and we look forward to moving on and doing, figuring out the right thing to do and doing our level best to do that and to keep in mind, what was the golden rule, treat our neighbors the way we want to be treated. all right. with that i think that hearing is adjourned. all right. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage you can find it anytime online at c-span.org, videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and news worthy highlights, these

points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen, when you hit play on select videos. this timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through on c-span's points of interest. >> and we take you live now to the u.s. senate. today taking up a resolution on military operations on the gaza pier. and later, votes on a judicial nomination for the u.s. court of federal claims. you're watching live coverage here on c-span2. ... the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. our chaplain, the reverend dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the giver of every good and perfect gift, we thank you for the exemplary life and legacy of former senator james inhofe. lord, we praise you for his life, which was like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless day and like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth. inspired by the footprints he left on the sands of time, may we seek to see you more clearly, to love you more dearly, and to follow you more

nearly, day by day. and lord, use our lawmakers this day for your glory. we pray in your loving name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of 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

the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 41554, a bill to express support for protecting access to reproductive health care after the dobbs v. jackson decision.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: yesterday was a very sad day for women in america. yesterday senate republicans blocked a bill that simply expressed support for a woman's right to choose. that's it. no more. no less. supporting a woman's right to make her own health care decision should have been one of the easiest yes votes we've taken all year. by voting no, republicans told every woman in america your body, our choice. republicans are saying we don't care to all the women who live in states where reproductive rights are almost gone from texas to florida to alabama and beyond.

this is the terrible legacy of the senate republicans in the trump administration. they cleared the way for the supreme court to overturn roe. years ago donald trump himself said overturning roe was part of the plan. he said if we put another two or three justices on the supreme court, that will happen. and then senate republicans, even many who don't abide by the maga philosophy just laid down and voted for all of the president's nominees. and to this day, senate republicans keep doubling down and tripling down on undermining women's rights despite so much blow back from the american people. senate republicans voted no on protecting contraception, voted no on protecting ivf and voted no again yesterday on supporting the right to choose. so let me say to america, you want to know who is on your side in protecting abortion and women's rights?

it's the democrats. every republican with one or two exceptions has universally voted to take away women's rights. that's the truth of it. and our republican colleagues can run but they can't hide. they're voting against women because extreme maga groups are pushing them to do it or maybe because of belief. either way, they're out of touch with america. now, for all the chaos and disaster of the first trump presidency, it pales in comparison to a second trump presidency. we all heard about the policy platform 2025 drafted by the heritage foundation, a project overseen by former trump officials and advisers and appointees. it's a manifesto for the second trump presidency. what does it do? it lays the groundwork for a nationwide abortion ban. that's the heart and soul of the republican party. that's where they always go whether they're in power -- when

they're in power, folks. when they're not in power, they give some words here and there. when they're running for office, they try to run away from how they vote and how they feel. then they come here and they vote to roll over women's rights again and again and again. and each time they do it, it becomes more extreme and more extreme. and that's just the beginning on the issues. the trump manifesto 2025 calls for the most conservative agenda america has ever seen. it calls for more tax cuts for the very wealthy, more tax cuts for corporate elites, more tax cuts for maga corporations. it calls for reversing democrats' clean energy agenda wlil empower the nation's biggest gas and oil polluters and even calls for silencing and attacking all of donald trump's political opponents. can you imagine? it's like a dictatorship. it's like a dictatorship with nothing -- going to prosecute

people. no evidence. wow. what happened to rule of law in this grand country? what happened to the visions of the founding fathers when donald trump and the maga court takes over? the hard right is done speaking euphemisms. they're smelling blood. they're saying it straight to our faces. if you can disagree with donald trump, watch your back. it's bone chilling. it's un-american. it's dangerous for our democracy. the trump manifesto is an autocrat's dream. if maga republicans get the chance to act on the heritage foundation's ideas, the damage to the america we all know and love may well be irreversible. we'll never get it back. our children and grandchildren will live in a less grand country than we have lived in. the destruction would be unthinkable and every -- and it would betray everything america has represented for 248 years.

scotus. above the entrance of the supreme court are these words. equal justice under law. last week the president -- the conservative justices put some new writing on those walls figuratively. the president of the united states is above the law. instead of equal justice under the law, they replaced it with the president of the united states is above the law. in the aftermath of the 2020 elections, donald trump and his allies conspired for weeks to undermrien the will of the people and halt the peaceful transfer of how we are. these efforts culminated in a violence insurrection on january 6. these are the facts. many of us lived -- in the senate lived through it. i was within 30 feet of the hul begans who invaded -- hooligans who invade the capitol. no free nation can condone a tyrant to abuse of his office, to try to cling to power. but that is in effect what the conservative majority on the supreme court has done.

by ruling donald trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions after the 2020 election, the conservative majority has violated the most basic premise of our constitution that no man is above the law. most americans will see what the court did and think it was grossly political, a shameless attempt to help donald trump out. i worry that over time americans will increasingly lose trust in what the courts say they've already begun to lose that trust with these right-wing maga decisions. very few of them founded in any precedence at all. it could be an unraveling of trust in our democratic institutions. the goods news -- good news is the constitution provides a remedy for the supreme court's terrible decision. congress has an authority to exercise strong checks through legislation. we should look precisely into that. one possible avenue, clarifying that donald trump's election subversion acts do not count as

official acts of the presidency. such a notion should hardly be controversial, and i am working with my colleagues on legislation to see what kind of proposals would be appropriate. we were all taught in grade school there are no kings here in america, but what the conservative justices have done is placed a crown on the head of donald trump. they declared, in effect, the same thing nixon told david frost in 1977, when, quote, he said this is what nixon said, chased out of office for potential criminal acts, quote, when the president does it, that means it's not illegal. that's going to be the new quote, rule of law in america with these justices. what a bone chilling proposition. if future presidents no longer fear prosecution for their conduct in office, what the heck is going to rein them in? one election every four years? that's cold comfort in a corrupt president can use their office

to undermine elections in the first place. it's a catch-22, a very evil one. it's autocracy 101. what if future presidents order the doj to arrest election workers? what if they escalate their attacks on the press? what if they take bribes in exchange for favors and money? what if they claim they were acting in official capacity? america would be in a state of constitutional pandemonium. the american people are tired of justices who think they're beyond accountability. we in congress should be open to sensible, reasonable solutions to restore the checks and balances that the maga court has taken away. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

medical education and psychiatry professor. doctor, welcome. >> thank you for having me. >> can you tell us about your background and how you got interested in researching presidential illnesses? . i'm a psychiatrist by trade but a lot of my work is -- medical

history. many years ago in 11th grade we had a question in mind was question of whether not -- [inaudible] i've been obsessed with questions of presidential health ever since. >> what does the history of presidents and presidential candidates and their doctors, what does that tell us about the president's officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: as nato's washington summit draws to a close today, there's clearly tremendous resolve among many of our allies to make the transatlantic alliance fit for purpose for another 75 years. but a strong and effective nato has always required strong and effective american leadership,

and here at home there's reason for cautious optimism that support for leadership on collective defense is widespread. last month, the reagan institute released the findings of its latest poll on the american people's views of global issues. mr. president, here's what it found -- a majority of americans support a more engaged u.s. foreign policy, and hold favorable views of the nato alliance and support lethal assistance to ukraine. and despite the media spending years amplifying views from the fringes of our politics, a majority of republicans believes

that u.s. involvement in international events benefits america. when asked recently whether peace, prosperity, and security were products of american leadership and sacrifice, listen to this, more republicans than democrats actually agreed with that. here's the kicker, they're not just telling this to pollsters. they're absolutely demonstrating it at the ballot box, by massive double-digit margins republican primary voters have picked candidates who supported the national security supplemental earlier this spring. let me say that again. not a single republican incumbent who voted to help america's friends or resist authoritarian aggression and rebuild the arsenal of democracy lost their primary.

not one lost a primary. across the country, voters rejected fringe candidates who peddled isolationist pablum and voted instead for american leadership. the way speaker johnson put it earlier this week, he said people come up to him at events in 31 different states in recent months to say the same thing -- we're glad congress delivered the supplemental. so, mr. president, it can often seem like the loudest voices in washington are the ones that belong to responsibilities of american leadership while enjoying the peace and prosperity it underwrites, but these voices are increasingly estranged from the views of most americans. the american people know instinctively that leadership on the world stage isn't some

handout to allies and partners. it's an investment, an investment in our own security. they know this leadership is what preserved the u.s.-led order that has underpinned peace and prosperity for decades. now they just need a president who's willing to exercise that leadership. for years, the american people watched the biden administration dither and wring its hands over fears that standing with a sovereign democracy might invite escalation from a tyrant who is already conducting a full-scale war of conquest. since last fall, they've heard the president insist in one breath that america's commitment to a close ally was ironclad, and then withhold urgent assistance in another.

it's well and good to talk about american leadership, but talk is cheap. this week would have been a great opportunity for the commander in chief to start backing up his words with firm commitments to start investing seri seriously, seriously in hard power. it should have been the week the democratic leader brought the ndaa up for senate consideration. it could have been a great week to lead. fortunately, the most successful military alliance in history has had some strong leadership in brussels, with secretary-general ja janes -- jans stoltenberg. i'm thankful for his work on urgent and long-term challenges facing the alliance, and for his deep devotion to the cause of collective defense. the secretary-general took

office months, just months after russia launched its unprovoked invasion of ukraine back in 2014. after a pivotal decade, he will leave the alliance with renewed clarity and resolve to face even graver russian aggression and linked authoritarian threats all around the world. for ten years, he's worked relentlessly to expand allies' focus to include serious challenges emanating from beyond n nato's borders. recognizing the links between major threats to global security, he's improved the alliance engagement with critical indo-pacific nations, like japan, south korea, and australia. just yesterday he led allies in

making clear that china is the decisive enabler of russia's war against ukraine, and that the prc cannot enable the largest war in europe in recent history without this negatively impacting its interests and its reputation. he successfully expanded nato, most recently welcoming sweden and finland as highly capable additions to our ranks. and in the face of russian aggression, the secretary-general has been an extraordinarily effective advocate and spokesman for collective defense. rallying renewed investment from allies and leading the most significant nato rearmament since the cold war. as he navigated the predictably diverse and spirited views of dozens of allies, the secretary-general demonstrated a

keen appreciation for america's legitimate, long-standing, and bipartisan concerns about burden sharing across the nalliance, ad has repeatedly urged allies to take on more responsibility for our shared security. and on a personal note, i'm immensely grateful for the time the secretary-general and i have spent working closely together. i've appreciated his candor, his profe professionalism, and his devotion to our common cause. and i was particularly proud to welcome him to address a joint meeting of congress earlier in his term. so as he departs his post, secretary-general stoltenberg should take great pride in the historic accomplishments of his tenure and remain optimistic, as i am, in the course he's set for

the alliance. he has the gratitude of allies and partners all across the free world, and he'll leave big shoes for his successor mark rutte to fill. now, on another matter, i've spoken before about the new york magistrate judge with a bad habit of engaging in political activism from the bench, and lying about it under oath. unfortunately, the red flags on judge netburn's record around limited to the inappropriate actions she does commit. there's also the important work she's inexplicably chosen to ignore. take it from the family members of victims of 9/11 who wrote recently to our colleagues on the judiciary committee.

as these loved ones sought a small piece of justice for the lives that terrorist killers had snuffed out, judge netburn failed to rule on the unopposed motions they submitted that would have entitled them to participate in the next round of compensation for grieving families. as they put it, quote, we cannot understand how a magistrate judge could treat 9/11 family members so callously or so bitterly disregard her duties, end quote. so, mr. president, i have posed this question before about another of the administration's nominees, nancy maldonado, but i'll ask it again -- why on earth do our democratic colleagues continue to entertain lifetime promotions for nominees

with a demonstrated inability to do the job? this sort of gross negligence is damning. it's disqualifying, and frankly the net burden on the nation isn't worth another second of the judiciary committee's time, let alone the senate's. on one final matter, cumulative inflation since president biden took office now sits at 20.1% and working families across america are still feeling the pinch in their wallets, especially when it comes to basic necessities like housing. in new jersey, one man has watched his rent soar and said, i thought things were going to taper off, but it doesn't appear to be tapering. in my state of kentucky, one resident said he was, quote, sticker shocked at the

skyrocketing cost of homeowners' insurance, property taxes and utility bills, and he's certainly not alone. one survey showed that nearly one in five homeowners could not afford a $500 emergency repair on their home. last month 46% of americans reported that they are struggling to keep pace financially, and only 25% of this group said they planned on supporting president biden. the american people know which party ignored the warnings of top economists, left money for spending sprees and fueled the worst inflation in country has seen since the carter administration. the american people are sick and tired of bidenomics. i suspect they'll have more to say about it this november.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> yesterday, senate republicans blocked the bill simply expressed support for a woman's right to choose. that's it. no more, no less. supporting and woman's right to make her own health care decision should of been one of the easiest yes votes we've taken all year. by voting no republicans told every woman in america your body, our choice. republicans are saying we don't care to all the women who live in states where reproductive rights are almost gone from texas to florida to alabama and beyond. this is the terrible legacy of the senate republicans in the trump administration. they cleared the way for the supreme court to overturn roe.

years ago trump himself said overturning roe was part of the plant. he said if we put another two or three justices on the supreme court that will happen. and then set republicans even many who don't abide by the maggot philosophy just laid down and voted for all of the president's nominees. and to this day senate republicans keep doubling down and tripling down on undermining women's rights, despite so much blowback from the american people. senate republicans voted no on protecting contraception, no on protecting ivf the photo again yesterday on supporting the right to choose. so let me say to america, you want to know who is on your side in protecting abortion women's rights? it's the democrats. every republican with one or two exceptions has universally voted to take away women's rights. that's the truth of it.

and a republican colleagues can run but they can't hide. they are voting against women because extreme maga groups are pushing them to do it, or maybe because, either way, they are out of touch with america. now, , for all the chaos and disasters from the first trump presidency it pales in comparison to the threat of a second trump presidency. we've all heard about the policy platform 2025 drafted by the heritage foundation, a project overseen by former trump officials and advisers and appointees. it's a manifesto for the second trump presidency. what does it do? the trump manifesto lays the groundwork for a nationwide abortion ban. that's the heart and soul of the republican party. that's what he does go when in power, folks. they give some you know when they're not in power they get some words here and there. when the running for office they tried to run away from how they vote and how they feel. then they come here and they

vote to roll over women's rights again and again and again. and each time they do it it becomes more extreme and more extreme. and that's just the beginning on the issue. on on the issues. the trump manifesto 2025 calls for the most conservative agenda america has ever seen. calls are more tax cuts for the very wealthy, more tax cuts for corporate elites, more tax cuts for megacorporations. it calls for reversing clean energy agenda while upon the nation's biggest oil and gas polluters, at the trump manifesto calls for silencing and attacking all of donald trump's political opponents. can you imagine? it's like a dictatorship. it's like a dictatorship with nothing safe. trump says i would prosecute people. what happened to rule of law in this grand country? what happened to the patients of the founding fathers?

when donald trump and the maga court takes over? the hard drive is done speaking euphemisms. they are smelling blood. they are saying it's great to our faces -- hard right -- if you disagree with donald trump, watch your back. it's un-american. it's dangerous for our democracy. the trump manifesto is an autocrat stream. maggie republicans get the chance act on the heritage foundation ideas, the damage to the america we all know and love may well be irreversible and we will never get it back, our children and grandchildren will live in a less grand country than we have lived. the distraction would be unthinkable. every, and it would betray everything america has represented for 248 years. scotus. above the interest of the supreme court are these words, equal justice under law. last week the president, conservative justices put some

new writing of those walls, figuratively. the president of the united states is above the law. instead of equal justice under the law, they replaced it with the president of the united states is above the law. in the aftermath of the 2020 elections donald trump and his allies conspired for weeks to undermine the will of the people and hold a peaceful transfer of power. these efforts call murdered in a violent insurrection on january 6. these are the facts. many of us lived in the senate, lived through it. i was within 30 feet of the hooligans who invaded the capital. no free nation can condone a tyrant who abuses his office come to try to cling to power. but that is an effect what the conservative majority on the supreme court has done. by ruling donald trump enjoys broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions as president the 2020 election, the conservative majority has widely

the most basic premise of our constitution that no man is above the law. most americans will see what the court did and it was grossly political. i shameless attempt to help donald trump out. i worry that overtime americans will increasingly lose trust in what the courts say that arctic began to lose that trust with these right-wing maga decisions. very few of them without any precedent at all. it could be an unraveling of trust in our democratic institution. the good news is that the constitution provides a remedy to the supreme court's terrible decision. congress has the authority to exercise strong checks of the judiciary through legislation. we should look precisely into that. one possible advocate,, clarifying that donald trump's election subversion asked did not count as official acts of the president's. such a notion should hardly be controversial, and i'm working with my colleagues on legislation to see what kind of

proposals would be appropriate. we were all taught in grade school there are no -- in america but what the conservative justices done is placed the crown and had a daughter. they declared in effect the same thing nixon told david frost in 1977 when called, he said this is what nixon said, chased out of office, potential criminal acts, quote, when the president does it, that means it's not illegal. that's going to be the new quote, rule of law in america with these justices? what a bone chilling proposition. the future president no longer fear prosecution for the conduct in office, then what the heck is desha one election every four years? that's cold comfort of a corrupt president can undermine the office in first place, catch-22 come evil one. it is autocracy 101. future presidents over the doj to arrest election workers?

what if escort their attacks on the press what it did take bribes in exchange for favors and money? and what is in each of these instances they claimed they were acting in official capacity? america would be in a state of constitutional pandemonium. the american people are tired of justices who think they are beyond accountability we in congress should be open to sensible reasonable solutions to restore the checks and balances that the maga court has taken away. yielded the floor. mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. officer without objection. -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, last month's arrest of eight men from tadzhikistan further underscored what we have known for a long time -- and that is that president biden's

three-year-long is a threat to our national security. all eight of these individuals made their way across our individuals is and they are hardly the only individuals to have made their way into our country under president biden's watch. an illegal immigrant who had successfully evaded the border patrol has been arrested for the murder of a mother in maryland. an illegal immigrant released on parole has been charged with the murder of a nursing student in georgia. two illegal immigrants are charged with the killing of a 12-year-old girl in texas. unfortunately, mr. president, i could go on. in another alarming case, 50 out of 400 illegal immigrants who entered the united states through an isis-linked smuggling network are still unaccounted

for. mr. president, it is, of course, impossible to predict or stop every crime, but the chaos at our southern border that president biden has allowed to rage for three-plus years has unquestionably created an environment that facilitates the entry of dangerous individuals into our country. since president biden took office, approximately 10 million individuals that we know of have made their way illegally into our country. 10 million. that's larger than the population of the vast majority of american states. we've had three success suckivees -- -- successive years of illegal immigration on the president's watch. three. and we can only hope that we will manage a void yet a -- avoid yet a fourth. president biden finally realized

that if he didn't do something, his disastrous record on the border might tank his reelection prospects. while it would be nice in the executive action he took last month would be -- the situation presents and not by foor of losing an election, at least he finally conceded that he had to do something. inadequate and full of exemptions as it might be. but while this might -- and i emphasize might -- be a case of better late than never, i'm afraid it's also a case of too little too late. because a tremendous amount of damage has been done that president biden can't fix, even if he should succeed in restrictings future flows. as i said, roughly ten million illegal immigrants have entered our country on president biden's watch. and while i am sure that many of these individuals were simply in search of a better life, we can

be pretty confident that there are others like the recently arrested 1rids -- arrested individuals with suspected ties to isis who have more malign intentions. of particular concern are the roughly 1.8 million known got-aways. those are individuals that the border patrol saw but was unable to happen end who made their way into the country over the course of this administration. u.s. border patrol chief jason owen speaking earlier this year about the number of got-aways at the border said, and i quote, those are the numbers that really keep us up at night because if you know that all you need to do is turn yourself into the border patrol and go through the process, what possible reason would you have for wanting to evade capture? could it be that those are the folks that probably have criminal intent, end quote.

chief owens was referring to the fact that under the biden administration's lax asylum system, individuals who show up at the border claiming asylum have frequently been released into the country with court dates as much as a decade into the future. his point of course is when turning yourself into the border patrol with a claim for asylum is likely to result in years of essentially legal permanent residence. it's especially concerning that we have had hundreds of thousands of individuals choosing not to turn themselves in and escaping into the interior of our country. so again, mr. president, even if president biden's executive action from last month does do something to help reduce the flow of illegal immigration, which very much remains to be seen, we will still be left with the effects of the chaos he has allowed to rage at our southern

border for three plus years and we'll still be left with the effects of his disastrous border and immigration policies from offering mass amnesty to hundreds of thousands of individuals whose asylum cases have been closed without a decision to fast-tracking mass parole through the cbp one app to placing unaccompanied children with possibly dangerous guardians into the united states. something, by the way, senator grassley is currently working to prevent in the future. and i expect we'll still be dealing with the consequences of president biden's dangerous policies for a long time to come. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> as nato's washington summit draws to a close today, it's clearly tremendous resolve among many of our allies to make the transatlantic alliance fit for purpose. for another 75 years. but a strong and effective nato is always required strong and effective american leadership. and here at home, it is reason for cautious optimism that support for leadership on collective defense is widesprea widespread. last month the reagan institute released the findings of its latest poll on the american

peoples of use of global issues. here is what found. the majority of americans support and more engaged u.s. foreign policy and hold favorable views of the nato alliance, and support legal assistance to ukraine -- lethal. >> and despite the media spending years amplifying views from the fringes of our politics, a majority of republicans believes that u.s. involvement in international defense benefits america. with asked recent weather peace, prosperity and security were products of american leadership and sacrifice, listen to this, more republicans than democrats actually agreed with that. here's the kicker.

they are not just telling this to pollsters. they're actually demonstrating it at the ballot box by massive double-digit margins, republican primary voters have picked candidates who supported the national security supplemental earlier this spring. let me say that again. not a single republican incumbent who voted to help america's friends resist authoritarian aggression and rebuild the arsenal of democracy lost their primary. not one lost a primary. across the country voters rejected fringe candidates who paddled isolationists and voted instead for american leadership. the way speaker johnson put it earlier this week, he said people come up to him at events in 31 different states in the

recent months to say the same thing. we're glad congress delivered the supplemental. so, mr. president, it can often seem like the loudest voices in washington are the ones that belong responsibility while enjoying the peace and prosperity it underwrites. but these voices are increasingly estranged from the views of most americans. the american people know instinctively that leadership on the world stage isn't some handout to allies and partners. it's an investment, , and investment in her own security. they know this leadership is what preserves the u.s.-led order that has underpinned peace and prosperity for decades.

now the just need a president who is willing to exercise that leadership. for years, the american people watch the biden administration dither and bring its hands over fears that standing with a sovereign democracy might invite escalation from a tyrant who is already conducting a full scale war of conquest. since last fall they've heard the president insist in one breath that america's commitment to close ally was ironclad, and then withhold urgent assistance in another. it's well and good to talk about american leadership, but talk is cheap. this week would've been a great opportunity for the commander-in-chief to start backing up his words with firm commitments to start investing seriously, seriously in hard power. should of been the week the

democratic leader brought the nda at. could've been a great week to lead. fortunately, the most successful military alliance in history has had some strong leadership in brussels with the secretary general john stoltenberg. i'm deeply grateful for his tireless work on both urgent and long-term challenges facing the alliance. and for his deep devotion in the cause of collective defense. the secretary general took office months, just months after russia launched its unprovoked invasion of ukraine back in 2014. and after a pivotal decade he will leave the alliance with renewed clarity and resolve to face even greater russian aggression and link

authoritarian threats all around the world. .. yesterday he let out and made neighbor of russia's war against ukraine. the prc cannot enable the largest war in history without this negatively impacting his

reputation. expanded nato will going sweden and finland and in the face of russian aggression is extraordinarily effective advocacy spokesman and reviewed allies world war. navigating spirited demonstration of america's legitimate staley the person concerns the alliance and repeatedly urged allies to take on more responsibility for shared security. a personal note of secretary and

this is professionalism for mongols. so the secretary-general should take clear any historic and remain domestic the gratitude of allies and partners will. another matter spoken before

will engaging in political excess and let about the importance they are limited to the inappropriate actions and there is the department is chosen to ignore the in our colleagues on the judiciary committee will terrorist leaders judge failed to meet unopposed motions will for these families.

as he put from of the cannot understand how a judge to treat 9/11 families callously will will. why on earth democratic you to entertain the inability asked for rent the nomination.

on this matter since is admitting to call this in their wallets to basic necessities said i thought things were going to taper off but it doesn't appear to be. one resident said he was still shocked about homeowners insurance, and a survey showed nearly one in five homeowners cannot afford it on their own. 46% of americans keep pace

financially and only 25% support president biden. the american people know that help the congress spending sprees and fuel force the carter administration. not this november. will

doctor, welcome. >> can you tell us about your background and how you got interested in researching presidential illnesses? >> a lot of my work in history is the party and ever since.

>> what does the history of presidents and history and doctors, what does it tell us about the president's fitness for office and obviously surrounding president biden? >> we will never know whether it is at the time. very successful exception with any information and for governments in the president may be afraid to share with their

doctor. >> you give us a historic example and president has been ill and nobody knew about it? >> the early 19th century and james policy for congress about why they made a mistake but it appears the well-known cases and they would know. there is woodrow wilson an example of roosevelt and

outsiders were destroyed. >> what is the assessment right now from biden's conversations around? >> i should not be messy somebody so i can't speak directly about that and there's no way and they are solely in the department and the democrat or remove can insulin something

else clean and we even know some have that they are we. for the retaliation. >> how this will. and the shares for the president you will love political pundits whether or not they have been a good job will will will and in the white house or any other

political horse will. >> the problem is the recall online like party. an independent you can start calling in now. you think the white house physician needs to be more work coming? like i have no idea about any. >> you think you should go in front of cameras? and the president comes in good shape and that is the healthcare

accountability act? position. china, our enemies and our adversaries, russia, iran, north korea, are actively cooperating to target us and our allies all over the world. in extreme cases, mr. president, they seek nothing less than the physical annihilation of the countries they're targeting. in europe russia has launched a full-scale invasion of ukraine. in china -- in asia, china is threatening another full-scale invasion of taiwan. and in the middle east, israel

is fighting for its survival in the face of a war of extermination being waged against it by the iranian regime. october 7 was the worst one-day mass murder of jews since the holocaust. iran and its terrorists have attacked israel from the gaza strip, from lebanon, from syria, from judeansamaris and iraq and iran. and what has the administration's policy been, mr. president? since the openings days of this administration, they have pursued an obscene policy of denying weapons to our allies while allowing resources to flow to our enemies. they immediately halted arms to

our arab allies while lifting sanctions simultaneously on the houthi terrorists. the houthis immediately launched a vast offensive and today are significantly blocking shipping through the red sea. the administration denied critical weapons such as atacms to ukraine at a period that they could have stalled russia's offensive, providing both time and space for iran to flood drones to be used by russian forces against ukraine. and, of course, the biden administration flooded unaccountable hundreds of millions of dollars into the hamas-controlled gaza strip, which they knew would benefit hamas. joe biden sent that money to gaza even though he was warned that the money would go to hamas

and be used for terrorism. if you send this money to gaza, it will be used by hamas for terrorism, and we now know that the biden administration agreed with me. the biden administration concludeded that it was, quote, highly likely -- that is their assessment -- highly likely that the money going to gaza would be used by hamas for terrorism. now, ordinarily under u.s. antiterrorism law, that's the end of the matter. if it's a highly likely the money will be use for terror, you don't send it. you know what they did instead in they waived our antiterrorism law and said, send it anyway. i guess they're okay if hamas used u.s. dollars to murder israelis. because that's exactly what happened. after october 7, the administration didn't change.

even after october 7, the biden administration has slowed and halted critical weapons that our israeli allies need to counter-hamas. that utter incoherence has entangled this body. during the debate over last national security supplemental, i and many other lawmakers found ourselves unable to support the policy, in part because we did not believe that the biden administration would faithfully implement the authorities and appropriations congress would be providing. mr. president, those doubts were subsequently publicly confirmed. president biden has explicitly said that he is blocking precision weapons to israel and that he would even block artillery if israel moves to fully root out hamas from rafah.

i'll add, mr. president, that this policy is particularly egregious in the context of the gaza pier because the biden administration provides the israelses to provide force for the pier while denying them the weapons to do so. senate democrats have unfortunately found themselves in the position of knowing that this policy is both incoherent and catastrophic, but at the same time it's their party's policy, so they defend it anyway. what we should be doing is providing israel weapons now and denying hamas the resources it needs to continue its war of terror against israel. that's why in a moment i'm going to propound a unanimous consent request to ensure that the biden administration delivers to israel the weapons that the biden administration is

withholding. this legislation has already passed the house. in a moment, it might pass the senate. for folks at home who are watching, you should watch very carefully. when i raise the unanimous consent request, a democrat senator will stand up and begin speaking. he will begin by saying, reserving the right to object, and then he will give some remarks. listen for two words -- i object. because this is binary. if at the end of his remarks he says, i object, it will defeat this motion and it will mean that senate democrats have decided they agree with joe biden in blocking weapons to israel.

and if he doesn't, if he gives the identical speech and crosses out those two words written at the bottom of the speech, he just doesn't say i object, you know what happens? the legislation that has already passed the house would pass the senate unanimously, 100-0 and go to the president's desk for signature. just about every member of this body goes and gives speeches and say, i support israel e israel. well, talk is cheap. if you support israel, provide them the weapons they need at time of war. we're going to find out if the democrats are willing to do so or not. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 398, h h.r. 8369, i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that

the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. welch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: reserving the right to object, the war in gaza has been a humanitarian catastrophe. tens of thousands of civilians have been killed and wounded, thousands of children are not able to obtain medical care that they urgently need, hundreds of thousands of people in northern gaza have been told to relocate again and again and again. there's no safe place for these innocent people to go in gaza. also, the 100 precious born-alives of -- precious lives of hows do remain. i am upset about the anti-israel sentiment manier in our own

country. as everyone is painfully aware, hamas built its underground system of tunnels underespionage civilian structures, hospitals, and schools. a very difficult dilemma but the answer is not the entire destruction of gaza. secretary of defense austin said there's a better way to prosecute the military campaign than -- and to eliminate hamas while protecting civil yams. that's our military leader. that's a sentiment shared by many u.s. military officers both active and it retired, and incidentally many israeli officers. israel has received, as my colleague from texas knows, and as my colleague from texas also knows israel has continued to receive massive amounts of u.s. weapons, ammunition, and other military aid. the congress passed an emergency

supplemental in addition to the fiscal year 2024 appropriations bill. and together they provide literally billions of dollars, billions of dollars in military aid for israel. so the suggestion, mr. p mr. president, that israel is lacking for u.s. weapons and ammunition is without any merit whatsoever. the conflict between israelis and palestinians will not be solved with more bombs, particularly when the netanyahu government has yet to articulate achievable goals or a roble plan for what -- or a credible plan for what somes next after the war ends, something, mr. president, that many israeli citizens are pointing out and objecting to the manner in which prime minister netanyahu is conducting this war. and in the meantime starvation is escalating for women and

children, innocent people in gaza. who had nothing to do with what happened on october 7. and incidentally, as the senator from texas knows, every single one of us in the senate is absolutely horrified by what hamas did on that day, october 7. and as my good friend from texas said, that was the worst mass murder of innocent jewish people since the holocaust. horrifying. i think it's fair to shea that everybody -- i think it's fair to say that everybody in this body wants the war to end. they want a secure, peaceful israel, and we want a secure, peaceful palestinian state. but the suggestion that the u.s. government is not providing significant aid to israel, which i've objected to but this

congress has supported by a very large margin, is flat-out wrong. so for these reasons, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, move to discharge s.j. res. 89 from the foreign relations committee. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cruz, moves to discharge s.j. res. 89, a joint resolution to direct the termination of the use of united states armed forces and so forth from the committee on foreign relations. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, the gaza pier is a perfect example of the biden administration's foreign policy incoherence. this was a nearly half billion

dollar stunt trying to buy a few votes in michigan. it's been an unconscionable waste of american taxpayer dollars and small it has undermined america's geopolitical credibility with our allies. the pier is unnecessary. we can debate whether sufficient aid is getting to the gaza strip. but i believe that our israeli allies have taken unprecedented steps to ensure that indeed there is. i understand that many democrats disagree. what is undeniable, however, is that whatever aid is coming in, it has not, will not, and indeed could not have come through this godforsaken pier. the operation was simply too insignificant and too convoluted. moreover, we know that hamas diverts aid delivered through this pier. the pier has also been

reportedly attacked by palestinian terrorists and three u.s. servicemembers have been injured because of pier operations. further, the pier has cost american taxpayers a minimum of $320 million to construct, and that was an estimate from april, so it is surely higher now. meanwhile, we have required our israeli allies to provide a, quote, security bubble around the pier. we are pressuring them to protect this operation, which is bringing supplies hijacked by hamas. and, mr. president, joe biden is asking israel to protect the gaza pier from hamas while denying israel the weapons to counter hamas. and as we just saw, senate democrats are endorsing that policy. i find it difficult, mr. president, to think of a

more ridiculous policy. let's be clear, american policy should be unequivocal. we need to ensure that israel has the military and diplomatic support to utterly eradical hamas. -- eradicate hamas. that's good for israel and it's good for america. unfortunately, we've seen a recurring theme from the biden administration and from senate democrats. undermine israel every step of the way and aid terrorists at every step of the way. in fact, this administration has been the greatest friends to hamas and hezbollah and the greatest ally to the ayatollah khomeini on the planet. under the biden presidency, every 100 billion -- over $100 billion has flowed to iranian. $6

would lead. the biden administration is sendings money to gaza. the policy is utterly backwards. you ask anyone on the street what should we do on foreign policy, they would say we should support our friends and stand up to our enemies. unfortunately, joe biden and the democrats, their policy is block weapons to our friends, block weapons to israel, and send billions of dollars to our enemies who are actively trying to kill israelis and actively trying to kill american peoples. it is alice in wonderland through the looking glass.

now, what the senate should be doing is voting on the legislation the house has already passed to provide the weapons israel needs now. just a minute ago i tried to pass that here on the floor of the senate and you saw senate democrats object to that. why is it that we're not voting right now on providing weapons to israel that joe biden has blocked? because senate democrats do not want to vote on it. the only reason it didn't pass a ago is that a senate democrat objected and did so on behalf of all of the democrats and we know it is all of the democrats. because chuck schumer could schedule the house bill for a vote anytime he wants, and he says he will not allow it to come to a vote. so understand if you support israel, the reason the biden

administration is able to block weapons from going to israel is because every senate democrat is standing in solidarity with this white house, blocking weapons from going to israel in a time of war. the reason you heard the words, i object, is some senate democrats don't want to go on the record for that. they don't want to actually cast the vote. the senator who objected is from the state of vermont. vermont is a bright blue state, a state that they comfortably believe is safe to make an objection. senators who are on the ballot in red or purple stays are not eager to go on record on this question. procedurally, i do not have the ability to force a vote on passing the already-passed house bill that would provide immediate weapons to israel. there's not a procedural vehicle to do that. but there is a procedural vehicle to vote on the mirror

image of that policy. if we can't vote saying america should provide weapons to our friend, the state of israel, what we can vote on is we should is to the giving money to our enemies, to hamas. the gaza pier is flowing money to gaza that is benefiting hamas. and under the war powers act, i have the ability procedurally to force a vote, which we're about to have on whether to cut off that money. everyone at home, i want you to understand this is a vote yes on the gaza pier, yes on cutting off money to hamas. but it's also a vote on the other half of the policy should we provide weapons to israel. i would have p more than happily withdrawn this war powers resolution if, if, if the democrat majority would allow a vote on the legislation that's

already passed the house providing immediate weapons to israel, but democrat leadership doesn't want that vote. so i'm going to force the only vote we can get, and understand when you see democrat after democrat after democrat walk down to the well of the senate and vote, i'm going to make a prediction, they're going to vote quietly. you may see a couple, a couple who have been among the loudest opponents of israel, a couple may vote loudly, but most democrats are going to walk in very quietly and go to the clerk and go no. maybe point down quietly, but it's not going to be a vote they're proud of. it's going to be a vote that they hope their constituents don't know about. they hope that the men and women they represent don't hear about. and it's going to be a vote, sadly, that simply reflects party loyalty, that the biden white house has cracked the wip and said we oppose our enemies,

support our friends, now fall in line and vote accordingly. i'm hoping that senate democrats will rediscover that the senate is an independent body, that the senate doesn't work for the white house. even if your own party is in charge. that the senate was designed to provide checks and balances on the president, especially concerning foreign policy. that the senate is given by the framers of our constitution unique responsibilities concerning foreign policy. the responsibility to declare war, the responsibility to ratify treaties, the responsibility to confirm ambassadors, to confirm the secretary of state, to confirm military officers. the framers designed the senate to check an executive, whether from your own party or the

opposing party. there was a long history of senate democrats who were willing to stand up to democrat presidents. there was a senate democrat named scoop jackson. scoop jackson had the courage to stand up even if it was a democrat president and fight for american national security. i wish we had even one scoop jackson democrat left in the senate. even one democrat who would stand up and say, look, i'm with the biden white house most of the time, but on cutting off weapons to israel, on funding gads, on sending -- on funding gaza, on sending money to iran and hamas enough is enough. i can't do that. it's within the prerogative of every senator to do just that. and i would note it's possible. we just had a senate judiciary markup going into the markup

every assumed the nominee would be voted out. this was a radical nominee, who ordered a 6'2" biological man, a serial repeat rapist to be housed in a woman's prison. it's an extreme and radical nominee. i and others led the opposition to it. we just had the markup. we walked into the markup, and everyone assumed, as has happened for three and a half years that the democrats would vote like the politburo, da, and vote for whatever extreme nominee was in front of us. and something shocking happened. when the vote happened one of the democrat senators, democrat senator from georgia voted no, and the nominee was defeated.

i'm going to point to that as an example to the democrats in this chamber. i understand the white house expects you to fall in line, that president biden is coming to join you for lunch today. but every senator has the prerogative to make your own choice. do you agree with undermining israel? do you agree with flowing money to gaza and hamas and iran and terrorists who want to kill us? and if you don't, the people of your state have elected you and given you the prerogative and given you the voice to stand up and say no to this policy that is endangering america and endangering our allies. i urge every member, republican and democrat, to stand together united. it would be powerful if we saw a bipartisan vote saying we stand with our friends and we stand against our enemies, and enough

with this nonsense of funding people who want to kill us. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, just to alert our colleagues, it's my intentions at the end of this debate to make a point of order that this joint resolution is not entitled to privilege under 50usc 1546h an due to u.s. troops not being engaged in hostilities, but in order to allow the debate to continue i'll withhold that motion until the end of discussions. this resolution that's before us would be an unprecedented invocation of the expedited procedures in the war powers resolution. i'm a strong supporter of the war powers. i think it's an appropriate use of congressional oversight on our powers to commit our troops to harm's way.

this resolution does not seek to remove u.s. forces from hostility, but rather to end a specific mission. the war powers is to deal with our military troops, not to deal with tactical military and nonmilitary actions. the senate should not allow the privileged vehicle intended for entirely different purposes to be used as a back door effort to stop humanitarian assistance. let me be clear about this. american boots are not on the ground in gaza. u.s. troops are operating the pier in question are not engaged in hostilities or carrying out a mission that requires the authorization of the use of military force. they are facilitating delivery of food, water, and other basic humanitarian assistance. the supplies are not even being delivered by u.s. forces. let me just call to our

colleagues' attention what is included in the war powers act itself. it deals where united states armed forces are in hostilities or in situations where emintent involvement in hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances and continues to use such force or hostilities or in such situations. that's not what we have here in regards to the pier. so this is a, not the appropriate use of the war powers act. i might tell you this is somewhat moot because we expect by the end of this month the pier operations are going to cease. but in any event, i think it's important for this body to make clear we support the war powers. this is not an appropriate use of the war powers. and for that reason, i will be making a motion at the end that, of a point of order. but i understand some other

colleagues have some points, so i'll yield the floor. but i will ask for the floor before the end of debate. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise in support of senator cardin and basically the concerns we have the war powers act and diminishing act to the point that we can't react to the needs around the world to not only defend ourselves but help our allies. i agree also with senator cruz that this pier has not worked. it has not done what it was intended to do. difficult conditions, a lot of money has been spent. but to go any further is needless. and i am going to intend to enter into a resolution, have a resolution for today that basically wil do exactly what senator cruz has said in his except we'll do a sense of the senate versus invoking the war powers act. and i will ask for the consent and hopefully support my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. that will be later. we'll do it today before we leave.

mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: -- from west virginia. i think you're going, my colleague is going about it the right way, dealing with the substance of the issue through a resolution and not invoking the authorities we have for expedited procedures under the war powers act. and for that reason, mr. president, i make a point of order -- for that reason, mr. president, i intend later to make a point of order. i yield the floor.

mr. cruz: mr. president are. the presiding officer: the

senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, the senator from maryland said that he intends to raise a point of or order objecting to this war powers resolution because we do not have servicemembers in harm's way, we do not have a active hostilities which is what is required by the war powers act. that is a creative procedural argument. it just has the inconvenient fact of not being true. and not only is it not true, but what the chairman of the foreign rel relat relations committee is arguing to this body is contrary to the ex explicit position of the biden department of defense. i want to read to you from a press briefing from the biden department of defense on may 16. a reporter asked the official spokesperson for the department of defense, question, quote, the usaid spokesperson said

yesterday he wasn't satisfied yet with the deconfliction arrangement and he added the maritime corridors exposed to, we do not think that the j. lots are exposed to any risks above that already present in gaza. that's pretty frightening now, isn't it? given how many people have been killed. answer, and this is from the biden department of defense. quote, i don't think we've come up here with rose colored glasses and say t -- and said this is not a risk. this is antive war -- an active war zone. the biden department of defense has explicitly stated this is an active war zone that they are putting u.s. personnel at risk and that is precisely what the war powers act gives this party the ability to act. i would note as well, my friend

from west virginia, said he wanted a sense of the senate but not to use the war powers act. the war powers act is a way for congress to exercise its prero prerogative. over recent decades we've seen the senate hand away much of our responsibility on foreign policy and national security to the executive. that is contrary to the design of our constitution and it is frankly harmful to the senate and harmful to this country. we are not merely a body that has a sense of the senate. look, i will assume i will join whatever the sense of the senate, if it stays dids a -- if it says it's a dumb idea, i'll join it. the senate exists to do more important things than to make general musings into the either, the senate has the constikoo constitutional power and under the war powers act has the power to stop sending servicemembers

into harm's way. far too often the senate has stepped out of our historic role in foreign policy, has said whatever the president wants, we, the senate aren't going to say anything about it. when there's a republican president, democrat senators suddenly discover their voice and say, hey, the senate ought to say something. when it's a democrat president, it seems no matter how incoherent and disastrous the foreign policy from the democrat president, sedemocrat senators don't want the senate to exercise its authority. i will reiterate the offer i made just moments ago to the staff and the senate majority leader. i will withdraw this war powers resolution if the senate votes on the legislation that has already passed the house to provide the weapons that the biden whiteho house is blocking to -- the biden white house is

blocking to israel. the senate democrats don't want to do that because they don't want their vote on record. and because of that, this is the only procedure i have. because procedurally i have a right to force a vote on this. chairman of the foreign relations committee said they're not active hostilities, the biden department of defense has disa disagreed. i don't think we have come up here with rose-colored glasses, and said this is not a risk. this is an active war zone. that means the war powers act fully applies. i yield the floor.

mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. there is no dispute that there's active hostilities in gaza. that's not the issue. the question is whether american troops have been engaged in that who's tilt, and they are -- hostility, and they are not. that's when the war powers act is triggered. american presence through missions are common in areas surrounding active hostilities. that is not unusual. the use of the war powers act in in circumstance would be unprecedented. a and i would ask my colleagues to recognize that there are other ways to express ourselves and i thank senator manchin for giving us this opportunity. this is the wrong procedure to use. if all time is yielded back -- i

yield the floor. kr mr. cruz: a very brief response. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: the pier was fired upon twice. it is difficult to say that we're not an active -- in active hostilities when we are being fired upon, and so it clearly falls under the statute. and with that, i yield all further time. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: this is not introducing our soldiers. mr. president, i yield back our time and i make a point of order that this joint resolution is not under bridge under u.s. 5, due to u.s. troops not being engaged in hostilities. the presiding officer: the chair submits the question to the senate for its decision. is the point of order well

taken? mr. cardin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is it there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin.

the clerk: mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons.

the clerk: mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis.

mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse.

mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. vote: vote:

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- butler, cardin, casey, durbin, hassan, heinrich, kelly, lujan, manchin, reed, schatz, schumer, welch, wyden. senators voting in the negative -- barrasso, cotton, cramer, cruz, hagerty, johnson, ossoff, rich, rubio, thune, tillis, tuberville, young. mr. kennedy, no. ms. duckworth, aye. mr. wicker, no.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, no.

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

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye. the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no. ms. hirono, aye. the clerk: ms. lummis, no.

the clerk: ms. sinema, aye.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. tester, aye. mr. booker, aye.

mr. kaine, aye. mr. crapo, no. mr. budd, no.

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye. mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: ms. collins, no. mr. whitehouse, aye. ms. cortez masto, aye. ms. baldwin, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. mr. lankford, no.

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye.

the clerk: ms. smith, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. sanders, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no. ms. warren, aye. mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mr. coons, aye. ms. murkowski, no.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: mr. vance, no. vote: vote:

the clerk: mr. grassley, no. the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: mr. rounds, no. mr. warner, aye. the clerk: mr. boozman, no.

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

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

the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye. the clerk: mr. cassidy, no. mr. paul, no.

mr. hawley, no. the clerk: mr. padilla, aye. mr. king, aye. ms. rosen, aye.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no.

the clerk: mr. braun, no.

the clerk: mr. moran, no.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no.

the clerk: mr. lee, no. mr. brown, aye.

vote: the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no.

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

the clerk: mr. graham, no. mrs. fischer, no.

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 48, the knows are 46. the point of order is well taken. the motion to discharge falls.

the presiding officer: senator kennedy? mr. kennedy: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and that at 1:45 p.m. today the chair execute the order of july 9, 2024, with respect to the meriwether nomination. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

the clerk will report the m meriweather nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, robin michelle meriweather, of virginia, to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. moran madam p-- mr. marshall: mr. marshall: madam president -- mr. moran: madam president, the senator from arizona, thank you. i want to speak briefly about the vote we just cast, but more than the vote the topic that it represents.

the pier constructed to deliver aid to gaza is a failure, was a failure, and it was a very expensive failure, and it's cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. it was an idea poorly conceived and poorly executed. it is unsustainable to maintain, and it's not fulfilling its purpose. it should be dismantled, and there are already plans to eliminate the pier after remaining aid has been distributed or removed. our u.s. forces, as they were in this instance, were called upon to deliver aid to areas of the world that are plagued by violence or areas hostile to the united states. and my complaint about the planning is nothing to distract from my admiration and respect for those who serve our country, and that continues in those individuals in the military who have served in the effort to try to provide aid to the people of gaza. but this is not an isolated

instance in which the united states and its military are asked to serve. the united states previously assisted iran after a devastating earthquake. this year, u.s. forces delivered aid to haiti, which is racked with gang violence. the generosity of american people to help innocent victims, no matter who they are, or what government rules over them, is a testament to america's goodness and to american power. the point i want to make is the war powers resolution allows congress to remove forces, quote, engaged in hostilities without specific authorization. i want to caution my colleagues against utilizing these authorities and setting a precedent that congress can or should intervene anytime we simply don't like the entity or the people receiving the aid. i wholeheartedly respect congress' ability to utilize war

powers when appropriate. there is no greater responsibility we have than deciding when to send our sons and daughters to take part in a war. this decision should not, and must not, be allowed to reside with the president, with the executive branch alone. yet, too often it's exactly what we do, ignoring our obligations as members of congress. the framers of our nation determine that war is to be declared by congress, and in too many infanses and -- instances and way too often we fail to live up to our constitutional responsibilities. i believe there are many more opportunities more pressing and damaging to our troops than just this failure of the pier where congress could and should intervening. at this moment, the united states senators are engaged in kinetic activities against the houthis without authorization, just like the gaza pier the biden administration has placed servicemembers in harm's way

without any strategy for success, at significant cost to taxpayers, and finite defense munitions. this pier demonstrated president biden 's ham-fisted approach. why allow him? but the point is broader, why should we allow him or any president to continue missions that are adrift and have no prospect of a solution? it is the failure of congress to assert our constitutional obligations in matters of war. today's vote was a step, step i think in the right direction, but we have much more to do to carry out the responsibilities we were elected to. i have said this on the senate floor many times when congress looks the other way -- when a president of either party issues executive orders or rules and regulations that make no sense under the law that was enacted that they're operating under, it is important, i think again i said this on the floor before, too many times people

just want the result they want, and they don't care about the process by which if he they get it. the process protects our freedoms and linoleates, the pro -- and liberties, the process is what the constitution is about. we ought to be fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities certainly when it comes to the ability to have members of our military in harm's way. our freedoms and liberties are determined by that. the framers understood that this country should not have a king, and that the powers are vested in the legislative branch, not the executive. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise to pay homage and reflect on the remarkable life of senator jim inhofe, who passed away and is now spending time with his lord and savior in heaven. i rise for a number of reasons. one, because he was such a fantastic public servant who

served our nation in the united states senate for nearly 30 years. i rise because as a member of the united states army he served his nation valiantly and sel selflessly. i rise because here's a man of great faith who dedicated his life to public service. but i also rise because of the slanderous headlines that marked his death. people wonder time and time again why the american people continue to lose faith in our media. when the headlines from the associated press or politico, "new york times" and abc news reflects a partisan difference on policy leads them to label his death in such a negative way, it does indeed cripple

their credibility in the eyes of the american people. when the "washington post" speaks of the death of an isis terrorist by saying he was an austere religious scholar at the helm of the religious state. but for senator james inhofe, the oklahoma senator and climate change denier dies at 89. it saddens me as an american that our press pays so little attention to the sacrifice of public servants and so much respect for those who kill because they can. jim inhofe will be remembered in oklahoma and around the country as a man of deep faith, as a man who sacrificed on behalf of a

country that he dearly and deeply loved, and as a man who brought people together in bible studies, in faith communities, and frankly around the world. i remember travelling with senator inhofe a number of years ago on what we call a congressional dell gachlths -- delegation. it was a seven-day trip with a ten-country stop. so if you wanted to sleep on senator inhofe's co-dells, you slept on the plane because there was too much to do when the plane landed. i recall them bringing together african leaders who had been warring against each other and having a moment of prayer before he found a way, courageous tloishgs bring two warring factions to the same table to solve deeply rooted problems that seemed impossible to solve.

i remember with great affection seeing some of his reelection ads where he was flying a plane upside down at the age of 84 or 85. jim inhofe was a great man. and his family does not deserve to read the headlines of media outlets that denigrate his public service, denigrates his character, and lessens his represent tachlths -- reputation. thankfully, no one can touch his character. they can only darken the shadow around it. because he indeed was a man of great character. madam president, i yield the

successfully entered the border patrol has been arrested for the murder of a mother in maryland. an illegal immigrant released in the country on patrol has been turning the murder of a nursing in georgia. two illegal immigrants are charged with the killing of a 12-year-old girl in texas.

unfortunately, i could go on. another case, 50 out of 400 illegal immigrants who enter the united states through the nicest linked smuggling network are still unaccounted for. it's impossible to predict every crime but the chaos president biden allows three plus years is in an environment that facilitates dangerous individuals into our country. 10 million individuals with that we know of that made their way it illegally into our country. the vast majority of american states and record-breaking

illegal immigration president biden's work. finally realizing they didn't do something on the border, the reelection prospects. the clear national security dangerous situation and losing election they had to do something. while this might of better late than never, too little, too late because a tremendous amount of damage has been done president biden can't fix even if he

should succeed researching future flows. while i'm sure these individuals are in search of a better life we could be confident suspected isis will have more blind intentions. and unable to apprehend and they delay into the country over the course of this administration. and turn yourself into border

patrol and go through the process and what possible reason would you have for wanting to evade capture? could be that those are the folks that probably have criminal intent? she was referring to the fact that under the biden administration's watch is out of the system individuals who show up at the border claiming asylum have been into the country with court dates as much as a decade into the future. my turn yourself into border patrol the claim for us is likely to result in years of legal permanent residents especially concerning we've had hundreds of thousands of individuals choosing not to turn themselves in an escape into the interior of our country. quorum currently invoked?

the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. cornyn: okay. thank you very much. madam president, i'm glad the presiding officer is in the chair because committed, as i know she is, to solving real problems, the legislation that we are going to pass here momentarily by unanimous consent has been seven years in the making but will actually address the problem of high drug prices. in the last few years, i've heard certainly about -- from my constituents in texas about the struggle to obtain their medication at affordable cost. it's not because no treatment exists or because they don't have insurance or because it's a brand-new drug that just hit the market. many patients can't afford prescriptions they have been taking for years because the prices continue to go up. and there's little evidence of anything to justify those price

increases. i've heard heartbreaking stories about patients leaving their prescriptions unfilled simply because they can't afford it. rationing doses of blood pressure medication and traveling across the international border to mexico to get certain medications at a lower price. the problem is when you go to mexico to get your medication, it may look like the same medication you take in the united states, but chances are it may well be counterfeit. so that's a real problem in and of itself. but these challenges have been compounded by high inflation under president biden's policies. we know everything has gone up in costs, an average of 20% over the last three years. groceries, gas, rent, just about everything is more expensive today than it was when president biden took office. senators from both sides of the aisle on a bipartisan basis have

offered a number of bills to try to get at this problem of high drug prices. wildfire these is a -- one of these is a bipartisan bill that i introduced with senator richard blumenthal. in addresses the patent abuse. our country offers robust protection for intellectual property. in other words, if you're going to do the research and development and go to the expense and take the risk associated with creating something new and innovative like a new drug to treat a deadly disease, our laws allow the right to sell that drug on an exclusive basis for a period of time. i think it's very important to

incentivize that sort of innovation and research and it produces lifesaving drugs. we know that many companies are unlikely to pour expensive resources into discovering new cures if at the end of it they can't even recoup their own costs much less make a profit. that's where our patent system comes in. it's as old as our country is old. the patent system provides a limited time period for the manufacturer to be the sole seller in the marketplace before a generic version can become available. but some companies are abusing the system. they're taking extreme steps to maintain their exclusivity for a drug and keep the money rolling in. one way they do this is through a practice known as patent thicketing. this involves creating intricate webs of patents to keep the competition at bay as long as possible, because as long as you

can continue to sell these drugs on an exclusive basis, the money is going to cope coming in -- to keep coming in. it will not go generic and result in competition from others. the affordable prescription for patients act aims to stop this anticompetitive behavior and allow new drugs to come to market sooner. that's how would he improve competition and ultimately lower prices for patients without standing in the way of innovation. the added benefit to this bill is the federal savings that it would provide for taxpayers. the congressional budget office has estimated that this bill would lead to lower federal spending by $1.8 billion over 10 years. at a time when our national debt is at an all-time high, approaching $35 trillion, anything we can do to help deal with that rising debt, i think

should be regarded as a positive. and this is just the savings to the federal government for medicare and medicaid. there will undoubtedly be significant savings for insurers who have private health insurance on top of that. this bipartisan legislation checks every box. it protects innovation. it increases competition. and it saves money for taxpayers and consumers. and most importantly, it lowers prices at a time when many patients are seeing their drug prices go up and up and up apparently without end. i can't imagine why anybody would oppose such a piece of legislation. election day is four months away, and the senate is only scheduled to be in session for 20 days between now and then, including today. patients in texas and across the country are asking their elected

representatives to do something to address these high drug prices, and it's time for the senate to deliver. so, madam president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 22, s. 150. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 22, s. 150, a bill to amend the federal trade commission act to prohibit product hopping and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. cornyn: madam president, i further ask that the cornyn substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: madam president, thank you. -- [inaudible] the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the nomination. mr. moran: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet.

mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines.

cliep ms. duckworth mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran.

mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk:

senators voting in the affirmative -- collins, graham, hassan, peters, sinema, wyden. senators voting in the negative -- boozman, cassidy, cornyn, cotton, cramer, crapo, fischer, grassley, hoeven, hyde-smith, kennedy, lankford, mcconnell, mullin, rounds, schmitt, scott of south carolina, tillis, wicker. mr. hagerty, no.

the clerk: mr. paul, no. ms. butler, aye. vote:

the clerk: mr. vance, no.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

mr. durbin, aye. the clerk: mr. ricketts, no. mr. thune, no. the clerk: mrs. britt, no.

the clerk: mr. rubio, no. ms. murkowski, aye. ms. lummis, no.

the clerk: mr. braun, no.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

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

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye. mr. barrasso, no. mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mr. king, aye.