vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 51. the nays 44. and the motion is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i was fortunate early in my political life to meet several people who became my heroes and mentors and led me to take up public service as my life's calling. the first was the senator from

illinois named paul douglas and i met him when i was a college intern in his office. and he introduced me to a man named paul simon. simon who was a lieutenant governor in our state, state legislator, congressman, and ultimately the senator who preceded me in this senate seat. after paul simon passed away, i approached his family and talked about a tribute to him and they basically said well, you remember paul. he would have been the last person in the world who ever wanted a statue and really didn't care much about having anything with his name on it. that just wasn't his approach to politics. but i thought to myself there were some things that he valued that maybe i can try to help in my own way in his memory. and one of them was in 2014 when i introduced a bill called the paul simon water for the world act. simon had written a book that didn't make "the new york times" best seller list. it was entitled "tapped out" and

he had a theory many years ago that the issue of the 21st century was going to be water. and he made it pretty convincing case and frankly the events and evidence since then have backed him up. so this bill, the paul simon water for the world act, was designed to build on the success of an earlier effort called paul simon's rt for the poor which had passed ten years before and sought to bring clean water and sanitation programs to the world's poorest communities. today as we mark world water day, i want to recognize what we've accomplished with these two pieces of legislation. they have helped provide for the first time access to clean drinking water and sanitation for more than 60 million people around the globe. those successes have also improved global health, economic development, and educational attainment. and they proven how far just a little federal funding invested in the right area can go.

both of those laws were passed on a bipartisan basis and recognizing the compounding benefits of clean water and sanitation, congress has sustained the programs. my staff has traveled to countries like kenya, ghana to see these programs in action. they've shared stories and photos with me about schools and villages who for the very first time have access to clean, drinkable water. in ghana, for example, these laws have helped fund something called the digny lou program. it's provided villagers with clean, sustainable toilets and eliminate water borne diseases in entire districts of the country. this world water day i hope we can reaffirm our commitment in this senate to supporting legislation in the name of my friend and mentor, the senator paul simon water for the world act that will help bring global health for years to come. and now, mr. president, i ask that the next statement be placed at a spat part in the record -- separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. just a few days america's eyes will turn toward the senate judiciary committee as we begin the process of considering judge ketanji brown jackson for her nomination to the supreme court. it's going to be an historic moment on monday, as judge jackson appears before the committee. gaveling the hearing together as chair of the committee will ranking as one of the highest honors of my career in congress. next week the american people will have chance to meet judge jackson, learn about her, her professional record, and her life experience. but for now let me briefly share a few things that have impressed me the most. by now i'm sure many have heard about her experience. judge jackson sasse collective bargaininged at every level of the -- judge jackson has clerked at every level of the federal judiciary. most would consider a clerkship apartment any level as an achievement for years.

she served at every level of the federal judiciary including the supreme court. she served in many. she was confirmed by the senate unanimously to serve on the u.s. sentencing commission and she would be the first justice since thurgood marshall with considerable defense experience. her qualifications are exceptional. in every role she's held, she has earned a reputation for thoughtfulness, even handedness and collegiality and just as impressive as judge jackson's record is her character and temperament. humble, personable, she's g.e.d. indicated herself to i can maaing about our legal system more understandable and more accessible for everyone who came in her courtroom. finally, of course, there is the perspective that judge jackson will bring. over the course of its history, 115 justices have served on the

supreme court. if she's confirmed, judge jackson will be the 116th. but she would be the first supreme court justice who is the daughter of parents who felt the crushing oppression of segregation and the first justice who has represented the indigent as a public defender. judge jackson also comes from a law enforcement family, has a deep appreciate for the risk of police officers like her brother and uncles, and i believe one served on the baltimore police department. indeed, with judge jackson's confirmation, the supreme court would come closer to fully reflecting the diversity of america. when justice breyer announced his retirement, i promised that the process for confirming his predecessor would be fair and timely. well, it has been. for instance, the committee sent a bipartisan committee questionnaire to judge jackson. in response, she provided materials that shed considerable light on her record, her

accomplishments, her write beings, her legal reasoning. notably, this included more than 12,000 pages of public records from judge jackson's time on the sentencing commission. the committee also sent a bipartisan document request to the obama presidential library. that request sought documents relating to judge jackson's nomination to both the sentencing commission and the united states district court for the district of columbia. in response to that request, the obama library produced more than 70,000 pages of material. additionally, judge jackson has written hundreds of opinions, almost 600 now, which provide extensive insight into her legal philosophy. in short, the committee has all the information it needs to evaluate judge jackson's qualifications to sit on the supreme court. we have sent a lot of questions for follow-up, too. she always responded in a timely way. so we're going to proceed with

her hearing come monday. this process will provide committee members an opportunity to question judge jackson, to learn more about her approach to judicial decision-making, her views on precedent, her record on and off the bench. here is how the hearing is going to work. each member of the committee will be allocated ten minutes to make opening statements. each member will have a total of 50 minutes to question july jackson. there are 22 members on the committee. if you do the math, there's plenty of opportunity for questions to be asked and answered. i think expect it to be a substantive hearing. i expect that members on both sits of the aisle will ask tough but fair questions and to gift her an appropriate time to respond. and i expect that the committee will diligently perform our role in the senate's vies and consent function. when the hearing is complete, i believe the american public will be keenly aware of just what an outstanding nominee she is. they'll also get to the see what

i've seen in meeting with her personally. she's thoughtful, brilliant, kind, has a good sense of humor. she's already inspired young people across the country, young people who are just beginning to discover their passion for law. you see, she gad waited from -- she graduated from miami's palmetto public high school in pine crest, florida. right now the halls of pall met tote high are buzzing with pride in anticipation for next week's hearing. one school administrator told me office that even though the students will be out on spring break next week during beach season in florida, many will be coming together for a virtual watch party as johnson & johnson sob appears before our committee. the administrator says that many of these students see themselves in judge jackson, especially those on the debate team. judge jackson decided her time on the debate team was one of the most formative experiences in her life. she described it as, quote, the one activity that best prepared

me for future success. well, today she is more prepared than perhaps anyone p to all the students at palmetto high who are following in her footprints, working long hours to atone their skills, you are owe on track. there is no reason why judge jackson should be the last. you should all be so proud of judge jackson. and, mr. president, aid like to add another element to thisment, a personal element. when i spoke to judge jackson about her family, she's naturally proud of her husband, who is a surgeon. but she talked about her two daughters and showed me pictures of them. they're teenagers and obviously good kids. she is he's so proud of them. she told the story that when there was as vacancy announced on the supreme court several years ago, one of her daughters picked up a pen and wrote a personal letter to president

obama and say, why don't you pick my mom? it's that kind of support every parent lives for. it means a lot to her. she is a good person, a good mother, a good parent, and she'll be a great member of the supreme court. i also want to say that there are elements that obviously the public has paid attention to. this being the fourth time before the senate judiciary committee, many people in america know judge jackson what they've heard about her or read about her. they believe in a positive way that she will bring diversity to the court, that she has the experience that's necessary to serve effectively, that she'll uphold our constitutional values -- liberty, equality, and justice -- she'll protect the constitutional rights of everybody, not just the wealthy and powerful, she has ethics and integrity, and she will place justice before politics. i'm looking forward to this hearing. i'm happy that the republicans have said publicly that they want to make it a respectful

hearing, and i certainly hope they live up to that. i'll do everything i can to convince the democratic side to aspire to the same goal. this could be an historic moment for america in the selection of this justice. hypocrite that the senate judiciary committee -- i hope that the senate judiciary committee rises to this occasion. i have confidence that it will. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. rosen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is recognized. ms. rosen: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in support of the nominations of judge christina silva and professor anne traum, nominees to serve on the u.s. district court for the district of nevada. both nominees have built tremendous careers and legal reputations and last night cloture was invoked on both of these nominees with strong bipartisan support. judge silva has spent the bulk of her career as a federal prosecutor in the city of las vegas, where she served as chief of the criminal division.

in this role, judge silva oversaw all criminal investigations and prosecutions in the nevada u.s. attorney's office. she's gained vast experience dealing with federal criminal trials, including violent criminal cases, civil rights violations, and cybercrime. and since 2019, judge silva has served with distinction as a nevada state court judge where she has eed the respect and admiration of her colleagues as well as those that have appeared before her in court. colleagues have called her -- and i quote -- intellectually gifted and extremely hardworking -- end quote -- and have commended her -- and i'll quote again -- deep commitment to the rule of law. these are exactly the kinds of qualities we need in someone nominated to serve on the federal bench, and they are the qualities that judge silva

exemplifies. i know she will serve with independence and integrity. for her part, professor anne traum has also developed a distinguished legal career, one rich with examples of her commitment to the law and to public service. she has litigated civil you cases with the u.s. attorney's office, served as a department of justice trial attorney and as worked for years as a federal public defender. since 2008, professor traum has dedicated her career to helping shape the minds of nevada's future lawyers as a professor at the university of nevada las vegas boyd school of law. a deeply admired teacher, professor traum has gone above and beyond founding a clinic to provide legal services to parties in las vegas who lack resources and volunteering significant time to pro bono programs in southern nevada.

professor anne traum has worked to ensure that all individuals have adequate representation to defend their rights, that all individuals have access to our justice system. and there is no better way to judge a professor. and by the opinion of her students and a, in professor traum's case, her students regularly credit her courses as the most important courses in their legal careers. the bipartisan judicial selection committee that senator catherine cortez masto and i put together fully vetted both of these nominees. and we both worked hand in hand with the white house to ensure that they were chosen for their exemplary qualifications, intellect and passion for the law. i was glad to see that both professor traum and judge silva's nominations received bipartisan support, both as they advanced through the senate

judiciary committee and during last night's cloture vote. these highly qualified nominees for the u.s. district court are fully deserving of your support now, and i urge each of my colleagues to vote for their confirmation next week. nevada's ned district court has been under enormous strain with delays driving up costs to businesses and individuals pursuing their claims in court. filling the vacancies with these nominees would ensure that nevadans have fair and reasonable access to federal courts. it is time to confirm these nominees, and i urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of judge kris tina silva and professor anne traum. thank you. i yield the floor. mrs. blackburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from fen is is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. one of the challenges we face in this era of great power

competition is identifying unique threats before they escalate. when it comes to russia and ukraine these threats have come into full focus. vladimir putin took off his statesman costume and declared a war of choice on ukraine. last week we received the first public allegations of his intent to unleash syrian proxies on anyone still standing between his with regard machine and the territory -- between his war machine and the territory. last week i laid out in detail how putin has used proxies to install himself in countries that are leadership poor but resource rich. we know that fighters from the kremlin-backed wagner group have slaughtered their way through africa and the middle east on

behalf of putin's grand soviet am mission, and now he's going to do the -- ambition, and now if he's going to do the very same thing in ukraine. we've also seen iran unleash proxies and state-sponsored terror organizations in iraq against american armed forces and against civilian populations in lebanon, yemen, and gaza a -- in their 2022 threat assessment, the intelligence community stated, and i quote, we assess that iran will threaten u.s. persons directly and via proxy attacks, particularly in the middle east, end quote. this is a public statement. this is the annual threat assessment. it is backed by years of evidence proving that iran has

done this before and they're going to try to do it again. president biden should be doing everything in his power to keep this threat as far away from american citizens as he can. but, no such luck. the impending nuclear deal he's trying to hand tehran unlocks billions of dollars for iranian banks, companies, and other entities that finance violence. where does the white house think that money will end up? we know there's nothing tehran loves more than a power vacuum. they've invested heavily in hezbollah, the houthi thinks and hamas, all terror organizations hunkered down in some of the world's most unstable regions. over the past decade, the iranians have spent more than

$16 million on carefully targeted bloodshed. that's right, madam president. iran alone, the largest state sponsor of terrorism. the landscape is chaos, and still the biden administration is pushing the world toward a sanctions relief scheme that would empower the iranians to terrorize and subjugate even more people. the regime in tehran is a menace. this week incoming cent.com commander said as much in his hearing when we asked him how sanctions relief would affect the iranian influence, and i'm quoting him, there is a risk with sanctions relief that iran will use some of that money to support its proxies in terrorism in the region. and if it did, it could

increase risk to our forces in the region, end quote. this week centcom posture review before the armed services committee outgoing commander general mckenzie acknowledged concerns about sanctions relief saying, and i quote, there is a risk that they could use that money in ways that we would not want them to use that money. that is right, end quote. we certainly don't want them to put one more penny toward those proxy wars, for good reasons. first, proxies don't just parachute in and declare victory. they brutalize entire populations and use weapons that these hostile regimes wouldn't normally have access to. second, because proxies operate outside the law, the rogue regimes that hire them maintain plausible deniability. third, this plausible

deniability creates a false sense of security that allows hostile governments to pull up a chair to the negotiating table and pretend to fit in with normal countries, all the while denying the u.s. access and placement. we have a limited number of ways to deter hostile regimes from waging war on the civilized world. the west failed the people of ukraine in this regard, but it's not too late to change course. ronald reagan once said, and i'm quoting him, war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. it is then that tyrants are tempted, end quote. he believed in achieving peace through strength, and so do i. it's pretty simple. if you don't stand up for yourself, you'll get run over. and if you don't stand up for your friends, there may not be

anyone left to help them when the wolves are actually at the door. when i talk to tennesseans about this, the one thing they want to know is why president biden makes decisions that make this country more vulnerable and less safe. whether through lifting sanctions on iran, slowwalking sanctions on russia or keeping our economy entangled with china's, biden has refused to lead. forget doing what needs to be done. he won't even say what needs to be said. he's fearful and he is scared to anger the new axis of evil. he's scared to anger one more timid ally in europe. he's scared to anger the radical left here at home. is there anything that he is not afraid of? he is so weak-kneed in the face

of adversity that he can't even bring himself to finish building the fence that would secure our southern border. i want to focus on that border security for just a few minutes because while russia and iran might dominate headlines, for tennesseans, our wide open southern border is a perfect example of what can happen when a president concedes national security to score points on his political rivals. border encounters were up in february. that's almost 165,000 people trying to enter the country unnoticed. 76% of the people the border patrol caught were single adults. cocaine seizures increased 83%. meth, 97%. heroin, 173%. we know for a fact that terrorists and members of international criminal

organizations cross our border with impunity. over the course of three days last december, border patrol arrested a guerrilla member of the revolutionary armed forces of colombia, four ms-13 gang members and an 18th street gang member. madam president, six -- six -- distinguished representatives from the most dangerous gangs in the entire world, and they almost disappeared into the country undetected. thank goodness for law enforcement because these are not ordinary criminals. in january of 2021, the department of justice indicted the 14 most senior members of ms-13 on charges of conspiracy to support, finance, and commit acts of terrorism. is this the biden doctrine?

choosing vulnerability over security, annihilation through weakness and who exactly does the president intend to win over with this approach? ukraine will find no peace in the easing of diplomatic tensions on some u.n. panel. children in africa won't have a future if we start writing checks to proxy fighters. the people of el salvador, guatamala, honduras won't be better off if we enable the drug dealers and sex traffickers who make a living exploiting their families. no matter where in the world you look, you can see the cost of joe biden's willful blindness to danger. he has the tools he needs to protect the united states from these threats. now he needs to use them. it's time to stop relying on foreign oil and make the country energy independent again.

finish the keystone pipeline. do an operation warp speed for energy. allow oil and gas exploration on federal land. we have to stop leading from behind when it comes to preventing iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. president biden must submit any deal with iran to congress, and rest assured we will block implementation of anything the white house tries to sneak under the radar. we must pay attention to the flow of money and power and proxy hotbeds and recognize the danger posed by these terrorists for hire. and we can't neglect security threats close to home. it's time to secure the border and give our law enforcement officials the resources they need to catch terrorists and gang members before they disappear into the country. tennesseans can't identify with the president's refusal to lead.

they're confused and frightened, but they also have faith in our ability as a country to pull out of this skid. they believe in the promise of america. all they want is for their president and elected leaders to prove that they also believe in this country. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: thank you madam president. i want to talk about three things. first, ukraine. what do they need? how much aid? what kinds? and how urgently can and should we get it to them?

second, does the way congress spend money make sense right now? third, political grand standing, and in particular, can politicians resist the short-term political crack that is social media. first, ukraine. how much aid do they need? what kinds? and how urgently? the answer is they need everything and they need it yesterday. if they can shoot it, we should ship it. the ukrainians are fighting for freedom, and we should be doing more to help. javelins, stingers, lethal drones like switchblades, surface-to-air missiles like s-300, machine guns, ammo, grenades, night vision hunters and, yes, planes, more, and more of it faster. i applaud the president for some of what he's done, for sending some of this. but i also note there are really important weapons that are not yet in ukrainian hands like the s-300's. it takes time to cross the

border and we should be sending this stuff as fast as possible, not having the administration's lawyers debate how many angels can dance on the tip of a sam. or debate which weapons should be considered offensive versus defensive. look, the ukrainians are the people who are being victimized. they are the people who have been invaded. every weapon we give them right now is a defensive weapon. it is russia that has invaded the ukraine, and these lawyerly distinctions don't really make a bit of difference to a russian invading pilot. if he gets shot down which weapon system he got it from will not concern him at the moment. the answer to the question what kind of weapons does ukrainian need, the answer to that is more and faster. second, omnis, does the way that the congress works right now, does the way that we manage the power of the purse, does the way the appropriations process work make any sense? can any of us go home and explain it to our constituents

as cautious, careful, prudent, adult management of the fisc? obviously not. this process doesn't work. i'm 50 years old, and in the last 46 years i think the current number is four times in the last 46 years the congress has spent at least 30% of its money under regular order on a regular appropriations process. four times in 46 years. this doesn't make sense. it is not prudent. it doesn't work. for weeks i've been calling on the president and his administration to submit an emergency supplemental to congress so we could send ukraine all the aid they needed faster. look, i'm a fiscal hawk, but i'm also a defense hawk, a security hawk, and i'm a-okay with us spending a bunch of money fighting for the defense of freedom as long as the ukrainians have fight in them. they're fighting not just for their kids and their future, they're fighting for free

people. putin will not be stopped until someone stops him, so the ukrainians are doing a service to us. they are willing to fight. we should be willing to fund and to resupply them. but the reality is that my calls for an emergency supplemental were ignored. the administration didn't make any emergency supplemental request. and the congress' hands are not guilt-free either. we didn't even vote on an aid package for the ukrainians until more than two weeks after the invasion. why the wait? washington did what it always does and decided it would just add the defense money to the orgy of spending and pet projects and bureaucracy that we spend every year in the middle of the night in a thousands and thousands page bill that not a single member that voted on it here had actually read. what did we do with the ukrainian aid? the reality is there was some important aid in the omni, but we should talk about how much it was. we spent $13 billion on ukrainian aid out of a total

appropriations package of $1.5 trillion. so for those of you doing math at home, that's less than one percent of what we passed in the middle of the night last week that was actually ukrainian aid. here's a depiction. this is the aid bill and this tiny, little subpiece of 1% is the portion that was ukrainian aid. so the reality is that the bill we voted on last week wasn't really about ukrainian aid. ukrainian aid was a little bit of sugar on the larger medicine of a $1.5 trillion bill that nobody would actually want to go home and defend to the voters and to the taxpayers of america was well thought out. so why does this happen? well, the american people aren't stupid. a lot of politicians think voters are stupid. they think you can jingle a shiny thing over here and then make up any claim you want, but the reality is voters aren't stupid. voters are distracted and

they're busy, but they're not unaware of what's happening here. they know why politicians talk like this, why they say that if you didn't vote for a $1.5 trillion bill, you were against puppies and you were against food for children, you were against all these really great mom and apple pie kind of things when the reality is you probably voted against the bill because there was a whole bunch of schlock in it that was unvetted, not because you said i don't want the ukrainian freedom fighters to have the military aid that they need. people talk like this so they can bully the other side. this is, quite frankly, a boring speech. it is not a speech i want to be giving. but the truth is if you allow liars to constantly lie and they can get away with it, they just keep doing it. it's probably useful for us more often to take people's nonsense tweets, which they do for a bizarre audience of political weirdos on twitter, and they should have to defend these statements in public.

it is transparently obvious that if you vote against a $ 1.5 trillion bill that doesn't mean you were voting against -- you were trying to vote against everything particularly in it, that you were against those kinds of funding. it might be because you were against lots of things in it that are indefensible before the voters. it's transparently stupid, and the voters get it. so to the question of do omnis make sense, the answer is no. we should do better r. but the question that our republic is partly going to have to resolve if we're going to get healthy again as a polity is will politicians be able to resist the short-term crack of social media? it doesn't look like very many of us in this body are interested in trying to speak to 70%, 75%, 80% of the electorate, but rather that lots and lots of politicians are completely happy to speak to the very narrow range of fan service that they

do on twitter. many politicians are addicted to twitter. they want their sick burns and their retweets and their likes. it's crack, and they have an addiction, and it's sad. the truth is that the folks who do this kind of garbage are hopelessly out of touch with the reality of the people's lives that we're actually supposed to be serving. it's not iewsm to drink your owr own bathwater. twitter isn't real life. it's probably useful to pause and make sure we have common facts about the collection between political twitter and resalt. giewsh and reality. first, 20% of americans are on twitter. 19%, 20% of americans. political twitter is something like the ninth most-watched portion of twitter. sports twitter, a for taste of heaven, unlike political twitter, a taste of hell, hollywood twitter is bigger than political twitter. k-pop twitter is much, much

bigger than political twitter. 20% of americans are on twitter, and politics isn't a top five subportion of twitter. of those on twitter, only about 40% say they ever use twitter for politics, but for the small majority -- minority of americans who do pay ainterpretation to -- attention to political twitter, again, 40% of 20%, we're now in single digits here, 40% of 20% is 8% of meshes, for those who -- 8% of americans, those who do pay attention to political twitter, the political tweets are dominated by a very, very, very, very small share of american adults. something like 80% of all tweets come from 10% of twitter users. but this is the audience that politicians are playing for when they grandstand on twitter. let's be clear, this happens all over the political continuum. this isn't chiefly on the right or the left.

if you ever wonder why are politicians such weirdos, it's mostly because they're grandstanding for a very, very narrow niche audience of weirdos on twitter. so we should actually ask if it's healthy to continue doing that. to our core questions, the ukrainians, do they need aid? yes, they do. we should fund freedom fighters. to the question of do omnis work? no, they don't, and everybody knows it. but to the question of should we continue doing political discourse like this, should we say that someone who had concerns about this was trying to kill off babies and puppies, no, we shouldn't lie like this. we shouldn't do that. we owe the voters better than that. we should tell the truth, and we should try to talk to voters like you're actually talking to a room of regular people who have jobs and who are actually trying to put bread on the table for their kids, and probably are pretty grateful nor the -- for

the inheritance that is the american republic and our leadership on the global stage for freedom lovers. the ukrainians are that. we should fund the ukrainians. we should have funded them in a more prudent way than an omni. if you voted for an omni, when i voted against it, i'm not going to attack you for voting for the omni, but don't go out there and lie and pretend somebody who streeted -- voted against the omni was against all the stuff in it, some of which is pretty decent. we can do better. we should. thank you, madam president. mr. moran: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran:i rise to pay tribute to a kansan, sonny rondell.

sonny passed away this past friday at the age of 89. i want to recognize his life and moment. a moment is insufficient, certainly, to pay the tribute that this gentleman and family deserve. sonny was born in percville, kansas. in places as rural as there, people are sparse, and you quickly learn what's important. sonny learned that in his life family, church, community were the important things. sonny embodied qualities that fostered his community -- hard work and generosity -- and like so many young men of his generations he was called to service to his country. in 1953 he answered that call and left to serve in korea. when he returned home to kansas in 1956, he finished his degree at kansas state university, earning a degree in agriculture. he went on to farm land in hamilton, stanton, and fenny counties more than 30 years. sonny was involved in so many

ways. he was a church goer. he cardin about education advocacy -- he cared about education advocacy thought our state. he was a member of the state board of board of education. he had preceded that by being a member of the syracuse, kansas, board of education, the high plains special education cooperative, he was a founding member of garden city community college board of trustees, a founding member of the education equality -- i'm sorry, education equity advisory council, the education commission of the states, the kansas commission for teaching americans' future and the national association of state boards of education. and that's only to name a few. sonny recognized, as i hope we all do, that education is the great equalizing opportunity for americans, for kansans. to allow us to pursue what we call the american dream. he received lots of recognitions during his life. he received those for his advocacy and in 2003 sonny was word warded the governor's award

for distinguished service to secondary education in kansas. from 2000 to 2003 our country recognized, 50 years since the korean war, and during this time the republic of korea issued a service medal and awarded those to veterans who had served, coordinating with congressional offices like mine. i was pleased to be able to recognize sonny's service to our nation, and particularly in these troubled times, these days in which we see the surge for support for freedom, sonny committed to doing so and served his nation and the world in that cause of freedom. in 2002, while i was still a member of the house of representatives here in the nation's capital, i was pleased to be able to honor sonny for his recognition during the korean war. then and now i thank him for his dedication to tower state and i -- to our state and i thank him for his service to our

nation. my prayers with his wife, vernea, and his family and loved ones. robin joins me in expressing sincere condolences. we wish those who remain to look at the life of sonny rundell and recommitment to our service to community, family, and church. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that my following remarks appear separately in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: madam president, this afternoon i rise to pay tribute to a kansan, a champion of the fort scott community, dick hedges. in kansas, we talk often of community and how important it is to the fabric of small towns that dot the state. there are small towns in southwest kansas and there are small towns in southeast kansas. because in kansas, those communities matter so much, we grew up knowing our neighbors and making the effort to get involved with those around us that ensure our small-town survival. dick hedges was a man that took

that need for a strong community to heart and helped build the fabric of fort scott in so, so many ways. last night i was reading the "fort scott tribune" and i read an article to tribute to dick. the headline read, quote, man who shared so much is remembered. it's a pretty good headline to have upon your death. shared so much. dick was a coach, a teacher, a vice principal, principal, college president, a members of the community civics clubs and church goer. he served on local boards, wrote for local papers and championed the arts in and around fort scott. in 2018 he opened a local bookstore because the community needed one. he shared so much of himself, his time, love, his experience, loyal at this and commitment to others. advocate for athletics, sportsmanship and the way it could influence young students in a positive way. for 40 years, he shared his life with purpose and continually

found new ways to do so. but to dick i expect that was his definition of community -- sharing oneself for the betterment of others with the expectation that they too, the people that you help, may pay it forward. dick has impacted the lives of so many, so many throughout his life, and his life gives me hope for others like him in towns across kansas and around the country. my prayers are with his wife, jan, the fort scott community, and his entire family and loved ones. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. madam president, i got the chance to hear some of senator sasse's remarks. i noted the floor chart with my name on it, accusing me of what he called tribal hackery. i'm not exactly sure what the rules of the senate are. i'm not sure that that is becoming of the united states senate, to use those terms about fellow members. but let me come down to the floor to explain why i think we should have a legitimate debate in this chamber, about a phenomenon in which republicans very often are not willing to cast their vote in a way that is aligned with their voice. yes, i noted this morning, as

was displayed on senator sasse's chart, that this week, of the republicans who stood up at a press conference and eviscerated president biden's handling of the ukraine crisis, two-thirds of them voted against the budget that included $14 billion of aid to ukraine. i see a fundamental inconsistency in criticizing an administration for not doing enough, but then not being willing to cast a vote to get aid to the people of ukraine. now, senator sasse's second chart, the one that didn't accuse me of tribal hackery, laid out a very true statement in which a small percentage of the overall budget is dedicated to ukraine aid. that is, of course, true.

but the reason why i find it concerning that members of the senate, who i take their word for it, are genuinely interested in getting help to the people of ukraine are then voting against the budget that delivers it is because it speaks to a broader problem in the senate today. which is a lack of interest in compromise. a lack of interest in finding a result, a fealty to the perfect and an antagonism to the good. now, -- i'd be happy to yield. senator sasse, i was going to try to respond to your critique, and -- but i'm happy to yield at this point. mr. sasse: let me see if i understand what you just said.

so eight-tenths of 1% of the bill passed in the middle of the night last week is about ukrainian aid. do you believe that the people that voted against it voted against it because they were against ukrainian aid? mr. murphy: every one of us -- mr. sasse: i'm asking a very simple question. do you think that a simple person that your twitter self-plesh urg was for, do you think that a single person that voted against it did so because they were against ukrainian aid? what is the point of the tweet? mr. murphy: the only way this passes is compromise, is voting on pieces of legislation -- mr. sasse: where are the pieces, dude? the presiding officer: i ask the senators to direct their questioning to the president and give the other senators the decorum to respond. mr. murphy: so inside every

piece of legislation are elements that many of us disagree with, right? inside that budget you voted against are all sorts of things that i disagree with. but in the end, in order to govern the country, you have to be able to find a path to compromise and what i found over the time that i've been here is that there is a pathway to getting things done that generally involves 90% to 100% of democrats and a small slice of republicans. it is increasingly hard to find compromise that involves more than 10 or 15 republicans because, as you state, inside these pieces of legislation, there are things to disagree with, right? there are things you find objectionable. and so while in the past people would set aside some of the things that they weren't happy about in the interest of the greater good, today there seems to be a higher bar.

and the result is that it's just a lot harder to get things done. now, on the budget luckily there were enough of us to celebrate the good as opposed to the perfect in order to get that budget passed and significant aid to the ukrainian people across the finish line. my worry is that as time goes on there will be an inability to find those coalitions and we'll be stuck in a world where you can't get federal budgets done, you can't get big pieces of legislation done because there isn't that interest in compromise to get a big package like the one we passed earlier this week. mr. sasse: i think there are three topics. argue with me if you disagree. one is ukrainian aid. i don't think we differ, and the reason i came to make a speech, and we have talked about this

offline in the past. one there's ukrainian aid, two there's the budgeting and appropriations process, and three, there's the gradestanding for -- grandstanding for audiences that be don't have anything to do with a single human being that's in this work space. in bucket number one, i think you know not a person who voted against the omni voted against it because of the ukrainian aid. i think it's a dishonest argument. i'm jumping in and you have the floor, but on bucket two, you repeatedly used the term, people won't vote for something because it's not perfect. i think if we can put the appropriations process up to the american people for a referendum, the reason you want to give it a b plus or a b minus, take it to the voters of connecticut, and the over all approval of congress is 9% to

15%, so i don't think you want to give yourself a 96% or 98%, it's obviously an f. the way we spend money is not deliberative, it's not thoughtout. it's always thousands of pages that come out of the middle of the night. when you say budgets pass with 50 of 50 democrats and 12 or 15 republicans, that's true. we have a philosophical difference. i think you're the one on the side talking about the difference -- i'm supposed to direct it through the president. madam president, i don't think the senator from connecticut is on the floor because i came to attack him for voting for the omni. i didn't. he misrepresented why some people who voted against the omni were dishonest by saying they were for ukrainian aid when

there was ukrainian aid in this budget. what we're really talking about is the grandstanding. there is nobody who is moved by that. there is fan service for people who like chris murphy. i get how people like what you stand for. but there's not a person who disagreed with you who is moved because of a tweet like that, there is not an uninformed american who became informed, but there is a subset of the people who like you you got to grandstand for. the public got dumber because of that tweet. nobody learned anything. mr. murphy: reclaiming my time. listen, i understand that republicans would love for this inconvenient truth not to be pointed out for them, right? the fact that they are eviscerating the president at press conferences for the crisis in ukraine.

there were members at that press conference that are senator sasse attended, that said if not for president biden, this invasion would not have happened. that it was his fault. that might not have come from senator sasse's mouth but there were others who repeatedly blamed the crisis not on vladimir putin but on joe biden's policies. and i do think it's convenient for republicans to consistently eviscerate the president for his conduct but then not be willing to cast the difficult votes necessary to help the president effectuate a policy there. the consequence of a no-vote on that budget, whether you like it or not, was that assistance money not getting to ukraine. there wasn't another vote in front of us. the only choice that this senate had, was do we support a piece

of legislation that includes -- the presiding officer: he's out of order. mr. murphy: i let the senator finish. the choice before the senate is are we going to support a piece of legislation that includes the necessary money in order to allow for ukraine to defend itself and for this administration is get emergency resources or are we going to vote it down? and i understand that the american public are rightly upset with the way we budget but on that day there was one choice before this body and so i do see that there is an inherent contradiction between republicans standing up at press conferences, which, frankly, are speaking most often to the audience you believe my tweets are speaking to. most offense these press conferences are to rally the faithful. it's a bit sanctimonious to suggest that only one of us in this chamber is involved in preaching to the choir.

much of the engagement of press conferences here about ukraine ends up speaking to base audiences and the message sent to the audience is that president biden isn't doing enough. when we had an opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation to give him the tools to do more, the same republicans that were at that press conference criticizing the president decided -- and i submit to you for -- for legitimate reasons having nothing to do with the ukraine money to cast a vote that had the consequence if it was the majority position in this body to disapprove of that money, to reject that money. mr. sasse: will the senator yield? the presiding officer: will the senator yield his remarks. i would ask both senators to direct their remarks to the president. mr. sasse: i would ask why the only choice was $1.5 trillion or

zero? the senate could work its will and have passed the $13.6 billion of aid money ten minutes later. could the -- madam president, could the senator from connecticut explain to me this apparent, to me, false choice between $1.5 trillion and zero? why were there no other options? the presiding officer: does the senator from connecticut wish to respond? mr. murphy: i would. the senator is right. not only was there another option to pass the ukraine ukraine bill on its own. there are always different ways that we can do things and that is always a reason to vote no. i could always choose to vote no on a measure before us because i could dream up of a scenario because the outcome would be better aligned with my favor.

there could be a theoretical outcome that would be better for somebody. we all had input. this was not a democratic bill. this is a bill worked out with many republicans as well and ultimately we had a choice. we had a choice and -- and again, i think it's easier to come down and vote no on everything, but when life and death are at stake in pa place like -- in a place like ukraine, i think the willingness to support a piece of legislation that maybe has things in it you don't like, the bar may be a little bit higher. the presiding officer: does the senator from connecticut yield his time? mr. murphy: i don't believe i have anybody seeking to yield at it this point. let me say this. i take senator sasse's position seriously and i want him to take my position seriously as well

because i object to the idea of my simple -- my effort to draw attention to the fact that republicans voted against a bill that includes significant money for ukraine as political hackery. i object to that characterization. because i think i'm speaking to a broader trend line in this body in which it is seemingly harder than ever to get both sides to the table to agree to big things that change people's lives or change realities overseas. i think senator sasse makes an important point which is the way we are doing things right now with respect to the budget is insanity. i agree with that. the lack of transparency, the fact that all of this work is shopped to the minority and majority leaders, that is not good for government or

transparency. i think there are legitimate reasons why members of this body would vote against the budget. but that's not what my statement was about. it was about trying to juxtapose that vote to this criticism of the president. i do think those two things are relevant because the american public is being given the impression by many republicans that the president isn't being serious enough about this crisis or isn't working hard enough at this crisis. i do think it's legitimate to put on the table for discussion the fact that the very people who are criticizing the president's conduct are often not willing to support the funding necessary for him to carry out that mission for reasons that have nothing to do with ukraine but have in the end the effect of denying the president, if this position was the majority, it was not last

week, given that the consequence of voting down that budget would have been to ultimately deny that funding to the president and to the people of ukraine. i think this is a legitimate topic for discussion and i will continue to raise it. i will take the senator's words seriously and try to raise in a way that is constructive, but i think this is a legitimate topic for discussion in the united states senate. this is not about rallying the base. this is about trying to promote a discussion about how we make this place more functional and how these press conferences that republicans are doing end up having some connection to the reality of the votes that happen on the floor of the senate. thank you, madam president. i yield my time. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: i'll underscore three points of agreement from senator murphy's last few minutes there as well just as a way to close us out. number one, i agree with the senator that there is a lot of

grandstanding all over political theater right now and that certainly includes people on my side of the aisle who have tried to imply that pieces of this are president biden's fault that aren't president biden's fault. the evil doer here is vladimir putin, who is targeting women and children and americans should be on the same team against that evil and so to the degree that the senator is partly motivated by frustration by grandstanding by people who have an r behind the name, i agree. the second point, i'm for this funding and my criticism of the biden administration has not been because they wouldn't support funding. in the intel space there's a bunch of arguments and fights we've had we can't talk about in this setting where i want them to go faster. but the idea with the problem of the administration from my point

of view is an unwillingness to fund, that isn't my position, and so the senator and i are united that that would be an unfair criticism of the biden administration and, third, and finally, he called our budgeting an appropriations process insanity. let's put a pin in that because what i was voting against last week was not done for the purposes of saying the ukrainian aid money shouldn't move but it's saying that an insane budget process shouldn't work this way where the american people can't get access into how their money is being spent and we have 12 or 13 subcommittees of the appropriations process and we almost never get to vote bill by bill. i would glad lay have us stay 24/7 for two, three, four weeks, however long it took, but if we had to vote on hundreds or thousands of things, item by item, it's a pretty clunky process, but i think it would be

a better process than the one we have, which the senator from connecticut rightly described as insane. on that we agree. thank you for engaging, chris. madam president, i yield the

[inaudible conversations] >> okay. we're going to go ahead and get

started. we have a number of members who signed up to be here, but the most important ones are here. i'm rob portman, co-chair of the ukraine caucus, and just got back from poland night before last including going to the ukrainian-polish border. i'm going to speak briefly because we have a lot of members who would like to talk today. i thought that the remarks by president zelenskyy were, as usual, powerful and passionate. not just his words, but the images he showed us, image if -- images we're seeing every day, images of russian forces deliberately targeting innocent civilians, russians killing hair neighbors. what the ukrainians want and president zelenskyyed asked for was the ability to protect themselves, the ability to have a fighting chance against the overwhelming russian forces particularly in the air. what we need to do is change our

approach. we immediate to be more creative creative and quickly in providing the ukrainians what they need. does mean anti-aircraft weapons, planes, drones, this because mean if everything we can possibly do to protect a country that is under siege. again, what we're asking for here is simply to give them a chance to protect themselves, to give them a fighting chance. the fight for freedom is being beiged right now -- being waged right now in ukraine. in many respects, it's our fight, and that's why we need to be there there standing side by side with ukrainians fighting for freedom. with that, let me give you the list quickly, senator risch, wicker, sass, corn anyone -- cornyn -- [inaudible] and sullivan. i didn't make that list, somebody did. so with that, senator risch. >> well, thank you very much is.

like all of you, i'm sure you were impressed with the speech that president zelenskyy gave this morning. it was certainly -- anyone who watched that and watched the film that accompanied couldn't help but move by that and really bring home very closely to everyone what's happening there. and this is all done by one man. and it's hard to believe we're living in the 21st century with 8 million people on this planet, and one man can do this. particularly when it's against a civilized world, most of which or a lot of which is substantially more powerful than he is. president zelenskyy is right calling for a no-fly zone. he is the president of that country and should declare a no-fly zone, and we should provide the means for him to enforce that no-fly zone. we need to give him the means to do it, and that can be done. obviously, there's been some material that the administration has provided, they need to provide more. we have hawk systems, we have

nasam systems that are available, there are also baseball the butte, the s-200s, the s-30 0s and the s-400s. all of those are fast to air missiles that can enforce a no-fly zone in ukraine. i'm sick and tired of hearing the administration talk about being worried about what putin's thinking and what he's going to do. i want to hear from the administration where they're -- what they're doing to put in putin's a mind a fear and a thought of what are we going to do. we're the most powerful nation on the planet. we need to telegraph that to putin. i'm, i want to hear them start talking about the winning, not about settling. i also think that the administration could do themselves a lot of good by thinking of this in terms that are strategic and not tactical. the strategy of what this world is going to look like in the future hangs in the balance with this fight. they need to focus on that and

quit focusing on the tactical things that they're focusing on. >> thank you. senator ernst, wicker -- senator senator sasse. >> thanks, rob. thanks for leading and organizing this. thanks to you all for making time. zelenskyy was powerfulled today, as usual. we know who zelenskyy is. we know who the ukrainians are. they're freedom fighters. we know who putin is, he bombs women and children. the question of the speech morning was who are we going to be. we're a superpower, and zelenskyy challenged us to act like it. zelenskyy needs more. if it shoots, we should ship it. more s-300s, more javelins, more drones, more stingers, more everything. this administration is constantly giving processed answers to -- to follow on ranking member risch's comments, the administration talks about this like it's somehow some nerd lawyer discussion, not it's a

moral if battle between good guys and bad guys, and we need the good guys to win. that video that was shown in this morning, every parent should watch that video, and lots of parents should do the hard work of showing their kids that that disgusting video. that's who vladimir putin is, and he doesn't stop until he's stopped. and the ukrainians are fighting not just for their kids, but they're fighting for freedom. and he needs more, and we should give them more. and right now the administration spends all this time talking process and talking slow and talking maybe we could help the ukrainians lose a little bit slower. maybe it could go on longer before they lose. but the administration if is going to be telling us should be telling us what their plan is to help the ukrainians win. if it shoots, we should ship it. >> senator wicker. >> thank you. senator sasse is right. vladimir putin is a war criminal. not only that, he's a serial war criminal. he killed women and children,

innocent women and children in his own country. he killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in aleppo. he will continue to kill innocent human beings until he's stopped. and the message today was, indeed, powerful. president zelenskyy has risen to the occasion in a way that i don't know our team expected in the pentagon. he's exceeded all expectations. we're now at the end of the third week of this unprovoked attack on an innocent nation for one reason and one reason only. they want to be free, they want to choose their own leadership and their own direction. that is anathema to the war criminals like vladimir putin. president zelenskyy asked for a no-fly zone today.

he's not been able to make the case to a majority of meshes -- americans both in the civilian community and the legislative branch or the defense establishment about that. but what we can do and what we should be able to agree to do is this idea of a humanitarian airlift. bring the water in to civilians who are dying of thirst in these cities that are being bombed. bring the food in. airlift the innocent civilians to keep them from being killed, to keep vladimir putin from using civilian deaths to break the will of the ukrainian people. i am urging the administration to look at this step that is short of a no-fly zone, and let's do everything we can to make sure that the force of freedom -- forces of freedom win this one and that vladimir

putin, this serial war criminal who's ken it -- done it over and over again and who will do it again if we don't stop him, that his reign of terror ends at this point. >> [inaudible] >> a couple of observations -- , and 7 the 7, that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the question occurs on the nominations. all those in favor, say aye.

all though, no. -- all those, no. the ayes clearly have t the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that at senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 193 and s. 120. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 193, s. 120, a bill to prevent and respond to the misuse of communications services that facilitates domestic violence sand other crimes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. comers comers i further ask unanimous consent -- are. ms. cortez masto: i further ask the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: the question is on passage of the bill as amended. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed will say nay. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the bill as amended does pass. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 551 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 551, recognizing the contributions of americorps members and alumni and americorps senior volunteers to the lives of the people of the united states. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. cortez masto: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: is there further debate? hearing none, all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without ms. cortez masto: mr. president, i have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. ms. cortez masto: mr. president,

i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. on monday, march 21, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour

deemed expired, the journal of r the two leaders be deserved for use later in the day and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 282, h.r. 4521, america competes act. further that the it cloture motion filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

backlog of tax returns, irs office file hiring more employees. watch the house committee hearing 8:00 eastern on c-span2, online at c-span.org or watchful coverage of our free video app. now. >> i'm pleased to nominate judge jackson will bring extraordinary modifications, deep experiences intellect and rigorous judicial records of the court. >> i'm truly humbled by extraordinary honor of this nomination i'm especially grateful for the care you've taken in discharging their constitutional duty, service of our democracy with all going on in the world today. >> president biden