vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 80, the nays 19, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will immediately be notified of the senate's action. the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: mr. president, i come to the floor today and will in short order seek unanimous consent for the passage of the edward

daniel anderl judicial security. this bill is named after daniel anderl, a 20-year-old son of u.s. district court judge esther salas. one year, nine months and 23 days ago daniel was brutally murdered by a gunman who targeted judge salas for her gender, her ethnicity and because he could not accept her judgment in a case that she reached in her court. to carry out his horrific hate crime, the gunman used publicly available information tracking down judge salas to her home in new jersey and murdering daniel in cold blood when he answered the door. and after that, her husband, mark, also was shot and seriously wounded.

every single day since july 19 of 2020 judge salas and her husband have born the immense grief of burying thear son. no parent should have to bear such a devastating loss. judge salas embarked on a personal mission to increase the safety and privacy of fellow judges and their families. mr. president, i know judge salas well. back in 2010, i was proud to recommend her to the federal bench. a year later when the senate unanimously confirmed her by voice vote, she became the first latina to serve on the be district court of new jersey. after the horrific tragedy she suffered i made a commitment to honor daniel's legacy through action. i told her l i would not rest until we have greater protections for those who serve on the federal bench to prevent another judge from having to

endure the senseless violence judge salas experienced. the bipartisan bill i seek unanimous consent for is an effort i am proud to lead with 12 of my colleagues, including senators durbin, grassley, booker, graham and kennedy. our bill would prevent potential assailants from using publicly available information to target judges or their families. it's a commonsense measure that would authorize the u.s. marshal service to monitor online threats and deter future attacks. it's so commonsense that it was voted out of the judiciary committee with strong bipartisan support. i'm talking about a 21-0 vote in the affirmative. it is so commonsense, in fact, that just, i think, two days ago my republican colleagues led a similar measure to safeguard supreme court justices and their families. so if the senate passed an important bill without hearings -- without hearings -- directly to the

floor to support and protect supreme court justices and their families, i think we should do it as well for federal judges. nobody made an effort to change that bill. there is simply no explanation or justification to protect supreme court justices while delaying legislation to protect federal judges who face the same, if not greater risks. no judge in america should have to fear for their lives as they work to uphold our constitution, our democracy, and ensure all people have equal justice under the law. every day that we delay in passing this critical legislation is a day that we delay necessary protections for the guardians of our constitution and the rule of law. there are three branches of our government. one of the essential ones is the judiciary. they make decisions every day about what is the law of the

land and what is the answer to disputes among us as individuals and entities. if that judge is fearful that their decisions at the end of the day will lead to violence against them and their families, how long will their judgment not be affected? and, therefore, how long will we as a nation be able to say that the rule of law is truly in place? so i ask my senate colleagues to join me today in honoring the life and memory of daniel anderl. let us do the right thing and unanimously pass the judicial security and privacy act in 2021 named after him. so as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 190 s. 2340, further that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky is recognized. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. i agree that the members of the judicial branch need better protection. in fact i've been appalled that left-wing pro-abortion groups released the addresses of our supreme court justices and there have been people at their houses trying to intimidate them. it's appalling and shouldn't happen. whoever it was that released the addresses of the supreme court justices should be punished. so i think there is bipartisan support in this. i was disappointed, though, that the white house has not condemned the release of the supreme court justices. i think so ranting and raving and noise all night is disturbing the peace and isn't actually first amendment protected speech. but if recent years have taught us anything, it is that members of the legislative branch also need protection. that was clear in 2011 when congresswoman gabby giffords was tragically shot while doing the most important part of her job -- meeting with constituents. words cannot express how happy i was to see congresswoman

giffords was in the chamber as her husband, senator kelly, was recently sworn in. but words also cannot express the pain felt by the families or the people killed and wounded that day. that should have been a wake-up call to better protect members of congress and in doing so, better protect the people around them. just a few years ago a shooter nearly killed congressman steve scalise during practice for the annual charity baseball game. i know. i was there. one staffer was shot less than ten feet from me. the capitol hill police were there and saved our lives. had they not been there things might have been much worse. but the capitol hill aren't everywhere, and our families live in many cities outside of washington. extending the provisions of this bill to members of congress would do nothing to change the content. in fact, i believe our legislative changes adds four words -- and members of congress. so i think these protections actually are good protections. i agree with the spirit of the bill. i agree with the letter of the bill. but really it should be judicial

folks protected as well as congress. my substitute amendment which i will offer for unanimous consent would make a simple change. my amendment would simply extend the protections that would be offered to the judicial branch to the legislative branch. so i ask the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn and that the senator modify his request to include my substitute amendment which is at the desk. the substitute amendment be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. menendez: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i appreciate the senator from kentucky's desire to protect members of the legislative branch. i wish someone would have come to the floor the other night

when we had a rush, which i support, to protect supreme court justices. that was a moment in which that could have been pursued. that went through lightning speed. that didn't even have a hearing. it didn't go through the process of the judiciary committee like this bill has. but there was no such call. and so i would work with my colleague on separate legislation to provide protections for a different universe, including a legislative one. i know there are other members who want to provide these protections to everyone. the question is that none of that has been moving on the floor. none of that has had the time and attention in the committee processes to ferret out the challenges, the issues, and whatnot. but every day we see violence

against judges across the country, is is and we have an opportunity to take a moment of tragedy and turn it into something powerful. and i would work with my colleague on his desire, but at this point, because i am concerned that what we would do is not find a pathway in the house, because there are already challenges in the house even to the simple proposition of limiting these protections to members of the federal judiciary, i'm afraid that such an expansion under this bill would render it useless in terms of any action in the house. and so i have to object to the proposed amendment, but with a desire to work with my colleague on anything i can to move forward at a, in a different way. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. paul: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard.

mr. menendez: mr. president, just a brief remark. you know, i regret that in the goal to protect ourselves, we can't protect others. not every law where we seek to provide and protect is ultimately grandly approached. i think that the passage of this bill would send a clear message to our federal judiciary, who are not on the awesome supreme court, they will be protected just the same as any supreme court justice and that they can make their judgments without fear that violence will come their way, to them or their family because of the decisions they make in our society. and then building upon that success, we can try to build and create greater protections

for others. but this maximummallist position doesn't provide protection for anyone. so i'll keep coming back to the floor. we'll keep working to try to make this happen because this young man who died senselessly and his parents who had to bury their only son, his memory cannot die in vain. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. tuberville: thank you, mr. president. today i want to speak about unlawful actions taken by the government of mexico against balkan materials -- vulcan materials company headquartered inial. -- in alabama. it is a major producer of

aggregates based construction materials like asphalt and ready-mixed concrete. the materials produced by vulcan can are used in nearly all forms of construction, like infrastructure repairs to bridges or roads, or when a new office building is being built. while headquartered in alabama, vulcan can has 720 facilities and more than 12,000 employees across the united states. its reach is also international, vulcan has a quarry in mexico since the 1980's, it supplies alabama, florida, mississippi, louisiana, south carolina, and texas. vulcan has quried lime -- quarried limestone for over 30 years. it has full ownership of its

property in mexico and owns the limestone reserves on its property. and it has the only deep water port in mexico. they operate that port because vulcan built that port. furthermore, it is my understanding that vulcan has always complied with mexican law and permitting, which is why i was shocked to hear mexican president announced that he would pursue legal actions to close vulcan operations. the claim is that his company is operating illegally in mexico after 30 years. that statement is categorically false. unfortunately the president of mexico followed through with his threat for legal action. the next week government officials unexpectedly presented

vulcan employees to immediately cease operations on vulcan's own land in mexico. i believe this shutdown ordered by the president of mexico, is a baseless attack on a u.s. company and shows a disregard for the rule of law. even br shutdown orders were issued, vulcan was subject to harassment and intimidation tactics from the president of mexico. including the mexican navy sending troops to the entrance of vulcan facility before last week. mexican navy flying helicopters and drones over the vulcan property and sending patrol boats to vulcan's harbor and holding a permit of a routine

custom permit from january through mid-february. this is contrary to the most basic principles of international law and the free trade agreements that bind our two countries together. these actions also go against the objectives and principles jointly set by the united states and mexican government as part of the high-level economic dialogue established in september of 2021. however, the president -- the mexican president's attack on vulcan is bigger than one company. it undermines the rule of law in mexico, ignores international law and free trade agreements, weakens our bilateral relationship and will discourage future u.s. investments in mexico. we have all heard about the actions president lopez has attempted to take against u.s. companies in mexico.

this latest action is an example of just how far he is willing to go. these actions will also have a direct impact on the supply chain for major infrastructure projects in the united states. we cannot allow this to stand. back in february, senator shelby and i wrote secretary blinken to express alarm over actions mexico was taking against vulcan. it turns out we were right to be concerned. so i urge the biden administration to take appropriate action in order to ensure vulcan, a great american company, is able to maintain critical operations in the country of mexico. i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president . the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, this week america commemorates national police week, a time to pay tribute to the men and women of law enforcement and remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect and defend our communities. one of the most emble metric -- emblematic reminders is the national law enforcement memorial. it's a beautiful tribute to the federal, state, and local law

enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty and there's 23,000 names engraved in the memorial. each of those names represent a hero and sadly the name of 90 texans were added to that memorial this year. these officers gave their life and service to our communities and to our country and we thank them and we thank their families for that service. as we mourn the loss of so many of these heroes, this week is also a time to honor and thank those who continue to serve and protect our neighborhoods, our schools, and places of work. i'm grateful for the dedicated police officers that work in texas communities from brownsville to am amarillo, from

beaumont to el paso and everywhere in between. that includes not only the municipal police officers, but the sheriffs, and border patrol agents. i'm also grateful to the men and women of the capitol police who safeguard this building and the members, the staff, the journalists and many visitors who come here every day. a career in law enforcement is never easy. but the pass few years have really shown a light on the challenges america's law enforcement officers face. first came the pandemic. while millions of americans hunkered down at home to slow the spread of the virus, law enforcement couldn't do that. they had to be out and about the community. they had to lace up their boots

and go to work every day. the risk of the virus meant that even friendly interactions with the public could carry grave risks. more than half of the 619 heroes added to the wall of the national law enforcement memorial this year died of covid-related causes. more than half of the 619 who died of covid-related causes. it's a deep reminder of our -- of the losses our country's experienced over the last two years. the stresses of the pandemic also led to a surge in drug overdose deaths and an increase in family violence, putting an even tighter strain on officers serving and protecting our communities. at the same time, we've seen a shocking increase in violent crime and homicide rates across

the country. in addition to these challenges, conversations about racial justice and police brutality have put all of the law enforcement community under a bright spotlight. and, sadly, this debate has, in part, perhaps inadvertently, contributed to a hostile environment for many of these officers. people painting with a broad brush, claiming that all law enforcement officers were racist or the system was rotten to the core with systemic racism. that kind of rhetoric and those kind of ideas undermine the moral, in my opinion, to the men and women who do not share any of those prejudices, thankfully. well, law enforcement has been the victim of violent attacks during this last year.

according to the f.b.i., intentional killings of law enforcement officers has reached a 20-year high. now, don't get me wrong, there's no doubt we need to continue to work together to improve transparency and accountability within police forces and we need to strengthen relationships between police and the communities in which they serve. i think those are things all of us can agree on. but as a country, we need to remember that the actions of a few do not define the rest. the vast majority of our law enforcement officers are honorable, dedicated public servants who go above and beyond the call of duty to keep our families and our communities safe. and they are committed to improving accountability and trust in law enforcement. we need to do more to support those brave men and women who are doing the right thing, who

are serving honorablably -- honorably at great sacrifice to their health and their family. here in the senate i have introduced a range of bills to ensure our officers have the training, resources and support they need to do their jobs. given the undeserved hostility many officers are facing, congress should pass the back the blue act, which makes clear our support for the public servants who dedicated their lives to protecting our communities. this legislation adds mandatory penalties and makes it a federal crime to kill or attempt to kill a law enforcement officer, but also a federal judge or federally funded public safety officer. and it makes it a federal crime to assault a law enforcement officer. as i said, these men and women

put themselves in harm's way every day to keep our communities safe and we need to do more to make it clear that violence committed against a law enforcement officer will not be tolerated, period. the back the blue act sends a strong message to more than 800,000 law enforcement officers in america that they are supported, that they are appreciated and that violence against them will not stand. i'm proud that last year another bill to affirm our support for law enforcement was signed into law, the federal officers and employees protection act, which carries the name of two i.c.e. agents who were ambushed by a drug cartel while on duty in mexico. special agent avula had

life-threatening injury and the other officer tragically lost his life. their attackers were convicted in a court but the convictions were reversed because of a loophole in the law. i have legislation to close the loophole and justice doesn't hinge on where the attack occurred. this law ensures that those who attempt to harm or harm a federal law enforcement serving abroad, outside the boundaries of the continental united states can be prosecuted in the united states court system. again, we have to send a clear message of zero tolerance to those who would attack our law enforcement officers. we need to send the message that we have their backs and that any attack on them will not be tolerated.

the last few years have also taught us, mr. president, that we need to do more to supply our law enforcement officials with the resources and the training and the support they need to do their jobs effectively. senator whitehouse and i introduced the bipartisan law enforcement de-escalation training act which would create a dedicated funding stream for de-escalation training. i think we all would agree force should be used when absolutely necessary when law enforcement officers answer an emergency call and those officers should have the training and ready knowledge of how to use alternatives to de-escalate that confrontation, both for the protection -- their protection as well as the protection of the individual who is acting out. this will help train officers in these de-escalation tactics as well as the most effective and

safest ways to interact with people experiencing a mental health or suicidal crisis. another bill senator whitehouse and i have introduced is the residential substance use disorder treatment act which expands access to treatment in jails and prisons across the country. this program already provides incarcerated individuals with access to treatment for substance use disorders. it's coupled with programs to prepare these men and women for reentry into civic society and to provide community-based treatment once they're released. these changes -- the changes included in this legislation will give incarcerated men and women the best possible shot at living a healthier and more productive life once they are released. this bill passed the senate unanimously last year, and i hope that the house will move it

soon. there are a range of other bipartisan bills to better support law enforcement so they can do their jobs and we can demonstrate our support and commitment to them. i introduced the public safety officers support act with senator duckworth to provide better mental health resources for our law enforcement officers. this bill would also ensure that families of law enforcement officers who die by suicide, that is work related, will receive the benefits they are entitled to. senator klobuchar and i introduced the justice and mental health collaboration reauthorization act to continue grants for mental health courts, crisis intervention teams and other programs that promote public safety as well as improve mental health outcomes and reduce recidivism.

and finally, i'm working on a reauthorization of the project safe neighborhoods act. this has been a proven national partnership between federal, state, and local law enforcement to use data-driven evidence-based and trauma informed practices to reduce violent crime. it's inspired by something called -- well, when i was texas attorney general, we called it texas exile but it actually originated in a u.s. attorney's office in richmond, virginia, known as project exile. it's basically going after the people who cannot legally carry or use a firearm because of a prior felony conviction. and targeting those particular individuals has had a very important positive impact on gun

violence in our communities. it's due for reauthorization at the end of september. and i'm committed to making it better, stronger, more effe effective. madam president, today and every day, i'm grateful for the brave men and women who answered the call to serve and to protect our communities. there's nothing we can do to adequately thank them and their families for that sacrifice, but we can take positive action to demonstrate our support for our brothers and sisters in blue. i hope we can advance these bills to provide them with the support, the funding, and the resources they need to do their jobs and on behalf of the great state of texas, i want to say thank you to all of the law enforcement officers, men and women alike, as well as their families who continue to put their lives on the line to keep us safe every day. madam president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum.

pushing to send mothers and doctors to jail to estimate nationwide abortion bats. with roe on the elimination this issue will not go away. as americans vote later this year they will choose between radical maga republicans want to get rid of roe, push national bands on abortion and throw doctors and women in jail or pro-choice democrats who will protect a woman's right to make her own decisions when it comes to her body. let me say that again. the contrast raising the american people is now simple . either elect more maga republicans want to push for sweeping national bands on abortion or support pro-choice democrats who will protect a woman's right to

make her own decisions about her body. either elect more maga republicans who want forced pregnancies and who champion bands without exceptions even for rape or incest or support pro-choice democrats who will protect a woman's right to make her own decisions. either elect more maga republicans who want to prosecute and even imprison women and doctors for carrying out abortions and mere friends give rise to clinics as well or support pro-choice democrats who will protect a woman's right. americans are going to see that contrast again and again and again as democrats keep highlighting this very important and vital issue. and as much as republicans will try to deflect, distort or distract the unbelievable truth is that their anti-women use are wildly out of step with the american people. just look at what's happening

across the country. democrats across the country are confidently highlighting their support for a woman's right to make her own choices and while the maga republicans may want to brag about their plans for a nationwide abortion ban and sending women and doctors to jail the clear majority of americans disagree with that extremist position. that's why republican campaign committees are urging their candidates to avoid the subject ofabortion because they know their views are out of step .again, democrats across the country are now talking about this issue. even doing campaign ads about this issue. the republicans are telling the republican spin meisters are telling their colleagues to avoid the issue. so it's obvious to everyone who is on what side. republicans can run but can't hide from the horror they created.

yesterday's vote was only one step, not the end of our fight to protect women's rights. this issue will keep coming back up again and again between now and when voters go to the polls later this year. now on ukraine. in the immediate future republicans need to work with democrats to pass another round of critical emergency funding for the people of ukraine. we have a moral obligation to act and act swiftly. the house already passed the ukraine package with overwhelming bipartisan support. it should be no different in the senate. both are caucuses loud and clear from the ukrainian ambassador earlier this week that time is of the essence. i heard my republican colleagues to work with democrats to get a funding package done as soon as possible. asap. republicans shouldn't block this bill. there is no reason whatever

not to get ukraine funding approved fast . i also call on my colleagues to swiftly pass additional legislation to arm the federal government with the tools needed to liquidate assets seized from russian oligarchs, private jets, our collections and more. it should be a no-brainer to provide the tools necessary to go after crooked russian oligarchs but nevertheless house republicans bewilderingly opposed adding these tools in the house package . the senate should do better. both parties should work quickly and decisively to get this done through a regular order . this issue can certainly be a bipartisan issue. as the war in ukraine enters its third lady month must leave no stone unturned in making putin and his cronies pay a price and helping the ukrainian people. their fight against russian

aggression is a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism itself so there should be no question about which side america stands on. i heard again my republican colleagues not to block this legislation. but to work with us to quickly get this passed through the chamber . everyone can have their own idea. if everyone has their own idea we will get nothing done . we have to come together on a bill that's gotten broad bipartisan support in the house and senate . now on nominations it's been a productive week on the senate floor when it comes to nominations. earlier this week the senate finally confirmed a highly qualified historic nominee to serve on the board of governors, lisa cook. coming from whole beginnings in rural georgia where her family fought segregation ms. cook will be the first black woman ever to sit on the federal reserve board of governors. she's a professor of

economics at michigan state and number of the federal reserve bank of chicago's advisory board and she served as a senior economist in president obama's council of economic advisers. she absolutely belongs on the board and i'm glad she was finally confirmed. yesterday we also confirmed viral as a commissioner on the federal trade commission breaking a 2 to 2 deadlock that's left the sec from pulling strings for a year. his nomination is fantastic news for theamerican people. the fcc will be empowered to fight against price counters , market manipulators and go after bad actors using anti-competitive practices to drive up prices. we've been urging the fcc for instance to look at market manipulation and price gouging when it comes to gasoline and now they will have the ability to do so because the republican commissioners refused to move

forward but now we have a majority of democrats on that commission . this week the senate confirmed another fed nominee jefferson and secured democratic majorities on important labor focused agencies including the federal labor relations authority . next week we will also start the process to confirm that more democrats to the consumer product safety commission. finally later today the senate will vote on jerome powell to serve another term as chairman of the federal reserve . few institutions are more important to helpsteer our economy in the right direction and to fight inflation than the fed . chairman powell presided as fed chair. during some of the most challenging moments in modern american history. i think all of my colleagues particularly senator brown, chairman of our banking committee who worked to move forward with his nomination and finally on usica.

our bill will take another step forward when the conference committee holds its first public meeting. the jobs and competition legislation is just what the doctor orderedto boost our economy , bring manufacturing jobs back home and lower costs for american families. many across the country want to see this bill done. a recent letter from 240 eight and local chambers called on congress to act citing its importance for critical technologies like semi conductors. oneeconomic analysis also found an acting this bill would add or preserve as many as 3 million jobs to the us economy . 3 million jobs . and it could be more as new innovations and new markets unlock new opportunities yet unknown. there is still a lot of work to do before we send this bill to the president's desk and not everyone is going to get what they want but even so today's public meeting is a great step forward. the bill is most worthily an important effort.

one that will pay dividends for years to come for months the great people of ukraine have been fighting valiantly in a war they did not ask for. their defense of their homeland from the russian invasion has already far surpassed expectations ofall skeptics . ukraine is not asking anybody else to do their fighting for them. they ask only for the resources they need to defend themselves against this lawless aggression. i strongly support the next package of military assistance which the house has passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. i hope the senate can reach an agreement to consider and pass thislegislation today . the ukrainians needed. we need to do it today. helping ukraine is not an instance of mere philanthropy . it bears directly on america's national security and vital interests that russia's negative action not

succeed and carries significant cost. if ukraine fails to repel russian aggression there's no question that the threat to america and european security will actually grow. our nations history is packed with painful reminders that america cannot wish away global problems that affect us and our allies burying our head in the sand. i applaud the strong republican vote for this crucial assistance in the house and urged my senate colleagues on both sides to help us pass this urgent funding bill today. now on another matter , two years ago the democratic leader addressed the crowd on the steps of the supreme court and threatened justices if they didn't rule the way he wanted. now far left crowds are

surrounding justices private family homes. they want to use intimidation to influence the outcomes in an impending case. it should be easy for leaders to condemn. all americans should agree judges and juries are not subjected to threats or intimidation campaigns. and admirably some on the political left have spoken out against this fringe element. the washington post editorial board has condemned this. the number two senate democrats are colleagues from illinois said i think it's reprehensible. stay away from homes and families. his counterpart across the capital the number two house democrats leader player said quote, we need to protect supreme court justices and their families, period. we're a nation of laws, not of violence, not intimidation . was steny hoyer but leader

schumer will not follow suit. they have not condemned the harassment, they physically endorsed it and top democrats are standing in the way of concrete action. a few weeks ago the senate passed legislation to give the supreme court's in-house police force some additional authorities they need to do their jobs. this isn't controversial stuff. it's clear this chamber unanimously. house democrats have been unwilling to promptly pass it . congressman jeffries suggested yesterday this uncontroversial bill might be shunted into a lengthy committee process. why in the world would that be done? these are essentially clerical fixes. they breezed through the senate without objection. but house democratic leadership wants to drag this out in markups while mobs assemble people's houses. i hope this is some

misunderstanding. i hope democrats are not intentionally stalling these security measures until after the court has issued its rulings. this would be reprehensible. at the end of pennsylvania avenue either president biden nor attorney general garland is apparently decided not to enforce federal law. like i explained on monday section 1507 of the criminal code mentioned right now a parade with the intent of influencing a judge applications that include a judge's residence. that's the long right now. people have been doing exactly that for days and days right now but the garlandjustice department is nowhere in sight . one would think a doj run by the former chief judge of the dc circuit would need no prodding to protect judicial

safety. and judicial independence. but at least so far the attorney general was quicker to pounce on concerned parents at school board meetings. the governors of maryland and virginia had to write a joint letter to the attorney general begging him to make his us attorneys do their job and uphold the law. so yesterday i sent a doj my own letter asking the very same question. the senate needs answers right now and the court needs security. right now. >> madam president we had a meeting at the senate judiciary this morning the committee discussed at the outset threats that have been reported against judges, justices, their families and

their homes. this committee has responded with a bill, a bipartisan bill by senatorscornyn and coons to provide more security protection for the supreme court . i fully endorse it and i'm glad it passed unanimously. it should have. there have been complaints this week about demonstrations infront of the homes of justices and others . i'vemade my position clear . i think that such demonstrations are totally unnecessary, unwise and should be discouraged. in some cases they are reprehensible. the pressure that's trying to be applied on these officials by protesters whether they are for or against a certain issue are just unacceptable. i stand by their position and i believe democrats and republicans agree we have to be serious about protecting thoseelected to public office at every level from

harassment, intimidation and above all from any violence . i condemned those attacks on antiabortion organizations in 2 states, wisconsin and oregon. the firebombing that took place in one is unacceptable. violence is never acceptable in a democracy. having said that i beg my republican colleagues to show some consistency. i was here january 6, 2021 when this insurrectionist mom inspired by president trump came up, crashed down the windows and floors into this capital and marched on this chamber. i was on the floor of the senate when we were advised by the capital police to evacuate as quickly as possible to save our own lives . i was in this building when several of the capital police stepped up and showed dramatic heroism and some of them lost their lives as a result. 5 to 7 people died in on january 6, 2021 and the result of what happened that day 150 law-enforcement officials were attacked and how did the republicans

respond? senator mcconnell personally stopped any effort at a bipartisan commission to determine what caused that attack. he personally came to the floor and objected, i heard them do it. the only investigation taking place in the house of representatives and thank goodness several republican congressmen stepped forward. i want to salute republican congressman adam kinsinger. he joined this bipartisan effort toinvestigate january 6 2021 . he's retiring now, he paid a heavy price for his decision but it was a principal decision and i respect him for it and the same with congresswoman lynn cheney. we probably don't agree on half a dozen issues but i admire and respect her courage in stepping up and saying she wanted an investigation in the house to be bipartisan and therefore she was going to be part of the panel. i respect her for that. next month going to have

public hearings in the house of representatives on this issue . we should have had a bipartisan commission looking at january 6 but senator mcconnell and the republicans stopped. what is the national committee say in the official release about the january 6 2021 insurrectionist mom who crashed through the capital here desecrating it and endangering the lives of innocent people? they call it legitimate political discourse. legitimate political discourse. with 5 to 7 people dead and 150 police officers assaulted . that is illegitimate, that is unacceptable whether the intended victims were members of congress or members of the supreme court. have a good sense i say to my republican colleagues to be consistent. if you're opposed to violence and believe it's unacceptable in a democratic society that standard apply whether the victims are in one branch of government or another. it's absolutely unacceptable in both.

i yield the floor. >>

this unanimous consent on behalf of myself and leader mcconnell. let me explain the unanimous consent. as the war in ukraine extends into its third month, we have a moral obligation, a oral obligation -- a moral obligation to stand with ukraine in its fight against putin's immoral war. earlier this week, the house passed a ukraine package with overwhelming bipartisan support. it should be no different here in the senate. the package is ready to go. the vast majority of senators on both sides of the aisle want it. there is now only one thing holding us back, the junior senator from kentucky is preventing swift package of ukraine aid because he wants to add, at the last minute, his own

changes directly into the bill. his change is strongly opposed by many members from both parties. he is not even asking for an amendment. he is simply saying my way or the highway. when you have a proposal to amend a bill, you can't just come to the floor and demand it by fiat. you have to convince other members to back it first. that is how the senate works. if every member held every bill in exchange for every last little demand, it would mean total and permanent paralysis for this chamber. the junior senator from kentucky knows that perfectly well. he knows that's not how this chamber works. again, when you have a proposal to change a bill, you have to convince members to support it. the junior senator from kentucky has not done that. so right now in conjunction with

leader mcconnell, i'm giving senator paul an opportunity to do just that. i'm offering to hold a vote on his amendment, even though i disagree with it. let the chamber speak its will. let both sides of the aisle have input. and for heaven's sake, let's get ukraine funding done asap. we must keep our promise to the people of ukraine, and i hope the junior senator from kentucky does not stand in the way of keeping that promise. if senator paul persists in his reckless demand, we will not allow him to insert his lang into this bill without a without and all he will accomplish is to single-handedly delay desperately needed ukraine aid. i yield to the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: as i said earlier today, the ukrainian people are fighting valiantly in

a war they didn't ask for. their brave self-defense is literally -- has literally shocked the skeptics and inspired freedom-loving people all around the world. ukraine is not asking us to fight this war. they're only asking for the resources they need to defend themselves against this deranged invasion. and they need this help right now. sending lethal assistance to ukraine is not just some kind of fill l.a.n. three pee. this conflict has direct and major consequences for america's national security and america's national interest. russia's aggression cannot -- cannot -- be allowed to continue cost-free. so i understand my friend and colleague from kentucky would like changes to the bill. those changes are not acceptable

to the democratic majority, as we've just heard, so i think there's a simple way to solve this. we should vote on senator paul's amendment and then we should pass the supplemental, and we should do it today. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: on behalf of myself and leader. mr. mcconnell, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 366, s. 4190, senator kennedy's bill on ukraine oversight. that the bill be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill. further, that upon disposition of the kennedy bill, the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 368, h.r. 7691, a bill to provide aid to ukraine. that the only amendment in order be the paul amendment which is at the desk, that the senate vote on the paul amendment with 60-affirm votes required for adoption, that the bill be read a third time, and the senate

vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, my oath of office is to the u.s. constitution, not to any foreign nation and no matter how sympathetic the cause, my oath of office is to the national security of the united states of america. we cannot save ukraine by dooming the u.s. economy. in march, inflation hit a 40-year high. gasoline alone is up 48%, and energy prices are up 32% over the last year. food prices have increased by nearly 9%. used vehicle prices are up 35% for the year, and new vehicle prices have increased 12% or more. yes, inflation doesn't just come out of nowhere. it comes from deficit spending. the united states spent nearly

$5 trillion on covid-19 bailouts, leading to one of the highest and most sustained levels of inflation in u.s. history. americans are feeling the pain, and congress seems intent only on adding to that pain by shoveling more money out the door as fast as they can. this bill under consideration would spend $40 billion. this is the second spending bill for ukraine in two months, and this bill is three times larger than the first -- larger than the first. our military aid to ukraine is nothing new, though. since 2014, the united states has provided more than $6 billion in security assistance to ukraine. in addition to the $14 billion congress authorized just a month ago. if this bill passes, the u.s. will have authorized roughly $60 billion in total spending for ukraine. for those who say this is not enough, for those of new this chamber who say that our military spending is never enough, let's put $60 billion into perspective. according to he willias usef,

kiev would become the largest yearly recipient of u.s. military aid over the past two decades. except for the five decade, it is more than any other country spends on their entire military expenditures. if this gift to ukraine passes, our total aid to ukraine will almost equal the entire military budget of russia. and it is not as if we have that money lying appeared. we will have to borrow that money 234 china to send -- from klein to send it to youth the cost of this is more than the u.s. spent during the first year of the u.s. conflict in afghanistan. congress authorized force and and the president certainty troops into the confident. this proposal towers over domestic priorities as well. the massive package of $60 billion dwarfs the $6 million spent on cancer research annually. $60 billion is more than the amount the government collects

in gas taxes each year to build roads and bridges. the $60 billion to ukraine could fund substantial portions or entire large cabinet departments. it nearly equals the entire state department budget. the $60 battalion billion exceeds the amount for the department of energy. and congress just wants to keep on spending and spending. our allies and partners have sent aid to ukraine. some of them even broke long-standing traditions. others are stepping up to defend ukraine like never before. in other words, it's not all about us. it isn't that we always have to be the uncle sam, the policeman that saves the world, particularly when it is on borrowed money. yet the united states accounted for nearly half of what's been spent so far. with a $30 trillion debt, america can't afford to be the world's policeman. the u.s. is trying to recover from the $1.6 trillion we spent on wars in the middle east, not to mention the'd 5 trillion borrowed for covid.

we should not forget that the soviet union collapsed in large part not just it was defeated militarily but because it ran out of money. in an attempt to save ukraine, we will doom or will we doom the united states to such a future? in the past two years, the u.s. has borrowed more money than n.i.h. time in our history -- any time in our history. we are experiencing the greatest rate of inflation in four decades. the assault on monetary discipline is untenable. unless we put an end to the fiscal insanity, a dave reckoning awaits us. copping should evaluate the cost of going down this path. we cannot save ukraine by killing our economic strength. so i act to modify the bill to allow a for a special inspector general. this would be the inspector general that's been overseeing the waste in afghanistan and has done a great job. so therefore i ask the senator to modify his request so that

the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 368, h.r. 7691. furthermore, that the paul amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time, and the senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with a 60-affirmative vote threshold for passage. the presiding officer: does the leader so modify his request? mr. schumer: reserving the right to object, it's clear from the junior senator from kentucky's remarks, he doesn't want to aid ukraine. that is not -- that is not the case for the overwhelming majority here. again, all he will accomplish with his actions here todayed is to delay that aid, not to stop it. it's aid desperately needed by a valiant people fighting against authoritarian and defending democracy. so i will not modify. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the original request? mr. paul: i object. the presiding officer:

objection is heard.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: thank you, madam president. i'm hear to discuss mexico, our neighbor to the south s the nearly 2,000-mile border that our nations share present a series of challenges, including illegal immigration, drug control and human trafficking. as we work through these difficult issues, our robust relationship has provided a firm foundation to strengthen and stabilize our efforts with an eye toward the future. the innovative u.s.-mexico-canada agreement has

deepened the connections between our two economies such that is mexico is now one of our largest and most strategic trading partners. however, action h. actions over the past year by the government of mexican president lopez obrador have weekenned that bond and are threatening the economic and diplomatic ties of our nations. through increasingly arbitrary and aggressive moves against companies based here in the united states and their lawfully owned assets in mexico, the mexican government has abused its permitting and regulatory powers in ways that violate the letter and spirit of our trade agreements. and the special relationship that exists between o. our two countries. these decisions directly impact critical sectors of the u.s. economy from agriculture to energy and mining, from transportation to tourism. these capricious actions, which are falsely labeled as reforms,

risk substantially undermining confidence in the commercial rule of law in mexico and these actions also rick jeopardizing -- risk jeopardizing the essential relations in north america. further, these actions likely violate our trade agreements by abrogating contracts, stripping investors of value, and eliminating private competition and oversight, thereby sending a clear message to u.s. capital markets that mexico is no longer safe nor profitable for investment. earlier this month, obrador threatened to jail people who stand in his way threatening a free-market agenda. if not quickly corrected, these actions risk choking off the economic relationship between our two nations. many important supply chains stretch across the u.s.-mexico border, supporting millions of good jobs and making both

countries more attractive for capital investment. this is certainly true for my home state of tennessee. because of that success, i've advocated for further expanding the integrated north america supply chain for critical industries as a better and more stable alternative to manufacturing and exporting from communist china. utilizing the success of the usica is the backbone for u.s.-north american competitiveness with be better for our nation's national security. it would better align the economic strategies and national interest of our two countries. without a basic respect for private property and the rule of law, that mutually beneficial practice will not follow. this will inevitably lead to the

disintegration of economic ties. therefore i urge president lopez obrador -- we should look to --ed and supply chains away from communist china. let's seize the opportunity together rather than damage our shared interests for short-term political gains. madam chair, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with senators whitehouse and blumenthal. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: i want to respond to something that was said a few minutes ago. what will the cost be if putin continues to slaughter ukraine and gets away with it?

let's see if i get this right. i can understand not wanting to get involved in a war, if you've ever been in one, if you have been in a war, you understand it is a horrible thing and if you're in the military, you understand some of your buddies don't come back when you have a war. i don't understand that not only are we going to engage in a war with a thug and bully like putin but when somebody like -- so this idea about this aid package costing too much put it in context of what happens to the world if putin continues to rewrite the map of europe. if we don't get ukraine right, then china will invade taiwan and 90% of all the semiconducts

come out of taiwan. if you have a community ransacked, nobody wants to come out of there. the ukrainians are paying the ultimate price. they are dying by the thousands to stand up to an enemy of the united states. putin is a war criminal by any reasonable definition and if you think he's satisfied with ukraine, you're miscalculating him like we did in the last century with hitler. if putin talked about the russian empire being created. it is not just ukraine, it would be mol dova and when you look at him, there are nato nations in his crosshairs. what does it matter to the

united states if europe is in a constant state of turmoil if you have russia tackling one democracy after another, it means a lot to us. we can't live in a world that way. or at least i choose not to live in a world that way. to the american people, $40 billion is a lot of money, but if we can stop putin in the ukraine, it will be the best money you could ever spend. they're running out of ammo. they're kicking the russians' ass all over the ukraine, they're doing the fighting on behalf of freedom itself and we should be the arsenal of democracy, the e.u. should spend more, the german are giving lethal weapons, everybody can do more. and there's a problem with baby formula. i would like to get more baby formula on the shelves, but letting putin win in ukraine doesn't help babies here. if you care about raising your children, you need formula but

you need a world where you can travel and trade without chaos. who will run the world? the communists like china and putin, or where the rule of law matters more than the rule of gun. this package has been stalled, but it will get over the finish line. to the people in ukraine, senator paul's request to have a inspector general overseeing the money actually makes sense to me. i don't know why we didn't do that before, but his argument that that package is way beyond what the market should bear misses the point of what we're engaged in here. mr. graham: the outcome of ukraine matters because if you don't stop putin there, he keeps going. this doesn't end. have you learned nothing from world war ii? go watch a movie about world war ii. how many people appeased hitler

to the point that 50 million people eventually died? putin is not going to stop in ukraine unless somebody stops him. here's the good news. his army was oversold and with the weapons we've delivered to the ukraine, plus our allies, the ukrainian military and citizenry are dismantling the russian military. it would be an enormous blow for freedom, stabilize the world if we could stop putin in ukraine and the ukrainians are not asking us for soldiers, they're asking us for weapons. and if you don't think russia, under putin, is a foe to the united states and all we believe in, you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on for the last 20 years. so we have a moment in time here to go all in in terms of economic assistance. their economy is in shambles because they're under siege.

they're fighting like tigers. the weapons we've given them, they've put to good purpose. the democrats and republicans are not united around the idea it is a good thing to help the ukraine. to my republican colleagues, who vote against this package, what is your alternative? don't go to poland anymore. don't go to the ukraine and say we're with you. if you vote against this package, and there's a million reasons to vote against anything, u- missing the -- you're missing the point. the world hangs in a balance here. if we don't get ukraine right and stand up to putin, there goes taiwan. i'm tired of being lectured to by people who have no understanding of the world in which we live in. the mistakes of the last century are being played out on our screen every night. so to those who believe that we can just let it go in ukraine, boy, you're going to be in for a

rude awakening. the world is going to be turned upside down and the converse is true. if we can stop him in his tracks, help the ukrainians for doing all the fighting an dying, then china is less likely to go into taiwan. this is one of the biggest moments in the 21st century. where are you? who's side are you on? oh, it's too much here, it's too much there. i have one senator who will remain nameless on our side, why do we have money for food? there's 227 million people in the world knocking on famine's door. between droughts and war, countries are completely under sieged. 40 countries have over 50% of their grain supply coming from the ukraine. it is in our interest, ladies and gentlemen, to help people

when they're starving so they don't do the things that they may do to feed their families that are bad for us. what would you do to feed your family? would you take money from al qaeda and isis if it was the only source of money available to feed your family? we live in a dangerous time where one thing affects the other. this package was put together quickly and i'm sure there are things in this package that could be done better, but we're living in real time here. the president's ability to send weapons really expires in a couple of days. so what i hope will happen is that we'll unite around the idea that putin's the bad guy and the ukrainians are the good guys and if we lose this war, we're going to regret losing this war because it won't end in the ukraine. so to my two colleagues on the democratic side, thank you both. you've done something that is hard for people around here to

do, talk about victory. victory for ukraine. senator blumenthal, there's been no stronger voice of standing up to putin and making him pay a price. how many people does he have to murder? how many war crimes does he have to commit until we realize this needs to stop? we had this same experience with hitler. people excused his behavior, wrote it off as he just wants to get german-speaking territories back. no, he wrote a book about what he wanted to do. he wanted to kill all the jews and remake europe and create a master race for people on planet earth in his own image. what is putin trying to do? a bit less ambitious. create the russian empire and the former soviet union anew, crush democracy that have had a chance to go a different way. and are you surprised that the

ukrainians are fighting? who would want to live under putin's thumb? would you? would you want to live in putin's russia? would you want him to be your leader if you didn't have to? people who have gone down the communist road are literally willing to die because they don't want to raise their children that way. so we're going to have a discussion here in a moment about some things that we can do that will matter beyond money. the american taxpayer should not be the only source of help to the ukrainian people. count me in for that. there was a proposal left out of this bill that would empower the department of justice to go after putin and all of his cronies and take from them their yachts and their villas, sell it and put money in the ukraine to buy bullets. that got left out of the package. to the american people, i get it. other people should be doing more. there's a bipartisan consensus

here that with additional resources in the hands of the department of justice and some legal changes, we could go after billions of dollars of ill-gotten gain and ply it back into the ukraine -- ukrainian war effort, money coming from thugs and thieves in russia to help people in ukraine, but that fell out of the package. to my colleagues in this body, what the hell were you thinking? why would you do that? why would you take out of the package the ability to hunt down the oligarchs and take their stuff away from them that they bought with stolen money to help the ukrainian people, another source of revenue, other than the american taxpayer? wee not going to let -- we're not going to let that go. finally, there's an idea that senator blumenthal and i have that maybe it's time to label

russia a state sponsor of terrorism. why? because they are. after 20 years of mass murder on an industrial scale, the bogner group is roaming the planet, which is a proxy, they're in africa today, doing all kinds of horrible things. russia is propping assad up who is one of the four countries. without that they assad would have fallen. we have an idea that doesn't cost money to designate russia as a state sponsor of toarm,nd -- terrorism, it would waive his immunity and it would put putin in a club that he deserves to be in, iran, north korea, syria and iran. we would add russia. we could get that in the

package. we're not going to stop. it would be good to let the ukrainian people know that we see russia in the hands of putin as a terrorist state. we'd like to tell everybody who is on the fence america has made a decision about putin and there's no going back. if he's still standing when this is all done and we forgive and forget, the worst is yet to come. so from my point of view, putin's russia needs to end. the russian people need to fix this problem. until they do, we need to keep all the sanctions in place, and up the ante labeling putin's russia a state sponsor of terrorism is a good place to start. going after the ill-gotten gains of the oligarchs to help the war effort is a good thing to do. we're not going to quit here. to the people of ukraine, most

people in this body, not all, are with you. because we understand your fight makes our world and america a safer place and a better place to live. so with that i'll ask a question to my colleague from connecticut why do you think russia is a state sponsor of terrorism and what can we do to make that happen. mr. blumenthal: i want to thanks, madam president, my friend and colleague who has been such a leader of this bipartisan effort, senator graham, for the question and for his powerful and passionate remarks just now. very simply, the reason for this bipartisan issue to designate russia a state sponsor of terrorism is because of what the american people and the world have seen day after day after day, not only this assault on

ukraine, trying to deprive it of its freedom and independence but also the mass atrocities that its soldiers have committed at the direction potentially of vladimir putin. holding women and children hostage when bombs are falling, tying people's hands behind their back and then shooting them in their heads, raping and torturing innocent civilians making them the targets of warfare in a purposeful and direct way in a rain of terror make russia a state sponsor of terrorism in the same way that iran and syria and cuba have been. vladimir putin should be part of

that club. it will give individuals who are victims rights of action but equally important, impose additional export controls and sanctions and other kinds of measures and send the world a message. literally anybody who deals with russia is dealing with a terrorist cabal. a terrorist organization that is beyond the pale, is to be treated as a pariah and a member of club that no one should want to be a part of. and it costs nothing to give russia this well merited label. now, it also works very much in favor of not only ukraine but american taxpayers and our nato allies to have the asset seizure

for ukraine reconstruction act, a bipartisan initiative that will enable not only seizure but also sale of russian oligarch assets as a part of this package. i'm disappointed that it wasn't included, but i'm very optimistic that we will move forward because people have seen on their tv's day after day the seizure of the super yachts. we've seen those pictures. the nationals, the jets, the fine art, other ill-gotten gains. they have bought these items with money they've stolen from the people of russia and elsewhere around the world. those ill-gotten gains are sometimes in bank accounts that can be seized. and they should be used for ukraine's defense against this invasion and for reconstruction of ukraine. their use should be humanitarian

and reconstruction efforts as well as the ongoing fight. their resources that putin has in effect enabled his oligarchs to take in this kleptocracy known as the russian regime and we should be cracking down on those beneficiaries of ill-gotten gains and enablers of putin's cruel and kleptocratic regime. now, let's be clear. once enacted this measure would enable law enforcement agents from around the world to seize those oligarch assets and enable them to liquidate, that is to say sell those assets to be used immediately to provide more weapons for the brave ukrainians who are fighting russian aggression and to deliver

humanitarian aid to displaced ukrainians. i've been to the border and seen those refugees coming from ukraine, literally crossing the border carrying their pets and stuffed animals, women and children because the men are staying to fight. with just the clothes on their back. they need help. those assets should be used to help them as well as the men who are left behind to fight with a ferocity and bravery that is the awe of the world, literally our own military has said how deeply impressed they were the fierceness and courage of ukrainians who are pushing back not only from around kiev but now in the donbas.

literally they are winning victories. but those victories are occurring because of aid we've provided. if we cease that aid, they will be deprived of the tools they need to win this war. and, yes, our objective should be ukraine winning this war. we're not going to have troops on the ground. we're not going to be engaged through nato. we're not going to be a party in the combat, but we can be the arsenal of ukraine's democracy. we can step up and stand up for democracy. now, my colleague has made the point very well that history teaches about bullies. they're stopped or they will continue. that is a lesson throughout

history, whether it's world war ii or any of the other conflicts where aggression has been stymied and halted. vladimir putin is a thug. he's a k.g.b. operative. he understands only one thing, force, economic force, military force, and that force needs to be brought to bear before he moves against countries that are at risk. what does it mean that finland wants to join nato? what does it mean that sweden is talking about joining nato? they see the threat. they need that protection. they know they can't do it alone. they know that putin will pick them off if we do not stand together. as benjamin franklin said, at

the time of our revolution, we will hang together or we will hang alone. and that has to be the mantra that we take to our allies and to the american people. one last point. we need to bring together this body and our congress in the bipartisan way that the three of us are doing today. this issue is way above partisan politics and its importance to our future as a nation. the american people understandably are focused on inflation which is a serious challenge. they are fatigued and tired of covid, which is n -- which is

threatening of the our job is to make them aware of the threat that is posed by putin's russia. it isn't the russian people's russia. they have no idea what's actually happening. they believe because they've been told that president zelenskyy who is jewish is actually a nazi. that's what they've been told. we visited ukraine not long before the invasion. and one of my colleagues in this bipartisan trip said to president zelenskyy, are you fearful about a russian inv invasion? this was january of this year. and he said, the russian invasion began in 2014. the russian invasion has been ongoing and has killed 14,000 of

our people. this latest threat of an assault on ukraine is just another phase of the same war. and the ukrainian people have fought on behalf of democracy for these years and they have lost blood and lives and treasure. and we have an obligation to stand strong for our democracy at this moment. we have an opportunity and an obligation. and i'm proud to stand with my colleagues in favor of using the proceeds of selling oligarch ill-gotten gains so that we can benefit the people of ukraine in their fight for freedom and their effort to reconstruct their country. i would like to yield the floor back to my colleague hopefully having answered this question

and to pose a question to my colleague from rhode island. will the proceeds from the sale of these ill-gotten gains potentially benefit ukraine in a way that will be meaningful and will help save american taxpayers funds that are necessary to support the freedom of that country? mr. whitehouse: mr. president i would say to senator blumenthal absolutely yes and to senator graham also yes and thank you. let me just give a quick overview as my part of this colloquy as to where we are. this really began with the munich security conference which senator graham and i led this year, the so-called mckane codel. and when we heard about the imminent invasion, we both became very ardent that we needed to get after russia's oligarchs first because it was turning the oligarchs againstian

company vich that -- oligarchs that freed up ukraine and because the oligarchs in russia are part and parcel of the way in which putin has manipulated his country and aceded enormous hidden wealth to himself. we knew the oligarchs needed to be a target. we talked about it so relentlessly that whenever secretary of state blinken saw us coming, he would say i know, i know, oligarchs, i get it. afterwards the president came back and he took the treasuries asset forfeiture section and the state department's asset forfeiture section and the department of justice's asset forfeiture section and pulled them together into what he is calling the clept -- kleptocapture initiative. that is a good thing the president said. in this bill there is money for

it. we give $60 million to that enterprise and we give another $37 million -- sorry, $67 million to the enterprise and another $30 million to the group within treasury that tracks dirty money. so that's about a hundred million dollars to support the kleptocapture operation. what they still need is authorities, and that's what our bill would give them. when we got back, senator graham, senator wicker, senator blumenthal, and myself drafted this bill, and it is a -- a version of it has been passed in the house, thanks to the leadership of representative tom malinowski. and after that bill was filed, the biden administration got together and they gave technical assistance to us from the department of justice as to what it was that they actually need to be more effective at going

after these oligarchs to seize, to sell, and to send to ukraine the proceeds. so that is where we are right now. and one of the things that we need is to speed up the process. it can take forever to go through the process. we need to couch this process in the national security authority oz of the president -- authorities of the president as much as possible, because this is primarily a national security issue. we need to speed up the process so that, for instance, you don't have to prove who the true beneficial owner is before you seize the yacht. you can go on intelligence reports. you can go on whistleblowers. and, by the way, we want to reward whistleblowers. you remember the ukrainian who sunk his boss's yacht and he got arrested because he pulled the plug out of the yacht and sunk it?

i'd rather have that guy come to the department of justice and say, i can tell you all about who owns this yacht. you don't have to worry about go through thecy pre-yacht -- sip pre-yacht bank account -- the cipriat bank account. i can tell you, that's the guy and be able to act based on that. and have the authority to have the action -- what's called in rem by lawyers -- this is the united states motor vessel -- whatever it's called -- shaharazata. you give public notice and you invite the world to come and make whoever owns that yacht claim it. which is an interesting predicament for the oligarch who owns it but who has pretended he has not.

he now has to come forward and say is actually had i own that yacht. gotcha! gave over. or you has to put in some phony and say, hey, a i actually own that yacht. i may be a cellist and we get to say in a court of law, prove it? if this is your yacht, god bless you. you can have it. prove it. we dare you. i think what's going to happen is a lot of these claims are going to be forfeit because they are in fact crooked. and we have every right and every need to go after these assets because putin's attack on ukraine is supported, aided, abetted, and given aid and comfort to by this retinue of slippery oligarchs around him.

you saw 29 of them showing up to talk with him. we know who they are and we know what their role is. and they are aiding and abetting and giving aid and comfort to an enemy of our ally, ukraine, as senator graham has pointed out, at the fulcrum in the world of our battle for freedom right now. if we can't act on this, shame on us. so we are going to continue. we are going to continue in bipartisan fashion. we're going to take our bill and we're going to add onto it the technical language from the department of justice that will specify the authorities that they need, and we're going to find a way to get this passed, if we can't do it by unanimous consent, which i hope we can, then perhaps on the ndaa or some other must-pass piece of legislation. but this must be done, and if -- to senator blumenthal's question, will this make a difference? some of these yachts cost half a

billion dollars. and there are dozens of them floating around. this is real money. and that's before you get to the fancy paintings. and before you get to the mansions in london, and before you get to the villas on the coast of spain. we need to make it very expensive to be an oligarch supporting putin, and we need to take the filthy pelth, the lucre that they stole from their country and put to to the benefit of the ukrainian people. so i am delighted that senator wicker was an initial cosponsor of this bill. i'm delighted that senator graham was an initial cosponsor and senator blumenthal, and i'll close by saying that, you know, this munich security delegation that we do every year has made a big difference on several occasions because we get

together in bipartisan fashion, we're presented with real immediate problems in the world that we face when we go to that conference, and we craft bipartisan solutions in real time there and then we come back and deplay them. that's what was done here. we are going to see this through. we're going to get this right. thank you, senator graham. mr. graham: i'd yield for a convect -- would the senator yield for a quick question? mr. whitehouse: gladly. mr. graham: senator whitehouse has been talking about this for years, long before president putin invaded ukraine, we had several hearings about kleptocracy, about the ill-gotten gain, people stealing money from their country. but particularly in russia. so i want to it is for understanding this issue better than anybody i know and been talking about it for years. know we got a moment here. to my -- now we guilt -- now we got a moment here.

this is not about i don't like this part of the bill or that part of the bill. it is either you are going to help ukraine or not and perfectly so. whatever ember texts in this bill -- whatever ember fictions in this bill -- whatever imperfections in this bill exist. if you want to say no to the people of ukraine because you don't care about what happens in ukraine, that's a different conversation. please come down here and say that. if you believe that the outcome has no effect on the national security interests of the united states, if you believe that putin will stop after ukraine and china is not watching, come down here and say it. the reason nobody will do that, i doubt, is because you'd be crazy. but you can say it. the floor is yours. come down here and make the argument that ukraine is not connected to world events and that putin would be satisfied with dismembering that country and stop. he's not. hitler wrote a book.

somebody should have read it. this guy gave a speech and for 20 years has been acting on that speech. so the people around here, to the oligarchs and senator whitehouse is the oligarch' worst nightmare, have been living large off the system created in russia where everybody gets a piece of the action except the russian people. we've got a chance where the world is galvanized and attorney general garland, who i've been working with on this, has been very good, needs some changes in the law to make this more effective. about seizing yachts, you have got to have a reasonable belief that the yacht is part of a criminal enterprise, ill-gotten gain. you seize the yacht and you ask people to come forward to contest your assertion. if they don't, you know, then it proves all you need to know. if they got a good counterclaim, they win in court. but right now you've got this game where you got to find a specific person, which is crazy.

seize the yacht. if there's reasonable evidence as part of one of these enterprises. this bill that we're talking about would do that. and why it didn't get in the package, i don't know. but i want to ask senator whitehouse one final question. how much money do you think could be gathered up if we unleashed law enforcement throughout the world to go after these oligarchs, and what would be the signal we would be sending throughout the world if we actually did this? would it make the world a better place? what's your view? mr. whitehouse: the oligarchs working with and for vladimir putin have stolen almost all of the wealth of russia. these are extremely wealthy individuals. if you could afford a $500 million yacht, you've got money to burn.

and that's not your only asset. that's just your yacht. and you got all the other stuff -- the villas and the mansions and the artwork and all of it. the number is obviously in the tens of billions of dollars. when you consider that we're appropriating $40 billion, i think it's a fair bet that we could do half again, just from these oligarchs. and to have that money go to ukraine's relief, to its victory, and to its rebuilding would be a very, very good use. and at the same time it would provide the strategic feature that it would start turning these greedy oligarchs against putin because we're going to keep coming after them until this is over, and it would disable his apparatus of control over russia, which is run through being basically a gang of thieves who all allow each

other to loot their country. i'm reminded of senator graham's great friend, senator mccain, who used to describe russia as a gas station run by gangsters with an army. well, this turns the gangsters against each other in addition to taking ill-gotten gains and turning them to a valuable and proper use. and the message it sends is, if you are a he a crooked oligarch who will support a dictator, a tyrant, who will go into another country and shell its schools, send cruise missiles into its apartment buildings, target artillery and its hospitals -- at its hospitals, you're not going to get away with that that easily. and it sends a signal through

that to the entire world of kleptocracy, which extends beyond russia, that your days of thievery are numbered. we are going to have the resources to put rule of law back in charge. mr. graham: [inaudible] just to wrap this up, mr. president, i believe that if there were a vote tomorrow designating russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, we'd get 98 votes in the united states senate. i'll ask senator whitehouse to comment on that. i think we could take his idea, this kleptocracy regime, and embolden the department of justice and others to to make it easier to go after these assets if we had a vote on that concept. it would get 90 votes. so what's frustrating is that in the desire to get aid and bullets and help into the ukraine, we left out two provisions -- state sponsor of terrorism, provision to go after

the ill-gotten gain of the russian oligarchs and plow it into ukraine to help them -- but what i want you to know is that the process did not accommodate these two provisions. but as you can tell from this discussion, we are not going to stop. to my colleagues in this body, we're not going to stop. everybody is going to be -- stand up one way or the other here pretty soon. i've talked to the speaker of the house. she's pretty sympathetic about russia be a state sponsor of terrorism. i think the bipartisan exists whoer in the house. you can see it. senator white white -- senator , can you assure the oligarchs that we're not going to stop? mr. whitehouse: i can, indeed, senator graham. i can indeed. i thank you for your persistent effort on this. i thank our colleagues in the house who have been very persistent on this, none more

than congressman malinowski of new jersey. thank you. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

this issue will not go away. as americans vote later this year, they will choose between radical mega republicans who want to get rid of it, push bans on abortion and even throw doctors and women in jail, pro-choice democrats who will protect a woman's right to make their own decisions when it comes to her body. let me say that again, contrast facing the american people is not simple. elect more republicans to want to push for sweeping national bans on abortion or support pro-choice democrats to protect a woman's rights to make her own

decisions about her body. elect republicans who enforce pregnancy and champion bans without exceptions even for rape or incest or support pro-choice democrats who will protect a woman's right to make her own decisions. either elect more mega publicans who want to prosecute and imprison women and doctors for carrying out abortions and friends who give rise to clinics as well or support pro-choice democrats will protect a woman's rights. americans see that contrast again and again and again democrats keep highlighting this vital issue. as much as republicans will deflect or distract on fundable truths is antiwoman views are wildly out of step for the

american people. look at what's happening across the country. democrats across the country are confidently highlighting support for a woman's right to make their own choices and while mega republicans may want to brag about the plan for nationwide abortion plan and sending women and doctors to jail, majority of americans disagree with the extremist position. that's why republican campaign committees are urging candidates to avoid the subject of abortion because they know their views are out of step. democrats across the country are talking about this issue, even doing campaign ads about this issue. republicans are telling republican, meisters are telling their colleagues to avoid the issue. it's obvious to everyone who's on what side. republicans can run you can't

hide from the horror they have created. yesterday's vote was only one step, not the end of our fight to protect women's rights. the issue will keep coming back again and again and again between now and when voters go to the polls this year. in the immediate future, republicans need to work with democrats to pass another round of critical emergency funding for the people of ukraine. a moral obligation to act and act swiftly, the house passed ukraine package with overwhelming bipartisan support, it should be no different here in the senate, both our caucuses heard loud and clear from ukrainian ambassador this week, that time is of the essence. i urge my republican colleagues to work with democrats to get a package done as soon as possible asap. republicans shouldn't block the bill, there's no reason not to

get ukraine funding approved fast. i also call in my colleagues to pass additional legislation on the federal government with tools needed to liquidate assets seized from russian oligarchs, private jets, art collections and more. it should be a no-brainer to provide tools necessary to go after crooked russian oligarchs nevertheless house republicans bewilderingly opposed adding these tools in the house package. the senate should to better, both parties should work quickly and decisively to get this done in regular order. this should certainly be a bipartisan issue. as the war in ukraine enters third bloodied month, -- tive se. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to calendar 368, h.r. 7691. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to h.r. 7691, an act making emergency supplemental appropriations for assistance for the situation in ukraine, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 368, h.r. 7691, an act making emergency supplemental appropriations for assistance for the situation in ukraine for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2022, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 798. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. ing all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

motion agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. jennifer louise rochon of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 798, jennifer louise rochon of new york to be united states district judge for the southern district of new york, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 802. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. trina l. thompson of california to be united states district judge for the northern district of california. mr. schumer: i move to -- i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate of executive calendar number 802, trina h. thompson of california to be united states district judge for the northern district of california signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider

calendar 799. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, sunshine susan sykes of california to be united states district judge for the central district of california. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in correspondence correspondence do hereby move to bring to a close debate -- in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate of executive calendar number 799, sunshine sue san sykes of california to be united states district judge for the central district of california signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorums for the cloture motions filed today, may 12, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the defense of their homeland far surpassed expectations of all the skeptics. ukraine is not asking anybody else to do their fighting for them. they ask only for the resources they need to defend themselves against lawless aggression.

i strongly support the next package of military assistance which the house passed overwhelming bipartisan majority. i hope the senate can reach an agreement to consider and pass legislation today. ukrainians needed, we need to do it today. helping ukraine is not an entrance of philanthropy. it bears directly on america's national security and vital interests, aggression not succeed and carries significant costs. if ukraine fails to repel russian aggression, there's no question the threat to america and european security will actually grow. nation's history is packed with painful reminders america cannot wish awake global problems that

affect us and our allies by bearing our head in the sand. i applaud strong republican vote for this crucial assistance in the house and urge my senate colleagues on both sides to help us pass this funding bill today. two years ago democratic leader addressed a crowd on the supreme court and threatened justices rule away he wanted. mark crowds surrounding justices private families homes, use intimidation to influence the outcome in the pending case, it should be easy for leaders to condemn. all americans should agree judges and juries ought not to be subjected to trusts or intimidation campaign. they spoken out against this element. washington post editorial board has condemned this, number 27

democrats college from in illinois says is apprehensible to stay away from homes and families, counterpart across the capitol number two house democrats said we need to protect supreme court justices and their families. for a nation of laws, not of vows or intimidation. later schumer and the white house will not follow suit, they won't condemn the harassment, they've basically endorsed it. democrats are standing in the way of concrete action. a few days ago the senate unanimously passed legislation to give the supreme court in house police reports, additional authorities they needs to do their jobs. this is controversial stuff. it clears this chamber unanimously but house democrats have been unwilling to pass

congressman jeffrey suggested yesterday this uncontroversial bill might be a lengthy committee process. why in the world would that be done? these are clerical sixes, they breezed through the senate without objection. house democratic leadership wants to drag it out, hearings and markups while mobs assemble at people's houses. i hope this is a misunderstanding. i hope democrats are not intentionally stalling security measures until after the court issued its ruling. this would be reprehensible. at the end of the pennsylvania avenue, unit president biden or attorney general garland apparently decided not to enforce federal law.

like i explained monday, section 1507 of the code makes it a crime right now to parade with the intent of influencing a judge at locations that include a resident, that's a lot right now. we've been doing that for days and days right now. the justice department is nowhere in sight. the d.c. circuit would mean no product to protect judicial safety and judicial independence but at least so far attorney general was quicker 2 pounds on concerned parents at school board meetings. the governors of maryland had to write a joint letter to the attorney general begging him to make his u.s. attorneys do their job and uphold the law.

yesterday i sent the d.o.j. my own letter asking the same question. the senate needs answers right now and the court needs security right now. >> we have a meeting in the senate judiciary committee this morning and the committee discussed at the outset threats reported against judges, justices, families and their homes. the committee is responsible for the bill, a bipartisan bill, courtney and kunz to provide more security protection for the supreme court. fully endorsed it and got it passed unanimously as it should have. there have been complaints this week about demonstrations in the homes of justices, i've made my position clear. i think such demonstrations are totally unnecessary, unwise and

should be discouraged. some cases they are reprehensible. pressure trying to be applied on these officials, protesters before or against a certain issue, it is unacceptable. i stand by that and i believe democrats, we have to be serious about protecting those elected to public office at every level, harassment, intimidation and any violence. i condemn those attacks on antiabortion organizations, wisconsin and oregon, bombing that took place in one, unacceptable. violence is never acceptable in a democracy. having said that, i think my republican colleagues to show some consistency. ours here january 6, 2021 when the insurrectionist mom inspired the president trump, came out, fresh down windows in force, to

the capitol and marched on this chamber. i was on the floor of the united states senate when we are were advised by capitol police to evacuate as quickly as possible to save their own lives. ours in this when several of the capitol hill police stepped up and showed dramatic heroism, some lost their lives as a result. ... the only investigations taking place in the democratic house of representatives and several congressman women have stepped forward. i want to salute congressman adam kinzinger. he joined this effort is this

bipartisan effort to investigate january 6, 2021. he is retiring now paid a heavy price for his decision but it was a principled decision and i respect him for it in the same with congressman lynne cheney. we probably don't agree on a half a dozen issues that i admire her and respect her courage for stepping up and saying she wanted the investigation in the house to be bipartisan and therefore she would be part of the panel. i respect her very much for that. next month we will have public hearings in the house of representatives on this issue. they should have had a a bipartisan commission on january january 262021 that senator mcconnell and the republicans stop it. what did the national committee say on the official release of the january 6, 2021 insurrectionist mob crashed through through the capitol here desecrating it and endangering the lives of innocent people, what did they say about it? the called a legitimate political discourse. legitimate political discourse

with five to seven people dead and 150 police officers assaulted. that is unacceptable and the intended victims were members of congress and today members of the supreme court. have the good sense i say to my republican colleagues to be in consistent. if you're opposed to violent and you believe it's unacceptable the democratic society make that stand for applied and one branch of government or another. it's an absolutely unacceptable. i yield the floor. >> we will get into this in a minute that i will respond to something that was said a few minutes ago. what would it cost america if putin continues to slaughter ukranians and gets away with it? what kind of world you want to live in? with the of five got this right. i can understand not wanting to get involved in a war if you've never been in one hand if you've never been in a war at home with

any time period and you understand war is a thing and if you're in the military you understand some of your but he's don't come back when you have wars but what i don't understand is this idea that not only are we not going to engage in a war against a hug and a bully like putin but when somebody like ukraine is fighting like tigers and we are going to help them either so this idea about this aid package costing too much, put it in the context of what would happen to the world if putin continues to rewrite the map of europe. if we don't get ukraine right then china will invade taiwan and 90% of all the semiconductors and high-end chips come out of taiwan. if people go up and down the street breaking into stores and ransacking, nobody wants to live

there. i'd rather have the rule of law versus the rule of done. sometimes you have to pay a price. ukranians are paying the ultimate price. they are fighting like tigers and dying by the thousands to stand up to an enemy of the united states and mankind. putin is a war criminal by any reasonable definition and if you think he is satisfied with ukraine for miscalculating him like we did in the last country with. in june of last year putin talked about the russian empire being re-created. it's not just ukraine that -- it would be mulled over than when you look at his view of recreating possibly the former soviet union the nato nations what does it matter to the united states if europe is in a constant state of turmoil that you have russia toppling one democracy after another?

it means a lot to us. we can't live in a world that way. at least i choose not to live in a world that way. $4 billion is a lot of money. if we can stop putin in ukraine it would need the best money could ever spend. they are running out of ammo. they are kicking the russians -- and they are doing the fighting on behalf of freedom itself and we should be the arsenal of democracy and the eu should spend more, the germans are giving lethal weapons. everybody can do more

the the military offensive are dismantling the military. so we have time to go all in terms of economic assistance. their economy has been in shambles because they are under siege. they are fighting like tigers and the weapons we have given them they put to good purpose. the democrats and republicans are now united around the idea

that it's a good thing to help ukraine. to my republican colleagues with this package what is your alternative? don't go to poland anymore. don't go to ukraine and say we are with you. if you vote against this package you have a reason to vote against anything. you are missing the point. the world hangs in the balance here. if we don't get ukraine right and stand up to putin there goes taiwan. i'm tired of being lectured to by people who have no understanding of the world in which we live in. the mistakes of the last history are being played out on her screen every day. for those who believe that we can just let it go in ukraine boy are you going to be in for rude a rude awakening. the world will be turned upside down and the converse is true. if we can stop him in his tracks, help the ukranians who

are doing all the fighting and dying and china's less likely to go into taiwan. this is one of the biggest moments in the 21st century. where are you? whose side are you on? it's too much hereunto much there. one senator who will renee -- remain nameless why don't we have money for food? baritone and 27 million people in the world knocking on famine store between the drought and the war all over the world, the world food program run by the governor of south carolina is completely and are siege. fortysomething countries in the world have over 50% of their grain supply coming from ukraine and they are out of production right now. it's in our interest ladies and gentlemen to help people when they are starving so they don't do the things that they may do to feed their families that are bad for us. what would you do to feed your family?

would you take money from -- if it was the only source of money available to feed your family? we live in a varied dangerous time where one thing affects the other. this package was put together quickly and i'm sure there are things in this package that could be done better. we are living in real time here. the president's ability to send weapons expires in a couple of days. what i hope will happen is we will unite around the idea that putin is the bad guy and the ukranians are the good guys and if we lose this war we are going to regret losing this war because it won't end in ukraine. so to my colleagues on the democratic side you've done something that's hard for people around here to do, talk about history. senator blumenthal standing up

to putin and making them pay the price. how may people does he have to murder and how many war crimes does he have to commit until we realize this needs to stop? we had the same experience with adolf. people excused his behavior wrote it off as he just wants to get german-speaking territories back read he wrote a book about what he wanted to do. he wanted to kill all the people and remain in europe and create a masks insurrection for people on planet earth. what is putin trying to do? a bit less ambitious to create the russian empire in the former soviet union, crush democracy and they had a chance to go a different way and are you surprised the ukranians are fighting? who the would want to live under putin? would you? would you want to live in putin's russia? would you want him to be your leader if you didn't have to?

people who go down the communist rotor was literally willing to die. they don't want to raise their children this way so we are going to have a discussion here in a moment. about some things that we can do that will matter beyond party. the american taxpayer should not be the only source for the ukrainian people, count people, count me in for that. there's a proposal coming about this bill that would inspire the department of justice to go your putin and all of his cronies and take their yachts and sell them and put the money into ukraine to buy bullets. to the american people i get it. other people should be doing more. there's a bipartisan consensus here that with additional resources in the hands of the department of justice and from legal changes we can go at your billions of dollars and quiet

back into the ukrainian war effort, money coming from thugs and thieves in russia to help the brave people in ukraine. to my colleagues in this body what the hell are you thinking? why would you do that? why would you take out of the package the ability to hunt down the oligarchs and take their stuff away from them that they have bought with stolen money to help ukrainian people and another source of revenue other than the american taxpayer. we are not going to let that go. finally there is an idea that senator blumenthal and i have that may be a time to label russia a state sponsor of terrorism. why? because they are. after 20 years of masks murder on an industrial scale a group

is roaming the planet according to our treasury department of the russian military that are doing all kinds of things. russia is propping assad up who is one of the countries that are considered states of altered terrorism. we have an idea and it doesn't cost any money. to designate putin's russia as a state sponsor of terrorism and it would allow people who are a victim of his terrorism can take them to court and it would put putin in the club that he deserves to be in, iran and north korea, syria and iran. we would add russia. we couldn't get that in the package. we are not going to stop. it would be good to let the ukrainian people know that we see russia in the hands of putin

as a terrorist state. we would like to tell everybody who was on the fence america has made a decision about putin and there is no going back. he still standing when this is all done and we forgive and forget. the is yet to come. from my point of view putin's russia needs to end. the russian people need to fix this problem and until they do we need to keep all the sanctions in place and upped the ante. labeling putin's russia state sponsor of terrorism is a good place to start. going after the ill-begotten gains of the oligarchs to help the war effort is a good thing to do. we are not going to quit the people of ukraine. most people in this body, not all, are with me. we understand your fight makes

our world and america a safer place and a better place to live. so with that i will ask the question to my colleague from connecticut why do you think russia is a state sponsor of terrorism and what can we do to make that happen? >> i we want to thank madam president my friend and colleague who has been such a leader in this bipartisan effort senator graham for his powerful and passionate remarks just now and very simply the reason for this bipartisan issue is to designate russia a state sponsor of terrorism is because of what the american people and the world can see, day after day after day not only this assault on ukraine depriving them of its

freedom and independence but also the masks atrocities that its soldiers have committed at the direction potentially of vladimir putin. holding women and children hostage when bombs are falling, tying people's hands behind their backs and shooting them in their heads. raping and torturing innocent civilians, making them the target of warfare and a purposeful and direct way in a reign of terror to make russia a state sponsor of terrorism. in the same way that i ran in syria and cuba have been and putin should be part of that club. he will give individuals who are picked right of action. equally important impose

additional export control sanctions and their organization that is beyond the pale and treated as a pariah and is a member of the club. no one wants to be a part of. and it costs nothing to give russia this label. now, it also works very much in favor of not only ukraine but the american taxpayer nato allies to have the asset seizure for ukraine reconstruction act of bipartisan initiative that will enable not only seizure but also the sale of russian

oligarchs and part of this package. i'm disappointed it wasn't included that i'm very optimistic that it will move forward. people have seen on their tvs day after day the seizure of the super yachts, we have seen those pictures, the mansions, the jets the fine art and other ill-begotten gains. it's money they have stolen from the people of russia and elsewhere around the world are those ill-begotten games are sometimes in bank accounts that can be seized and they should be used for ukraine's defense against this invasion and for reconstruction of ukraine. their use should be humanitarian, reconstruction efforts as well as the ongoing fight. they are resources that putin

has an effect enabled his oligarchs to take in this clip talker as a noun is the russian regime. and we should be cracking down on those beneficiaries of ill-begotten gains and enable a kleptocratic u regime. consent the senate consider the following nominations, calendar 704, 720, 866, 867, that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, 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, and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection.

the question occurs on the nomination en bloc. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, may 16. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed, that upon conclusion of morning business the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar 368, h.r. 7691, a bill to provide aid to ukraine. further, that the cloture

motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. monday. authority and the consumer product safety commission consumer product safety commission. majority leader chuck schumer asked unanimous consent for the senate to vote on the house of eight but was blocked by kentucky rep lookup in rand paul but the senate is expected to vote on final passage of the bill next week. watch like average of the senate here on c-span2.