the matter is democrats' real problem with this court is that a number of the justices have had the temerity to periodically deliver rulings with which democrats disagree. if this court were universally delivering the outcomes democrats want, they would have

no problem with the court or its republican nominees. mr. president, i could spend time debunking democrats' wild claims. i could point out how often this court delivers unanimous deci decisions. yes, contrary to what you might think from democrats' lurid statements, the democrat nominees and the republican nominees are frequently in unanimous agreement. i can talk about how often some of the court's more conservative justices, and some of the court's more liberal justices, agree. but i'm not going to do that today. because i'd like to spend a minute talking about the profound irresponse built democrats are -- irresponsiblity democrats are display. we hear about their concern four our institutions. yet, they are attempting to lee legitimize a bedrock american institution for the crime of periodically daring to deliver

decisions with which democrats disagree. and at a time of deep political division, i can think of few things more irresponsible than attempting to shake americans faith in the impartiality of the court and legitimacy of our institutions. mr. president, i realize the democrats don't like it when a decision doesn't go their way, and i completely understand that. i've disagreed with a few supreme court decisions in my time. but it's one thing, a legitimate thing to disagree with a decision. it's another thing entirely to let your disagreement lead you into attempting to delegitimize a dual constituted court composed of nine duly confirmed justices. i hate to tell democrats, but in our -- but in a democrat republican such -- there a democrat republic such as ours you don't always get your you

way. the proper response, when you don't get your way, is not to attempt to tear down institutions tore pack the court -- or pack the court so you always get the outcome you want. mr. president, before i close, there is one other thing i'd like to address. that is the disturbing anti-religious sentiment that cropped up in recent democrat attacks on the court. it's not a new thing for democrats, of course t. we all remember the democrat ranking member of the senate judiciary committee telling then circuit court nominee amy coney barrett, i quote, that the dogma lives loudly within you, end quote. with the implication that anyone who takes his or her religious faith seriously can't be trusted to hold public office. another judicial nominee faced scrutiny for membership in the knights of columbus, a catholic organization that participates in such disturbing activities as

serving veterans, raising money for the needy and providing young people with scholarships. during the last presidential election cycle, a biden staffer stated she'd prefer that orthodox catholics, muslims and jews not sit on the supreme court. now, it would appear that anti-religious sentiment is back, with more than one senate democrat suggesting that certain members of the supreme court can't be trusted because they happen to take their religious faith seriously. these democrats take the fact that these members of the court have periodically ruled in ways that democrats don't like as evidence that they're attempting to impose their faith instead of the law. with the implication that religious people are incapable of distinguishing between the two. mr. president, the constitution is very clear on whether being a person of faith can disqualify you from public office.

article 6, i quote, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust ont the -- under the united states, end quote. let me repeat that. no religious test shall ever, ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. it's becoming clear that that isn't a section -- that isn't a section of our constitution that democrats agree with, or at least understand, and that is deeply disturbing. i shouldn't have to tell democrats that religious people are as capable as any other in distinguishing between their beliefs and the law, or that our founders did not intend for religious people to be second-class citizens, or that a supreme court justice disagreeing with a democrat does not mean that the supreme court justice is attempting to impose

his or her faith. it likely means that he or she is trying to impose the law and the constitution. i'm a little tired of members of the democrat party promoting the un-american idea that taking your faith seriously makes you less qualified to participate in the public square. mr. president, if democrats really cared about protect our democracy and american institutions, they'd stopped trying to undermine the legitimacy of the supreme court. with democrats' inability to deal with not getting their way, and with an upcoming election this november, i'm not going to be holding my breath. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, it was 11 years ago that i wrote a

letter to john roberts, the chief justice of the supreme court, 11 years ago, asking him a basic question -- mr. chief justice, why is it that you believe the nine justices that sit on the supreme court should be treated differently than any other person in federal government when it comes to the code of ethics? i didn't receive a reply to that letter. we know what's happened since. through private investigations and investigations by journalistic organizations, we've come to discover at least one sitting supreme court justice, clarence thomas, has received more than $4 million in gifts from billionaires. what kind of gifts? travel. jet airplane travel, travel op yachts, long-term veii captions, worth -- vacations, worth more than $4 million, largely

undisclosed to the american pe people. what's going on here? a justice on the supreme court receives over $4 million in gifts from billionaires and doesn't disclose it to the public? what about other federal judges in like circumstances? could they have requirements when it comes to the gifts they can accept and what has to be disclosed? of course they do, in detail. it's only the nine supreme court justices that exempted themselves from the basic enforceable transparent code of ethics that applies to every other federal judge in america. when my friend in south dakota comes to the floor and says we're being too critical of the supreme court, $4 million in gifts? if any member of the senate seed that kind of largesse, they would be held responsible for it under the law, and should be. secondly, this notion that being critical of the court is somehow critical of the institution, i do raise questions, and i will in the statement i'm about to make, as to some of the most recent decisions.

i think they're terrible, in terms of the impact on the future of the court and the future of the constitution. we have legitimate concerns that should be raised. to raise those questions is not to attack the free-throwing of the -- the integrity of the court. throughout history, there have been times the court plain got it wrong. plessy v. ferguson, which dominated for decades and said separate but equal was acceptable under the law. it wasn't until brown versus board of education they reversed that. for decades, plessy, this terrible, wrong-headed decision, governed the administration not only of justice but education in america. it damaged and destroyed lives right and left. were people critical of it? yes, and they should be. we had are living in a -- we are living in a democracy with freedom of speech and we should be able to express ourselves when it comes to decisions by the court.

i want to address two decisions that i think deserve special attention. the court finished its term with a series of disastrous decisions that upended our constitutional landscape. the court's radical, conservative supermajority discarded decades of long-standing precedent to protect rich and powerful influence. this will immunize presidents who commit crimes. the court's decisions will immunize presidents who commit cr crimes, make it harder to prosecute corrupt politicians and make it harder to overturn protections that americans immediate to remain safe and healthy. they failed to protect the most vulnerable, upholding laws that criminalize homelessness, denying americans the right to challenge the government when immigrant spouses are denied a visa. the far right justices responsible for these decisions ma i claim they're guided by

textualism or originalism. the reality is they're engaged in judicial activism. the justices are cherry picking through the constitutional text and history to impose their own ideological agenda on the american people. in doing so, the majority is not only further damaging the const constitution's institutional integrity, they have undermined our democracy. start with the court's ruling in loper and relentless. in these cases, the court overruled chevron v. natural resources defense council. a landmark decision that holds courts must provide deference to a reasonable interpretation of ambiguous federal law. with authorization from congress, scientists and other experts, used their expertise to establish rules that help to ensure our food is safe and medications are effective as promised. we have clean air and water,

stable financial markets, fair working conditions and more. after the court's decisions to overrule chevron, unelected judges with no expertise will be empowered to overturn rules issued by agency experts when they are challenged by corporations. in another case, ohio v. epa, justice kneel gorsuch -- justice neil gorsuch showed how ill equipped the justices are. in a -- the challenge in epa pollution control plan, justice gorsuch repeatedly and incorrectly referred to nitrous oxide, which is laughing gas as we know, rather than nitrogen oxide, the pollute ant that the epa is seeking to control. so the court was arguing that the agencies didn't have the power to make these decisions in detail and failed to describe properly the entity being

regulated by the epa. the court's decision giving justice gorsuch the power to second-guess these experts is a body blow to our government's ability to protect the american people. in another misguided opinion, the six republican appointed justices ruled in trump v. united states that a president may be immune from criminal prosecution for abusing the power of government for personal or playful gain. this case -- personal or political gain. the court held, i quote, the nature of presidential power entitles a former power to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his inclusive and precluesive constitutional authority, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his owe pigses -- owe fishingss acts -- official acts. it prohibits

prosecutors from using -- in ruling that donald trump is quote, absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct discussed the court has given a green light to the president to use the court for illegal purposes. the court will no longer its judicial independence. what does all this sandinistan it means that a corrupt president may hide behind their office for protection from prosecution and the law for even the most egregious wrongdoing. it means the supreme court's conservative majority has effective endorsed richard nixon's claim that, quote, when the president does it, that means it's not illegal. in fact much of the conduct at heart of nixon's watergate

scandal could be arguably considered official acts making them officially immune under current interpretation. in the aftermath of trump v. united states, the court would not have been allowed to question nixon's motives to determine whether he acted unlawfully. it has left congress and the judicial branch. the minority leader stated during the second trump impeachment trial, we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. unfortunately, this is no longer the case because the court's conservative majority has demolished the ability to hold any president accountable for abuse of power. it was not long ago that judge roberts said before the senate judiciary committee and told me directly and personally, quote, no man is above the law.

then judge cbo such also testified and he said, nobody is above the law in this country. and then judge kavanaugh told the committee, and i quote, no one is above the law. and that is just such a foundational principle of the constitution, equal justice under law. now they seem to think that a corrupt president is above the law. when the american people head to the polls this november, they should keep this case, trump v. united states, in mind. we must ensure that our next leader is a person who will respect the rule of law, even though he is now, because of this supreme court -- immune from prosecution. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas.

mr. cornyn: mr. president, today world leaders are descending on our nation's capital for an important nato summit, the 2024 nato summit, the north atlantic treaty organization. it is fitting that this gathering is taking place in our nation's capital because this is where the story of nato began. in april of 1949, leaders of the united states and our closest allies gathered here in the nation's capital to sign the north atlantic treaty. with the stroke of a pen, those 12 countries became the founding members of the north atlantic treaty organization. the core mission of nato can be summed up in only two words -- collective defense. an attack against one ally is considered an attack against all allies.

of course, europe had been through two devastating world wars, and the hope was, by creating the north atlantic treaty organization, that agresscould be deterred -- aggression could be deterred and, thus, the peace maintained. 75 years ago this commitment aimed to deter the soviet union from expanding its influence into western europe. nearly 23 years ago, the collective defense clause was invoked for the first and only time in history in the wake of the attacks on the united states of 9/11. america's nato allies were there when we needed them. an act of friendship and support that we should never forget. today the collective defense clause continues to serve as a firewall that safeguards nato member states and underpins global security. in the 75 years since nato was

founded, it's membership has -- its membership has grown from 12 to 32 countries and its influence continues to grow with the recent addition of sweden and finland. beyond ensuring the security of its members, nato plays a key role in maintaining peace and stability around the world. suffice it to say, nato leaders have a big job ahead of them in week -- them this week. conflicts are unfolding around the globe, and democracy is under attack by the world's leading aggressors. nearly two and a half years have passed since russia invaded ukraine and the fighting has not let up. yesterday russia fired missiles at a children's hospital in kyiv and other sites across ukraine killing at least 38 people and injuring more than a hundred. in addition to the fighting in

europe, a war is also raging in the middle east, as we know. more than nine months have passed since the horrific terrorist attacks by hamas against civilians in israel. but israel is not only defending its sovereignty against hamas, it's also battling direct fire from hezbollah and iran. just to be clear, iran is the head of the snake here. hezbollah and hamas are proxies for iran committed to the ultimate destruction of israel. in addition to the conflicts in europe and the middle east, tensions are growing in the indo-pacific as well. the chinese communist party continues to bully and threaten china's neighbors in the region. just last week china anchored one of the coast guard ships off the coast of the philippines in a clear act of intimidation. this came after another incident

last month when chinese coast guard crewmen attacked filipino sailors trying to resupply the si sierra madre. one soldier lost his thumb and a filipino boat was left in tatters. clearly china is testing america's and democracies' around the world's commitment to protect a treaty in the pacific. i had the privilege of traveling to romania, armenia and malta with a bipartisan delegation of members led by our friend, senator roger wicker, the member of the senate armed services committee and one of the principal delegates to the organization for security commitments in europe. our conversations with our allies around the world affirmed a key point that cannot be

overlooked -- none of these conflicts playing out today are occurring in a vacuum, not the war in ukraine or in the middle east or tensions in the indo-pacific. everything is connected. we might wish that weren't true, but it is inarguably true. and the instability we're facing today has serious downstream consequences. as each of these conflicts have played out, we've witnessed a daunting realignment of powers around the world, reminiscent of what we saw in the 1930's with the rise of germany. today russia, china, north korea, and iran have grown closer and closer together through an intricate web of weapons, technology, and energy transfers. in short, the tyrants of the

world today are drawing closer and closer together, forming a modern-day axis of evil. when these big powers are at odds, the international order frays and the regional players take advantage of the situation as it suits their interest. that point was driven home during our visit to armenia, a former russian satellite, when we discussed the ongoing instability in the caucuses. now, i know you have to pull out a map to figure out where some of these countries are, but they are critical in terms of our analysis of the threats not only in the region but the potential to spread those threats and major conflicts to other parts of the world. in 2020, russia brokered a deal to end the military conflict between armenia and its neighbor

azerbaijan over long-standing territorial disputes. russia promised to supply peacekeepers to the region to enforce that agreement, but it's safe to say that russia has not upheld its end of the deal. each year since that deal was reached, azerbaijan, supported by turkey, has encroached further and further into armenian territory and russia has done nothing to stop it, notwithstanding its agreement to do so. understandably, armenian leaders are outreached by the situation. they signed a treaty, after all, to prevent this exact scenario, and russia has abandoned its promise. our conversations with armenian leaders were powerful reminders of why it's so important to honor our security commitments around the world. we made a commitment to our neigh a lice -- allies, to

ukraine, to israel, and to other partners around the world to support their security. but the truth is, their security is part of our security because we know from history that conflicts can rise in unpredictable places and spread like a wildfire and, thus, directly challenge the united states' national security. so that is why we cannot and we must not back out of these promises and risk other countries seeing us as an unreliable ally, because the truth is weakness -- or unreliability -- is a provocation to the bullies and tyrants and autocrats around the world. when they see weakness, they continue to probe until they come up against resistance. whether we're talking about an ally or adversary, countries around the world must not doubt america's commitment to our own

national security as well as the security of our allies, partners, and friends. mr. president, i say all of this to emphasize how much is at stake today. presently, this is the most dangerous period of our history and of world history since world war ii. we're talking about far more than the fate of individual states or governments. the stability of the international order is hanging in the balance. and with the nato summit here in washington this week, the eyes of the world are once again own the leadership. like it or not, if the united states fails to lead, there is no other country that can fill the void. this is part of the responsibility that comes with being the preeminent economic and military power in the world. and, again, not for the purpose of conquest but for the purpose of deterrence and discouraging

conflicts from breaking out because, again, we know how these can spin out of control as a result of miscalculation or mistake or otherwise. leaders from around the world -- our friends and allies -- are watching to see how the u.s. rhea sun suh replies -- how the u.s. replies. thing like where we agreed to protect the sovereignty of ukraine in exchange for their giving up their nuclear weapons. ukraine had the third-largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and they gave up those nuclear weapons in exchange for that guarantee to protect their sovereignty. that's part of what is at stake today in ukraine. our friends and allies are watching our support for ukraine, our assistance for

israel, and the message we are sending to china. they're testing our attention span to see if we're so distracted by other major conflicts or other things happening around the world that it creates an opening for smaller ones. and they're watching to see if our commitments to our allies are truly ironclad and can be depended upon. this week presidt biden has one job to do, and that's to deliver a clear and powerful message to our allies. he must reaffirm america's commitment to collective defense. he must demonstrate decisive leadership and solidarity with our nato allies. and he needs to deliver a strong warning to our would-be adversaries that attacks against the united states and our allies

will not be tolerated. russia, china, iran, north korea, they're all watching, and there is no room for weakness or vacillation when it comes to sending this important message of deterrence. deterrence, of course, is what maintains the peace. we never want war. we never want military conflict. we want to be so strong and so intimidating with our friends and allies that our adversaries won't take that step of initiating a military conflict. i hope president biden can summon up the energy and the forcefulness and the ability to express this important message to our friends and allies around the world, because our adversaries are watching, but so are our friends. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: mr. president, in 1864, after three years of civil war, many citizens of the north were ready for peace. the 13th amendment had passed in this very chamber, but failed to do so in the house of representatives. and the fate of abraham lincoln's presidency and perhaps the continuation of the war was on the ballot. in that spring of 1864, lincoln

placed his hand on a hoosier general shoulder, and he said i believe it right to give you a chance. what he really meant was a second chance. i rise to mark a day 160 years ago, mr. president, when that second chance and a refusal to flinch from duty even in a forlorn hope saved our nation's capitol and possibly much more than that. not long after his meeting with lincoln, that same soldier was ushered into the office of secretary of war ed stanton. what do you know of the middle department the secretary asked? nothing his visitor replied. nothing, the secretary repeated. i am from the west. general lou wallace answered. by the west, he meant

crawfordsville, in. that is where he was when the year began, an officer who appeared to be at a dead end. two years before the division under his command arrived late to the union lines during the first day of fighting at shiloh. wallace was scapegoated after one of the deadliest battles in the war up to that point. he was removed from command in the army of tennessee and placed on reserve. request for reinstatement failed. i had cast my last. what next, wallace wondered. the answer came from another hoosier, president blame lincoln. wallace was to report to washington and take care of the army corps in the middle department even though ep didn't know where the middle department was headquartered. the answer stanton told him was

baltimore, and that is where wallace headed after buying a rand mcnally map of the united states for 15 cents. in early july wallace sat his at desk studying that map closely. he received word from the anxious president from the baltimore and ohio railroad that confederate troops were advancing through the shenandoah valley. the path from there to washington, d.c. was wide open. the city was poorly defended with union soldiers. they were away attacking richmond at the time. washington seriously menaced, was incapable of self-defense. that much was clear he wrote years later. staring at that map, wallace understood that the threat was very real and his responsibility was crystal clear. without orders, without orders, he departed for menoxie junction

where the roads and railroad leading to washington and baltimore crossed a tributary of the potomac. upon arrival he stood on a bluff looking down at the river and green pastures and golden wheat fields it beyond it. he could see the stee pells of frederick, maryland, not far off and the patokin mountains. the peaceful summer was interrupted with the echo of distant gunfire. and soon it was clear, general robert e. lee sent general jubal early north to take washington. he had crossed the potomac and was on his way east towards menoxie junction perhaps to washington, just 40 miles away. wallace already moved with great urgency. he messaged washington to recall troops and prepare for an attack. he called in with brigades or

parts of brigades he could to augment his men, eventually raising a force of several thousand. then he spread them thinly along the eastern bank of the river determined to block its bridge just long enough for reinforcements to arrive in the capital. on the night of july 8, the eve of the battle, wallace laid down and placed his head on a folded coat, but anxiety made sleep impossible. could he throw a hastily gathered and mostly green force in the way of a superior army in an objective so hopeless? the navy yard up in flames, the capitol menaced, the library inside it looted, the treasury emptied, foreign heads of state rushing to recognize the confederacy, and then most painfully, the image of abraham

lincoln cloaked and hooded, stealing like a malefactor from the back room of the white house, just as some gray garbed confederate brigadier burst in the front door. the next morning, july 9, when the confederate army of over 15,000 arrived at monacacy river, rebel charges were repeatedly turned back until late in the afternoon, when wallace after heavy losses nearly 1,300 dead and wounded ordered his men to withdraw towards baltimore. early's arm paused for the night before continuing to washington. when he reached its gates on the 11th, union reinforcements were waiting. a skimmerish at fort stevens followed and the rebels departed

emmett empty-handed. the union stand caused the confederates a full day, a full day, and with it their chance at washington. monocacy, monocacy. monocacy is usually unmentioned among the list of consequential civil war battles but today we reflect on its importance. up see, had early's men taken the capitol, however l briefly, the humiliation could have persuaded a war-weary population to dismiss abraham lincoln. what then would be the fate of the 13th amendment or the eventual terms of peace? because of wallace's steely resolve and his men's uncommon

valor, the questions went unanswered. lincoln was reelected. the following january, the 13th amendment to forever end slavery passed congress. the war was over by april and the union was preserved. and general lou wallace, not unlike the hero of a novel he later wrote, was redeemed. when it comes to words, wallace will always be best known for ben hur, but the message he forwarded to washington after the battle of monocacy is timeless too. it should inspire all of us still, a reminder that rising to our duty, no matter the odds or even outcome, can change the course of history. i did as i promised, held the

bridge to the last. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

resolution diaries e-mail senator asked the question. where do senators stand? they show the basic right to be every should be federal law. perhaps the defining issue for americans is here. where where she stands. of course is more with our corporations. middle-class jobs and childcare

under trump presidency, america was plunged into chaos. we lived back then in constant anxiety the white house question while autocrats are. it's no wonder they dictate. downright un-american do it all again but there's a difference between then and now for the chaos and disaster pales in comparison into a second from

presidency. the last few weeks is a lot of attention about the policy platform granted by the heritage foundation and the most influential tank in america. the trump manifesto and over 200 former officials connected to former campaign advisors political appointees and very clear what the heartbreak is telling america. trump manifesto conservative one that makes 1964 look like a moderate and nationwide of washington and the trump

manifesto while empowering them. the manifesto over donald trump. i do see this happen in america. and replacing the personnel in

the corporations and that would be of the trial of everything with fox for. the greatest generation about four. donald trump cannot in nato. this week united states in 2024 nato summit. so this year's nato summit and

russia's invasion and cruelty and softening. russian missile strikes obliterated large cushions hospital killing at least 31 gradients and very significant and in the hospitals and mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers in the largest chosen capital. horrible human being and putin

has been about, no decency, no partner, no heart. it shows in the invasion of ukraine who he is. trying to kill ukraine aid earlier this year and the children's hospital shows for america to stand with ukraine. the worst thing america can do is show weakness against putin, tell ukraine will abandon them and nato leaders gather, something less than for the state and president biden will bring and unmistakable message to allies as well as adversaries. america will never turn its

back. president gullickson i will alert this week as well as president zelenskyy of ukraine. in the senate will send the same message we have shared from day one. america will never turn its back on you. the same cannot be said from donald trump. donald trump said he would encourage russia to do whatever they want. this is the wrong message to send to nato. so much at stake around the world and the hard right can't be trusted. finally the safety act we passed in the senate helping firefighters get the equipment they need and fire departments, the more firefighters they need

and seeing i die seeing eye to eye.

that mississippi. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted.

. mr. wicker: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise this morning to discuss national defense and in particular the importance of the nato alliance as quite a number of our friends from nato have arrived in washington to celebrate the 75th annual meeting of this important defense organization. and i can hardly talk about national defense and nato and the importance of keeping our defenses strong without calling attention to the sad fact that our former colleague, senator jim inhofe, of oklahoma, passed away yesterday. i am told that senators lankford

and mullin will seek recognition at a later time to speak extensively about this remarkable statesman who has passed from among us, but -- and members will be -- will be notified of when that might be should they want to join in. but at this point -- at this pivotal moment when i wish to talk about national defense, let me just say a word or two about my friend and colleague of some 30 years, jim inhofe. as a young man, as a young family man, jim inhofe quickly learned how to build a business

and create jobs, and he did so successfully. only a few years later as a municipal leader, he found out how to build consensus, and he took that knowledge with him to capitol hill as a member of the house of representatives, and then as our colleague here in the united states senate. and jim inhofe demonstrated that he continued to know how to build consensus and get things done for his fellow oklahomans as well as for his fellow americans. anyone who knew jim inhofe knew that he was a dedicated christian. jim inhofe was a man of great faith with, in particular, a heart for sub i-saharan africa.

he visited there countless times, encouraged numerous, probably hundreds of his fellow senators and representatives to accompany him to visit some of the most challenged countries in sub-saharan africa. he hosted countless prayer breakfasts there. he got to know the leaders in those countries and their families by name. he was a remarkable christian friend to those in africa. jim inhofe was an accomplished pilot. he flew solo around the world at age 56. as a member of congress, he was known as a straight shooter who was not afraid to challenge the

conventional wisdom, as he did so on numerous occasions. jim and his wife kay were married for 64 years. together they had four children and 12 grandchildren, one of whom they found and adopted and rescued during a trip to africa. i would mention that kay inhofe has been a special friend and advisor to my wife gail for these decades. again, i'm informed that senators mullin and lankford will lead a fuller discussion of this remarkable statesman who's passed from among us. but today as i talk about

national defense and nato, i send my love and we in the senate send our love and condolences to the entire family and to the state that he loved, oklahoma. and then, mr. president, i would note, as members have seen and as the public has -- is reading and hearing about that this week 32 nations are gathering in washington for nato's 75th anniversary summit. our alliance has reached this remarkable milestone, 75 years. his long jeft gi -- longevity reaffirms its laughing success -- lasting success and our bond must remain strong, particularly in this hour. we are in the most dangerous global security threat since world war ii. almost all of our witnesses

before the armed services committee tell us that we are in the most dangerous global threat security for -- since jens rations. as we navigate today's new challenges, nato still stands as an indispensable alliance. in this consequential moment, nato is receiving a new leader. i congratulate the outgoing secretary general stoltenburg and i welcome our new nato secretary. this provides us an opportunity, we have a chance to remember why nato matters, and we have a chance to call upon every member, every nation member to recommit to our alliance. i call upon my colleagues in both houses and in the administration, our friends, to recommit to this important and

vital alliance. as mr. ruta takes office, he has a significant challenge to confront. frankly, we all do as i have pointed out from this desk numerous times. nato faces a new axis of aggressors, china, russia, iran, and north korea are banning together, they are banning together to help russia in its illegal invasion of ukraine and their banding together to pursue their designs on the free nations of this world. # this new axis proposes a set of growing threats to the united states and our allies. in their own way, they have all been supporting russia's illegal

and unprovoked war on ukraine #. and, mr. president, at this moment i would have to pause and note the shameless and vicious russian attack just earlier this week on a children's hospital in kiev, ukraine. this act by one of the most brutal dictators that has ever walked on the face of the earth must go answered. it cannot go unanswered. and the very idea that the free nations of this world would seek to negotiate as peers with such a brutal war criminal as vladimir putin, to me is unthinkable. what in the world makes anyone

think that this person who has violated every single principle of the organization for security and cooperation in europe would negotiate in good faith and agree to that negotiation? so we have a bleak situation, and it highlights nato's importance. nato was built for such a time as this. and with meeting with the leaders yesterday afternoon on the other end of this magnificent capitol, i was heartened to hear that principle underscored. after the devastation of two world wars, nato kept the peace by deterring the soviet union, and thank god we did. in the postcold war era, the alliance's support for ukraine has demonstrated why nato continues to be relevant. most nato members have provided substantial military, economic,

and humanitarian assistance to ukraine. in short, the alliance celebrates its 75th birthday from a position of strength. but we should not interpret nato's accomplishments in the past as a license to let down our guard now. nato's collective strength is only as strong as its members' individual commitments. the truth is that our allies need to spend more on defense. we need in the united states to spend more on defense. it's a necessity. we need to build modern, capable militaries that can stand shoulder to shoulder together in a fight against this axis of aggressors. we need the industrial might to match that force strength. in fact, most allies are meeting their obligations.

this week 22 nato countries will spend at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense, up from only 7 out of 32 at the time of russia's invasion of ukraine. we all learned a lesson at that moment two and a half years ago. mr. president, at this point, i ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks prior to the scheduled roll call. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. wicker: thank you very much to my colleagues and to the chair. the world has grown too dangerous for the remaining nato members not to meet the 2% mark. we all must make it a priority to increase defense spending. it's shocking and unacceptable that some allies, especially some capable ones, have yet to reach the 2% requirement that

they agreed to. friends can speak candidly to one another, and so i will. our neighbor to the north, canada, is among this group, which has not and for several years in the future will not reach its need. i was able to meet with prime minister trudeau just a few moments ago and was glad to hear him say that an announcement will be made from our friends in canada perhaps later this week about a new plan to more quickly reach that 2% goal, and i call on him to fulfill that statement that he made to us in private. we look forward to that and we congratulate him on that effort. nato allies shouldn't outsource security to others. but this challenge presents an opportunity, one that adds to

the mandate we give the incoming secretary general. the transatlantic industrial base has withered and we also need to attend to that, and that should be part of secretary general rutta's new platform. in the past our friends of freedom have had to follow our lead as we pursue a peace through strength agenda. today europe has not kept pace as it should. the united states has begun to invest heavily to rebuild its arsenal of democracy, and we need to continue doing so, but we're still waiting for the dramatic increase in european, 155 millimeter artillery production. we've yet to see expanded lines of long range cruise missiles. we've heard promises of a reinvigorated defense industrial base in europe, but those assurances have yet to be

fulfilled. so as he assumes office, secretary general rutta should join us in recognizing the 2% commitment is in truth insufficient in light of russia's newly mobilized war economy. there are additional issues standing in nato's way. its members remain, they remain mired in their own domestic issues. they must of course attend to these domestic concerns. but they also remain tangled up in an alliance bureaucracy that struggles with basic expansions in munitions production capacity. these challenges are sign significant, but mr. rutta and the elected governments of our alliance should not provide the status quo. nato asked its members for 2%.

in my 21st century peace through strength report, i've recommended that we in the united states spend 5% of gdp on national defense, as did president reagan. my plan is primarily designed to deter the chinese communist party but it also calls for the united states to deepen commitments to europe. for a few examples, i recommend permanently stationing an armored brigade combat team in poland. my plan proposes increasing our rotational deployments in eastern europe. we should also improve intelligence sharing. time and again the united states lerpd the hard way we cannot walk away from europe. together the transatlantic alliance represents half of the world's economy. there is simply no way to contain beijing's economic aggression without working together closely. likewise, a stagnant u.s.

military budget and a halfhearted european defense spending cannot contain russia's antagonism. so thank you, mr. president, for your indulgence, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i understand we have colleagues here and we have a vote, but i wonder if i can ask unanimous consent for two minutes prior to the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: yesterday the ftc in a 4-1 decision took action in a report and interim staff report that shows we should all be very concerned about the activities of pbm middle pmen. these are the people supposedly getting discounts on drug prices and pockets those discounts. the final report which, this interim report we should be receiving today basically says market concentration and vertical integration are giving

these pbm's too much market power. the point is are we going to do anything to stop that market power and to help the public who need better transparency on price. it also says that pbm's are engaging in self-preferencing meaning they are steering those rebates back to themselves and it's affecting pharmacies and it's affecting pharmacies in my state where now in downtown stem cell -- downtown seattle pharmacy deserts are starting to happen. pbm's are using market shares to force independent pharmacies into unfair contracts. that's what you get when you get a concentration of a market and then you can basically push other people out of the market, and that pbm's and manufacturers are entering into rebate agreements that may impair or block access to lower-cost drugs. i urge my colleagues to get this report, to review it. i urge our colleagues here to take action on these pbm

middlemen. this is a bipartisan effort. my colleague senator grassley and i have legislation outlawing some of these practices at the ftc and our colleagues, senator crapo and senator wyden, also have legislation that would help us on pbm's. so i thank my colleagues. mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture vote today, tuesday, july 9, be waived. i further ask that if the cloture vote is invoked on the merriwether nomination the confirmation vote be at a time agreed to by the majority leader in consultation with the minority leader and the confirmation on the willoughby nomination be at 5:45 today. without objection. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions

of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 380, patricia lee of south carolina, to be a member of the defense nuclear facility safety board signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of patricia lee of south carolina to be a member of the defense nuclear facility safety board shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn.

mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo.

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

mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. m mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. rickckckckck

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: mr. barasso, no. senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, cantwell, hickenlooper, merkley, murkowski, sinema, tester, welch. senators voting in the negative -- barasso, britt, cornyn, cotton, johnson, lankford, paul, schmitt, scott of florida, and wicker.

the clerk: mr. daines, no.

the clerk: ms. collins, aye.

mr. crapo, no.

the the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. tillis, no. mrs. blackburn, no.

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

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye.

ms. lummis, no.

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

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: ms. smith, aye. mr. kaine, aye. preponderance vote:

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. romney, aye.

the clerk: mr. grassley, no.

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

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

the clerk: ms. butler, aye. the clerk: mr. mullin, no.

the clerk: ms. ernst, no.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. mr. marshall, no. mr. cardin, aye.

the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. braun, no. the clerk: ms. hassan, aye.

mr. van hollen, aye. the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no.

the clerk: mr. manchin aye:. the clerk: mr. rounds, no.

mr. cramer, aye. mr. budd, no. ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. the clerk: mr. vance, no.

mr. young, no. the clerk: mr. kelly, aye.

mrs. fischer, no. mr. wyden, aye. mr. peters, aye. mr. brown, aye. ms. duckworth, aye.

mr. lee, no. mr. moran, no. mr. thune, no. mr. boozman, no.

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

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. mr. king, aye. mr. graham, aye.

mr. schatz, aye. mr. murphy, aye. ms. hirono, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. mr. kennedy, no. mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez-masto, aye.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

vote:

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

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

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

the clerk: on this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 41. the motion is agreed to. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate

spanish the unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more . >> thirty years ago media, was founded on a powerful idea when cutting edge broadband underserved communities and coast-to-coast thousand euros. you comfortable, the most reliable network on the go from. ♪♪