madam president, i ask that in another section of today's record, i ask unanimous consent that senator cornyn's statement be included in full. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, madam president. first i want to applaud the senator from alaska for his comments. i agree completely with his statements, and i think his amendment making it clear that we expect the 2% to be honored by all member states is something that we all should welcome and agree to. so i thank you for your leadership. i also thank you for how you have articulated the importance of nato to our national security. nato is the trans-atlantic security partnership that has served our national security interests so well for so many years, since the end of world bar -- world war ii.

today we're going to have the chance to vote to expand the nato alliance by adding finland and sweden. i hope all my colleagues will support that. i will point out, finland already exceeds the 2% that they're spending on defense. so i think this is another reason why we have countries that we want to add to the alliance. we have 30 strong now. this will be stronger with finland and sweden being added to the nato alliance. but, madam president, what is unique about the two countries that we'll have a chance to vote on in a few moments is that they give us added value to our alliance. they make our alliance stronger. it's in our national security interest to include finland and sweden. they add value militarily and economically to this alliance. the geostrategic location of these two countries are critically important to our national security. just think for a moment about

the threats of the baltic nations we've seen by russia, estonia, latvia, and lithuania. think about where poland has been threatened because of russia's ago greation in ukraine. adding sweden and finland will provide the security we need. both of these countries are already committed to interoperability with the nato alliance. they already are familiar with how nato's process and procedures are utilized. so we have two countries that are ready from day one to be active participants in the alliance. they both participate in regular participation and training exercises with nato and u.s. forces. both sweden and finland have done that. they have contributed troops. sweden has contributed troops to the nato-led operations in kosovo to afghanistan to iraq. we have countries that have

already stepped up to help us in security and now will be a formal part of the security alliance. they'll add also the dimension that is important to us in regards to winter warfare. the coresponse winter warfare exercises. finland has the capabilities that are going to be critically important to us as we move forward. so we're adding value to the nato alliance as well as expanding the number of countries. i want to mention one other area in cyber and misinformation. tweef two countries that have been -- we have two countries that have been very active in being victimized by the misinformation campaign by russia. they are very much -- sweden has a psychological defense agency created in 2016 that's going to be important for us. as we ne, mr. putin uses every weapon in his arsenal including misinformation in order to bring down democratic states. we know in sweden's case they

are taking decisive action to counter the misinformation. finland has an anti-fake news initiative which is absolutely fascinating. they recognize russia is trying to invade their country through misinformation and they have an active way of defending against it. as i said earlier, we have two countries that will add value to the alliance. the timing here couldn't be better. we have stood up international resolve to support ukraine in the invasion by russia. expanding nato at this moment is a clear message to mr. putin that we stand with the democratic countries of europe and we are prepared to expand our nato alliance to guarantee their protection. so these two stalwart democratic nations -- finland and sweden -- have been robust partners to the united states and europe on countless fronts. they have provided humanitarian aid to many countries in need including ukraine during the unprovoked invasion by russia,

combined finland and sweden have provided over $120 million in military, humanitarian aid to ukraine between february and june of 2022. these two nations have also shown a commitment to democratic governance, ranking third and fourth respectively on the global democracy index of 2020, according to economist group. so we have two of the leading democratic states, finland and sweden have proven time and time against that they have the defense capabilities and commitment to democracy in europe to make them essential nato allies. the senate must act now to bolster global peace and security by voting in favor of finland and sweden's accession to the north atlantic treaty and i urge my colleagues to do that. madam president, i would ask in a separate section of these remarks that i be permitted to enter comments about the one-year anniversary of the fall of afghanistan, pointing out that the biden administration has been able to assist in the

evacuation of so many american citizens, people that helped our u.s. mission, those that were involved in the democratic reforms in that country. but there's still a mission that we need to participate in to save people. so i would consent that those comments be included in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. ms. collins: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the following senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled votes -- senator collins for up to ten minutes, senator graham for up to five minutes, senator blunt for up to five minutes, senator romney up to five minutes, senator risch up to five minutes, senator paul up to ten minutes, senator sullivan for up to a minute, and senator menendez for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. collins: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that heidi zizzleman, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges through august 4, 2022. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise in strong support of the accession of finland and sweden into the nato alliance. in may, i visited helsinki and stockholm as part of the senate delegation to encourage the finnish and swedish efforts to join the alliance. our trip, however, started in ukraine. there, after a long secret journey under cover of darkness, our contingent of four senators met with president zelenskyy for two hours. we discussed the military,

humanitarian, economic, and security consequences of russia's unprovoked, brutal war against ukraine. i asked president zelenskyy whether he thought vladimir putin's attack on his country had had the opposite effect of what he had intended. for example, the russian-speaking sections of the eastern ukraine are now embracing their ukrainian identity, and nato is more united than ever. president zelenskyy told me that putin's war of aggression not only had been the opposite of the easy conquest that putin had expected, but also had strengthened the nato alliance and the european union. mr. president, one cannot

understate how russia's invasion of ukraine has upended decades, and in the case of sweden, centuries of security policy for these countries. for 200 years, sweden has maintained a policy of neutrality. but as swedish prime minister andersson put it to me, february 24 changed everything. that, mr. president, was the date of the russian invasion of ukraine. finland, which shares an 830-mile border with russia, likewise concluded that russia's aggression required a dramatic rethinking of its security. to demonstrate the reality on the ground, the finnish

president took us outside of his home and pointed to his right where talon, estonia is 50 miles away across the baltic sea. he pointed to his left and told us st. petersburg, russia, is only 200 miles away. our visits to these leaders came just as the parliaments of finland and sweden were voting to formally request the mission into nato. we assured their leaders that there was strong bipartisan support in the senate for their accession and that adding their capabilities to the alliance would improve, would strengthen our collective defense and security. and this is indeed an important

point, mr. president. sweden and finland will both bring enormous geographic advantages and military capabilities to nato. finland is expected to exceed nato's 2% defense spending target this year, and sweden has committed to meeting that target as soon as possible. finland has the largest reserve military force in europe and has recently decided to upgrade its current fleet of american f-18 fighter jets with the fifth-generation f-35. for the past several years sweden has been increasing its arms spending, and the country has advanced defense industrial capabilities. the addition of both these nations to nato will bolster

deterrence against russia in the arctic, nordic, and baltic regions. for decades finland and sweden have had a strong history of support for nato. their advanced militaries are, for example, interoperable with member nations. both countries also have supported nato-led operations over the decades, including in afghanistan, kosovo, and iraq. they frequently participate in alliance-led exercises and capacity-building operations in africa and elsewhere. during the current crisis in ukraine, finland and sweden have been invaluable partners to the ukrainians.

they have been sending vital military aid to ukraine as well as humanitarian assistance since february, including antiship missiles, rifles, body armor and antitank weapons. there are few critics, mr. president, who contend that this nato expansion which more than doubled nato's direct border with russia is somehow provocative to vladimir putin. this assertion ignores a clear pattern of russian aggression extending back years. in 2008, russia invaded its neighbor georgia. in 2014, russia invaded ukraine for the first time, occupying and seizing crimea and areas of

eastern ukraine. then earlier this year, of course, russia launched the largest and most devastating land war in europe since world war ii without any justification or provocation when it invaded the free and democratic nation of ukraine. mr. president, this expansion of nato is warranted precisely because of russian provocations across the region. as always, nato and the united states have no desire to see a war with russia, but we will defend the territory and sovereignty of each of its members. russia's brutal and unprovoked

invasion of ukraine has permanently changed the european security environment. enlarging nato to include two of our most capable and supportive european allies -- finland and sweden -- is a necessary and deliberative response. i urge all of my colleagues in a strong vote to join me in the swift ratification of finland and sweden's accession into nato. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. one, i want to associate myself with the comments of senator collins from maine. that was a great story about why we should all be happy about today with finland and sweden

and why this makes a lot of sense. there's one person that i want to thank that i usually don't give a whole big shout out to is president putin from russia. without you, we wouldn't be here. you've done more to strengthen nato than any speech i could ever hope to of give. john mccain, i wish you were alive today to celebrate. because what we've been able to accomplish here through putin's invasion of ukraine is to remind everybody in the world, when it comes to bullies, you better stand up to them before it's too late. our friends finland and sweden have decided to join nato. let me put ukraine into perspective. our military leaders said that after four days, they would get kyiv. they undercalculated the resolve of the ukrainian people. we're 160 days into this fight.

ukraine is standing bloody, but unbowed, nato is big he, crippling sanctions on the russian economy, there is an investigation into war crimes against putin an his cronies, we have 98 senators who have agreed that russia should be a state sponsor of terrorism under u.s. law. 160 days into this fight, i'm telling you right now, things are looking pretty good for the good guys, and i say that knowing how much suffering has gone on in the ukraine. we are here to admit two new members of nato. nato has been the strongest organization of good, organized around democratic concepts that have pledged mutual defense, attack on one is attack on all, it's deterred war, it's been a

stabilizing influence in europe since the end of world war ii, and along comes putin. so nato today is going to be bigger than it was before the invasion. nato today is going to have more military resources than before the invasion by russia into ukraine. again, i want to thank president putin. you have done something for the democratic world that we have not been able to do for ourselves. to nato, as an organization, keep your eye on the ball, pay your 2%. so my friends who suggest that expanding nato makes us weaker against china, what movie are you watching? how can you believe for one moment abandoning ukraine or showing less of a commitment to european stability will make china more afraid of us and less likely to invade taiwan? the best thing we can do right now as a world, particularly the democratic world, is to become

stronger in the face of aggression, to make nato bigger and we will accomplish that in a few minutes. so to all of my colleagues who have come down here and spoke on the admission of these two countries, god bless you, you're on the right side of history. the one regret i do have is that my friend senator mccain wasn't here to see the great world has rallied in the face of aggression by putin. with that, i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to join my colleagues in the appreciation for the expansion of nato. as others have said, the greatest alliance in history, certainly in the lass 200 years -- last 200 years, an alliance that has served great benefits. nato has been there since 1949. the two countries we will vote to admit today have resisted

since 1949 being part of nato but with the recent actions they've decided you now have to choose a side. now, they are not countries that have been on the sideline just hoping nothing would happen. they're countries that have significant defense capacities, significant military capabilities. they will be net security contributors to nato. they bring to the alliance these advanced capabilities. they bring a neighborhood understanding of russia that -- greater than maybe almost any other country, particularly finland which has been mentioned that 800-plus mile border that will double the nato border with russia. they've been defending that border since world war ii and the russians understand their capacity to defend it. they, frankly, bring good roles and good location. the baltic, i wish i had a map on the floor here with me, but i don't have.

the baltic really becomes a nato sea and that's an important thing. norway, already in nato, sweden joining nato, finland joining nato, right across from the three baltic countries that are much more in need of assistance than these two countries that are joining an alliance that will give them that assistance. it's an incredible day for nato. the baltic sea -- the arctic, i've heard more, mr. president, on this floor in this country on the arctic than in the past 25 years. the arctic basically becomes nato territory with the sole exception of russia, the united states, canada, norway, sweden, finland become countries that are bound not only in the neighborhood to the arctic but also in a supportive alliance. we've been hearing about how

china wants to become an arctic power. i think the change in nato makes it incredibly harder for china to become an arctic power or for russia to become an arctic abuser and we're seeing that happen right here. again, great capability. the swedes have an air force, a navy. they have the best cyberoffensive and defensive capability in europe. that large industrial base, finland agreed to five 64f-35's to replace f-18's. both countries have been working with us in military experses for years. -- exercises for years. they are inner operable, they bring the capacity to the nato alliance that it doesn't have without them. i'm grateful they are joining. finland is already at the 2% goal to the commitment of their

own national defense. sweden will be there by 2008. certain durbin, who is here on the floor with me, met with both of these countries recently and they are absolutely committed that this is the moment when the nato alliance takes on new meaning, not only to their -- not only to western europe, but, frankly, to the world. this is an alliance that stands for shared values, thatst -- tht stands for border integrity, that stands to be sure that those things go into the future. i urge all of my colleagues to vote for this today. i'm glad we were able to be among the first many we hoped to be the first country to be the admission of nato into these countries, it sends a signal to the world and to all americans that not only nato is important, but it will be stronger with sweden and finland than it has ever been, and i look forward to

the opportunity to cast this vote today. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. romney: i rise to oppose the paul amendment for ratification of the republic of finland and sweden to nato. like all of my colleagues, i support the admission of sweden and finland into nato. their commitment to democracy and their resolve in the face of russian aggression is welcome. with russia's unprovoked attack on ukraine, nato has been united in providing support for the ukrainians to defend themselves. nato is also united in its adherence to the provisions of the nato treaty. the world is watching to see if there are any cracks in that commitment, particularly with respect to its provisions for a

mutual defense. we must not in any way appear to be going wobbly on article 5. i fear the paul amendment would do just that. further, senator paul's amendment is unnecessary. the nato treaty specifically states this, quote, this treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. that's in the nato treaty itself. so adding the language of the paul amendment would only add confusion and potentially communicate to the world that this body seeks something in addition to the adherence to the constitutional process that the treaty already requires. now, it's well and good for congress to consider war powers and a role in military conflicts, but doing so as part of the ascension of sweden and finland to nato while ukraine is

under attack and while russia may be potentially eyeing violence against nato nations is not the time. our commitment to nato and article 5 must be clear and unambiguous. throughout the united states' history, there -- we have -- with a reservation. i'm going to say that again. throughout our nation's history the united states has not once ratified nato protocols with a reservation. now should be no different. doing so could send the wrong message to the people of ukraine, to our other friends and allies. it could even be propagandized as a nod to putin. i urge my colleagues to vote down senator paul's amendment. our message must be clear. we stand with nato, with article 5, and with the admission of finland and sweden into our

alliance. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent to speak for five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i hope that my remarks are even less. i stand in solid support of the succession of finland and sweden into nato. i visited lithuania, it means a lot to me and my family personally. i met with the former president. he was a lithuanian immigrant to the united states had a distinguished record in our government service here and then returned to lithuania after his retirement from the u.s. federal government and ran successfully for president. he had the vision to realize that the future of lithuania and the baltic states was in the european union and nato and worked strenuously to meet those

goals and i was happy to join him in that effort. now this moment in history complements his leadership, the succession of sweden and finland to nato is a confirmation that the baltic sea is safer than ever when it comes to the west. if vladimir putin thought by invading ukraine he could somehow inhibit the future of nato or in some way limit its future, the opposite has occurred the nato is stronger than ever and the united states commitment to nato is stronger than ever. the fact that only be a handful of senators from either political party are even questioning the succession of sweden and finland are good indications that we have bipartisan support for this nato coalition now more than ever and we should, first for the ukrainians and second for the united states and its future. those speaking against the accession of finland and sweden should say that we should focus our attention on asia.

we cannot ignore asia and we have to show strength throughout the world. why don't we start now. the strengthening of the nato alliance says to any adversary of the united states, even to china and its future that this country does business with other countries in the world with an arm's length basis and respectful basis and can deal with democracies in a constructive way. i will gladly join in the support of the accession of finland and sweden to nato. i think it not only strengthens our alliance with when it comes to ukraine, it is the right thing for america's security. i yield the floor. mr. risch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: thank you, mr. president. well, today i rise and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of

the accession protocols for finland and sweden to join nato. this is probably one of the easiest votes i'll ever make in the united states senate. i -- i've listened to arguments about asia somehow that it comes in here. look, this is -- this is -- we can walk and chew gum at the same time. certainly we can look at what's going on in asia and pay attention to asia, but we're talking about the defense of the north atlantic. and this organization was put together many years ago. it has grown over those years to be 30 strong and now we're going to add two more. nato has been the -- i have characterized it as the -- as the most successful political and military alliance in the history of the world. certainly the most powerful alliance in the history of the world and today we have the opportunity to expand the alliance by including finland and sweden. over the years we've added various countries an debates

could be -- and debates could be had about those countries as to whether or not they're sufficient to join nato and be part of the article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all alliance. but on finland and sweden there really is little if any argument the these are two very successful countries. and this is a chance to demonstrate leadership in nato. and the united states commitment to its modernization and to its future. the senate foreign relations committee has carefully consulted and coordinated with our nato allies. the governments of sweden and finland, the administration, within the senate itself to assure this process can move as firnltly as possible. i -- efficiently as possible. i can tell you personally and others have done the same over recent years and particularly over recent months have pressed finland and sweden to change

their view as to whether or not they should remain neutral and instead move into the nato alliance. and on february 24, we all know the world shook. things changed dra patically. -- changed dramatically. after putin's unprovoked attack on ukraine, sweden and finland i'm sure woke up and said, you know what? that could be us next. but it won't be us if we join nato. and so their polling in their country changed dramatically on february 24 as to whether or not nato membership was appropriate for them. they have now enthusiastically said nato is appropriate for them and we have shown in this body bipartisan support for finland and sweden joining nato. finland and sweden will make model members of the nato alliance. both have strong and capable

militaries in place now and are already net contributors to the security alliance. as is pointed out earlier by senator collins here, they have been very active in nato, even know they're not members of nato by participating in various drills that have taken place and also by participating in the duties that nato does strengthening the eastern flank of nato. they've also demonstrated intraoperability with nato which is extremely important and commitment necessary to join the alliance. i would say today with what's going on in ukraine, finland and sweden joining the alliance is even more important. when the shooting is over in ukraine, it won't be over. nato is going to re-examine what they need to do to strengthen themselves and certainly one of

those will be an examination of hardening the eastern flank. and finland and sweden obviously are on the eastern flank, will add considerably to that. and not only that, it's going to cost more to defend the eastern flank simply because of what russia has done. and finland and sweden will be a contributor as will everybody in nato. adding these two nations as full members of our alliance will further deter any team taition by russia to engage in owe -- i believe russia is already deterred when we say and our nato allies say the european nations say to putin, not one square inch, whether it's on the eastern border of one of the baltic states or whether it's in downtown london or the united states. an attack on any of the nato countries is an attack on all of them and the response will be swift. today's ratification of finland

and sweden as new members of nato will both send a strong message of transatlantic unity to pew tirch, strength -- to putin and strengthen nato against russia's growing threat. nato was put together originally to push back on russia and it's obvious that need has not gone away. i want to urge my colleagues to vote yes. this is a really easy vote. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: today the senate will vote to expand the nato alliance to include sweden and finland. a crucial question that should be answered is whether sweden and finished's ascension to nato

is in america's best interest and whether their joining will cause more or less war. well, for every action there is a reaction. what do our adversaries say? well, putin's immediate response was that russia does not have a problem with sweden or finland applying to nato but that the expansion of military infrastructure into this territory will of course give rise to reaction and response. so from russia's perspective, they likely will tolerate sweden and finland in nato but likely will not tolerate certain weapon systems in finland or sweden. advocates of nato expansion say we can't be held hostage to russia's threats. perhaps. but if a country announces they will do x if you do y, shouldn't someone at least contemplate the potential scenarios. the russians have already announced that placing certain weapon systems in finland is a red line. whether the red line is justified is not the issue.

the issue is knowing your adversary's position, is it worth the risk of pushing missiles into finland. the world has changed since putin invaded ukraine. arguments that admitting sweden and finland to nato could provoke russia are less potent now. since putin's war shows he can be provoked of actions short of admission to nato. diplomats should try to envision how the ukraine war might end. one possible end would be as zelenskyy has stated, a neutral ukraine not militarily aligned with either the west or the east. neutrality doesn't always have to be a weakness. neutral nations can serve as intermediaries in conflict resolution. often our discussions with iran use neutral sweden as a conduit. when all nations are aligned, who will be the mediators. the world will soon lose the roles played by neutral finland

and sweden. but putin's invasion of ukraine has changed the world. in this new world i am less adamant about preventing nato's expansion with sweden and finland but i'm still adamant about the reality that nato's expansion will come at a cost. i'm here today to propose a reservation to ensure that this expansion will not come at the expense of losing our ability to determine where and when the united states goes to war. my reservation merely reasserts that article 5 of the nato treaty does not supersede congress' constitutional responsibility to declare war before the u.s. commits troops to war. the founders designed the separation of war powers to ensure that the decision to engage in hostilities would be made only after serious deliberation. according to our constitution. the united states would resort to war only after the collective wisdom of the people's elected

representatives determine war is in the best interest. we know this because our founders told us so. at the pennsylvania ratifying convention, james wilson stated that the proposed constitution would not allow one man or even one body of men to declare war. in federalist number 69, alexander hamilton explained that the president would be restricted to conducting the armies and navies which congress alone would raise and fund. the founder of our constitution james madison argued in no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature. some have argued that a vote for my amendment is to go wobbly on nato's article 5 commitment. i would argue the gold star parents and our men and women in the field don't want congress to go wobbling on the constitution.

there is no more serious question that we are entrusted to answer than whether to commit the women, the men and women of the armed services to war. we cannot delegate that responsibility to the president, to the courts, to an international body, or to our allies. this is our constitutional responsibility, one that we have freely taken and one that our constituents expect us to uphold. i also want to assure my colleagues here that adoption of my reservation will not jeopardize the nato treaty. some will argue while the substance of my reservation is unobjectionable, the process of adopting the reservation threatens the expansion of nato. nothing could be further from the truth. it is true that reservations must be accepted by the other parties. but the other parties are our nato allies. the other parties are our nato allies are all dependent on us to come to their rescue. you think they're going to

lecture us on obeying our own constitution? we should expect those allies to respect article 11 of the nato treaty which states that the provisions of the treaty are to be carried out in accordance with each country's respective constitutional process. additionally, my reservation does not require any other country to take action or renegotiate the treaty. the reservation will be deemed accepted if our allies do not object after a period of 12 months. i call on my colleagues to support my proposal to reaffirm that our constitution and the nato treaty are abundantly clear. our international obligations do not supersede congress' responsibility to declare war. it's in our constitution. it's the supreme law of the land and we should today reassert that we will obey the constitution above all else. i call up my amendment number

5191 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 5191 to the resolution of ratification to treaty doc number 117-3.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, as we bring to an end this debate about the accession treaty for sweden and finland, i've been listening in my office to my colleagues' comments, and i think it's all been very constructive, but i dough have -- but i do have a different screw, a view that i on some points i think are wrong. and before this vote casts a vote, i think they should understand why. i appreciate senator paul's focus on congress' prerogatives with respect to war powers. like senator paul, i have a deep respect for the critical role that the constitution assigns to congress in this area, and i believe our democracy is stronger for it. but i rise to convey that

senator paul's amendment is unnecessary, unprecedented, and, if apartisan dod, will be deeply -- if adopted, will be deeply damaging to nato and our relationship with nato allies. that's why the foreign relations committee, in marking up these treaties, overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan vote, voted down a substantively identical amendment offered by senator paul. the amendment before us today is not necessary. there is no question that the north atlantic treaty organization and the finland and sweden protocols do not and cannot supersede the constitution. no treaty can. this is a well-established and well-understood point that the supreme court has reaffirmed. the amendment, however, would be deeply damaging to our core national security interests. neither the united states nor any other nato ally has ever

insisted on a reservation, that would call into question our nato obligations. that's exactly what this amendment does. if adopted, it would be shared with all nato members and would signal to them that we are limiting our obligations to nato with regard to article 5 of the nato treaty. if we go down this road, we can expect that other countries will do so as well, gutting the core commitment that nato members make to each other. particularly at this time with putin's ram passage in ukraine, his energy war against europe and his constant saber rattling, it would be self-defeating to do anything that would cast doubt. so let me reiterate. there is no question that neither the treaties we are voting on today nor any treaty

can supersede the constitution. that position is clear in law and clear in logic. the constitution is supreme. from there we have one task before us -- providing advice and consent to finland and sweden's accession in a manner that strengthens the nato alliance and strongens our allies. the amendment before us would do the opposite. for those reasons, i oppose that amendment and urge all of my colleagues to do so as well. finally, let me address some of the other critics of sweden and finland's accession to the alliance. each day we fail to act, we send a message of indecision and division. some republican critics oppose them joining because they are worried about the costs to the united states. but that is simply untrue. sweden and finland will reduce these costs. instead, we should be asking,

what is the cost of delaying nato expansion? what is the cost of debating protection for europe's democracies? what is the cost of denying security to sweden and finland? i'll tell you. these 11th hour concerns standing with the wai of this process only serve putin's interests. other critics want an amendment undermining article 5 of the nato charter that says an attack on one nato member is an attack on all. but as i said before, this was overwhelmingly rejected by both sides of the aisle in the senate foreign relations committee. and then there are still others who say we shouldn't accept sweden and finland into nato because china, not russia, is our greatest foreign policy threat. let me just say one thing. if you want to make sure you meet the china challenge, the first thing you want to do is defeat russia in ukraine. xi is looking at what's happening in ukraine. he's looking at what the west is doing is in ukraine and making calculations as it relates to taiwan and elsewhere in the

world. you want to make sure that you defeat russia in ukraine. and let me also say that as someone who's worked on foreign policy for three decades, and who is intimately aware of the danger and risk that china poses, we have to be able to meet that challenge in multiple dimensions. sometimes we face more than one threat at the same time. sometimes our values and commitments compel us to stand up for what we believe in. and this is one of those times. putin's regime continues to push and probe for weakness. and nato is the best institution we have to check his push for power across the continent. over the course of the last 70 years that nato has existed, it is -- it hughesed an open--- it has used an open-door policy when accepting new member countries. these countries must be functioning democracy, they must treat minorities fairly, they must resolve conflicts

peacefully, be able to contribute to the nato alliance. this criteria describes sweden and finland to a t. so i urge my colleagues to vote yes to accept these prosperous democracies into nato. vote yes to reduce the costs on the united states and the entire military alliance. vote yes to embracing the values and modern militaries of sweden and finland. vote yes to having these two democracies join us. vote yes to strengthening the north atlantic treaty organization. i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i just spoke an hour ago on the floor, and i am a very strong proponent of sweden and finland joining nato. i'm also a very strong supporter of nato, and i want the alliance to endouche for decades -- to endure for decades to come. but alliances can't endure if shared commitments and burdens

are not met. this is particularly true for democratic alliances where there must be a sense among the free citizens of such countries that all are pulling their weight for the collective defense and shared goals they all agree to. so, mr. president, the amendment i just called up an hour ago is meant to make this clear, simply states that the u.s. senate expects all nato members to spend a minimum of 2% of g.d.p. on defense spending, as agreed at the nato summit in wales in 2014. this will make nato stronger, as will the accession of finland and sweden as new members, and i ask for a voice vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the sullivan amendment.

all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question now occurs on the paul amendment. mr. risch: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: order. the yeas are 10. the nays are 87. the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, any committee conditions, declarations or reservations as applicable are agreed to. the question occurs on adoption of resolution of ratification as amended. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: may we have some order please, madam president. the presiding officer: the

senate will come to order. mr. schumer: thank you. since its creation over 70 years ago, no alliance in human history has done more to advance the cause of freedom and democracy than nato. today at a moment when democracy in europe is under attack, as belligerent autocrats like putin clamor for european dominance, the u.s. senate is voting in overwhelming bipartisan fashion to approve finland and sweden's accession to the nato alliance. this is important substantively and as a signal to russia. they cannot intimidate america or europe. thank you, roger. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. putin has tried to use his war in ukraine to divide the west. instead today's vote shows our alliance is stronger than ever. i applaud the leaders of sweden and finland who made a bold

choice to depart from their long-held position with respect to nato. i'm confident they'll be excellent partners in this alliance. i thank leader mcconnell. back in may we met with the finnish president and swedish prime minister and promised to approve their accession as quickly as possible. and today we're keeping that promise. i also want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for springing into action in this matter, especially senator menendez, the chair of the senate foreign relations committee, who did such a good job with his ranking member senator risch as well as senators shaheen and tillis who have been our leaders in reaching out to nato for their leadership roles. senator menendez and risch ensured their committee acted quickly. and on a broader note, madam president, in the past few months we've seen an amazing string of bipartisan achievements in this chamber, cheasms rarely seen -- achievements rarely seen in such

vast succession. we passed the first gun safety bill in 30 years. approved the largest investment in u.s. science and technology in generations, gave veterans the largest expansion of benefits in decades, and today we're strengthening the nato alliance. and all of this, every bit of this, was done in a -- on a bipartisan basis. i've always said this senate democratic majority would be willing to work with the other side whenever possible. and these past months have been some of those moments. finally, to the swedish and finnish diplomats who have worked for months to reach this moment, rest assured you have many friends in this chamber. we promised to get this done and we will always, always stand by your side as allies defending each other. i thank my colleagues for their work and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 95, the nays are 1, and one senator responded present. two-thirds of the senators present, a quorum being present, having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and and the president will be immediately notified on the senate's actions and the senate will resume legislative session. the senator from pennsylvania.

mr. casey: mr. president, scawctd that the president be in a period of morning business for debate only, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the nomination of roberts gordon. earlier this year, mr. gordon had strong bipartisan support in the finance committee when his nomination came to a vote. mr. gordon is president biden's nominee to serve as the department of health and human services assistant secretary for financial resources and he has a long history of dedication to public service. more recently, he served as director of the department of health and human services for the state of michigan. he played a central role in the state's pandemic response, and managed an agency of 14,000 employees and a multibillion-dollar budget.

before that, he held senior roles in the u.s. department of education and the office of offf management and budget, where he championed evidence-based policy making to use taxpayer dollars wisely. earlier in his career, mr. gordon served as a senior official at the new york city department of education. he was a senior aide on capitol hill, a law clerk for justice ruth bader ginsburg and a white house aide. in his time at the white house, he supported the development of the amerry core program -- arericorp program. in his long career in government service, he worked to ensure government programs work for those they serve and they do so through responsible use of taxpayer dollars. such experience is essential to the work of the assistant secretary for financial resources at the department of

health and human services. hhs has responsibility for critical programs like medicare, medicaid and the children's health inch program, just to name a few. the assistant secretary for financial resources must ensure that these programs and many others, under the umbrella of the department, remain strong for future generations. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent as if in executive session the senate consider the following nomination, calendar number 762, robert michael gordon, to be assistant secretary of health and human services, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and and the president will be immediately notified on the senate's actions.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hagerty: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. hagerty: mr. president, reserving the right to object. since last year, i've been asking for a commitment from my democratic colleagues that any future reconciliation legislation in this congressional will not reduce access to care in nonexpansion states such as tennessee. specifically, my concern is that the reconciliation legislation that the house of representatives passed last fall, which is the very vehicle for the reconciliation bill currently being discussed in the senate, included provisions that cut uncompensated care pool payments for nonexpansion states. this would result in less health care for vulnerable populations in my state. it would accelerate hospital closures, and disadvantage rural communities of these are places and populations for which we're trying to secure more quality health care, not less. because i still have not received confirmation that these

provisions will not be included in the final text of the partisan reconciliation bill, i cannot consent to expediting confirmation of this nominee, and therefore, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. casey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i want to respond, at least preliminarily, to my friend from tennessee. i appreciate his advocacy for hospitals in his home state of tennessee, and given that he's seeking this assurance about these disproportionate share hospital payments, my understanding is that the reconciliation bill we're about to consider this week does not contain any provisions that are directly relevant in any provision that would impact these disproportionate share hospitals or uncompensated care pool funding. so given that, and given that

he's seeking this specific assurance about the pending reconciliation bill, that it nor will become evident, that the bill does not contain these dsh provisions or uncompensated payment cuts, i ask him this question, if he would entertain this question -- if the senate does pass a reconciliation bill, which i hope will be by the end of this week, and that that bill is then subsequently enacted into law, will he lift his objection and allow this and other relevant hhs nominations to be confirmed by unanimous consent? mr. hagerty: mr. president, i'd like to respond to my friend from pennsylvania. that is a very reasonable request. we're getting ready to go through a process, which i've not seen the text, an amendment process that is hard to anticipate. i dread to think there would be another wraparound, but that

could happen as well. assuming we get to an end point, and this language i've discussed is not in the bill, the same language that the house included, is not in this bill, i would be more than happy to lift my objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. will the senator withhold his suggestion? mr. casey: i will. mr. young: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor this evening, first wanting to take a moment to join senator braun in remembering a good friend to each of us, our colleague, congresswoman jackie wilorski. she tragically passed away in a horrible car accident earlier today. i for one am truly devastated.

i know that jackie loved the state of indiana. she loved the hoosiers throughout the state. she had an incredible sense of humor, so smart, so talented in many ways. she'll be missed. i join countless hoosiers, and i know senator braun, in praying for her husband, dean, for her entire family, and for all those who came to love and respect jackie. i know that so many throughout the state are mourning her passing this evening, and so many will have important things to say about their interaction with her and how fond they were of her. it also should be said that two other hoosiers passed in this horrible accident, members of her dedicated staff, emma

thompson and zach potts. we pray for all of them. today, we're also on the floor to talk about a different tragedy in the state of indiana. on july 17, there was a terrible shooting that occurred at the greenwood park mall, just miles from my home. resulted in the death of three innocent victims. now, it could have easily been one of my neighbors or a friend or, i remind myself, it could have been a member of my family who passed away there in the food court on that very day. as this resolution that we're introducing today states, the united states senate condemns the shooting and any violent action that seeks to bring harm to other individuals. we grieve the loss of fellow hoosiers victor gomez and pedro

and rosa pineda and we pray for their families. but we're also grateful for the heroes on the scene that day, for the first responders, for our health care workers, as well as a young man named elijh dicken. he was in the food court that evening, legally carrying his own firearm, and when the shooting began he used his weapon to bring down the shooter. were it not for his poise during those brief moments, his brave and selfless actions, this shooting would have been far worse. so i ask all my fellow americans to remember the victims and the heroes of this tragedy, and i urge passage of this resolution. thank you. mr. president. mr. braun: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana.

mr. braun: so, earlier today, in the normal course of the day, i get the tragic news that my good friend, one of the first persons i met when i was exploring the idea of becoming a senator, jajackie walorski tragically killed in a car accident. all of us, we're on the road a lot. and you spend those hours, endless sometimes, you never imagine that one day that could happen. when i heard that, it's like the ultimate gut punch. emma thompson, zack potts, along with her, three hoosiers we will miss. it's hard to come up with the

words to say, how did that happen? and how do you get through it? for most of us, and especially in my case, jackie, one of the first great hoosiers i got to know on my own journey. she will be missed and our condolences to all of the families. i rise today to honor the memory of the victims of a senseless act of violence in greenwood, indiana, southern suburb of indianapolis. the lives taken that day were enjoying what should have been a fun july day with family and friends. in a moment's notice, lives were changed forever when a deranged killer tragically took the lives of three people. this is happening far too often,

and so often it seems to have something to do with mental illness. this is just another example of how it plays out in the real world. they will never be forgotten. this relation also expresses hope for the full recovery of those injured in the attack as well. i want to mention the victims by name. i think that's important. pedro panedo, rosa nilie and viktor gomez, you have to remember the people's names because this happens far too often. within a mere 15 seconds of the shooter opening fire, a citizen by the name of elijah dicken, a 22-year-old from seymour,

indiana, down in my part of the state, rose and stopped the rampage. thank goodness for him. if not for his courageous action, the violence surely would have been much worse. i'm proud to acknowledge the man, the young man for defending himself and others in a valiant act of bravery in the face of unimaginable danger. hoosiers are united in mourning for those lost in this senseless attack and we pray for their families to find peace in the memory of their loved ones. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 740, which is at the desk. further, i ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 740, condemning the attack that occurred in greenwood,. mr. vanvan --greenwood, indiana. the presiding officer: without objection, the program is greed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

mr. marshall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 741, which is at the desk. i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right

to object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object, mr. president. i have read and reread the senator from kansas' resolution, and as best i can determine, it is a declaration of war and for that reason should be taken very seriously. he says in the earliest stages of the preamble to express the sense of the senate regarding the constitutional right of state governors to repel the dangerous ongoing invasion at the u.s. southern border. the operative language at the end of his resolution on this declaration of war relates to a provision in the constitution which is rarely quoted. it is section 10 of article 1.

i'd like to read it into the record. it says, no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power or engage in a war unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. i'm trying to understand the thinking of the senator from kansas, but here is the best i can come up with. he says that what is happening at the southern border with our immigration issues is, in his words, actual invasion of the united states, and then goes on to say, quote, governors of all 50 states possess the authority

and power as commander in chief of their respective states to repel the invasion described in paragraph two. so as best i can determine, the senator from kansas is suggesting that each governor has the power to initiate military action. it doesn't say who the enemy will be or who the target will be, but according to this provision in the constitution, these governors can enter into compacts with other state for this military action or with a foreign power. i don't know if the senator from kansas has thought this through. is the idea the state of kansas would team up with the state of arizona and declare a war on nicaragua? is that what he's thinking? because nick rawg wants -- nick r-- -- because they are showing

up at the border. and the only precedent in our history was a sad one that involved the civil war of the united states. i don't know if the senator is anticipating similar state action or combinations of states attacking a foreign power. for that reason and many others, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. marshall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: i rise to ask passage for my unanimous consent, that the unprecedented crisis at the sown border cons -- southern border constitute an invasion of the united states of america and it is the constitutional right to repel the dangers of the ongoing dangers across the southern border. i ask my colleagues to support this resolution because the federal government has failed to protect the states from invasion under article 4, section 4 of the united states constitution. during his campaign to become

president, joe biden made it clear to the entire world that if he became president, america would be open. not open for business, but that our southern border would be open. wide open for anyone and everyone to violate our nation's immigration laws. and to take advantage of america's generosity. yes, it would be wide open for drug smugglers, convicted murders, domestic abusers and sex offenders, open for terrorist suspects. in 2019, joe biden called for, quote, all those people seeking asylum to immediately surge to the border, end quote. he pledged free health care for illegal immigrants and pledged support for sanctuary cities. one of his first actions as president was sending proposed legislation to congress that would provide a path for citizenship for 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens residing in the united states many on his first day of office, he halted construction of

president trump's border wall and halted the remain in mexico program. this open border, opened by joe biden has resulted in an unprecedented, unrelenting massive wave of illegal aliens entering our country. last year border patrol made more than 1.7 million arrests of illegal immigrants along the southern border which is the highest level ever recorded and on pace to arrest two million illegal immigrants on the border during this year. now joe biden is prepared to end the policy that enabled us to dispel many crossing the border back into mexico, the vast majority violating our immigration laws will be released into our interior of the nation. last year the number of drug overdose deaths in the united states topped 100,000. fentanyl being the cause of two-thirds of them. in fact, fentanyl is now the number one cause of americans

ages 18 to 45. last year border patrol seized at the southern border 11,000 pounds of fentanyl, 5400 pound fs heroin, 191,000 pounds of meth, 97,000 pounds of cocaine and 10,000 pounds of ketamine. many, many, many multiples of amounts needed to kill every man, woman, and child in the united states. now, if you speak to border patrol agents trying to deal with the crisis, they'll tell you the biden administration has completely forbidden them to enforce immigration law. they've been made ushers and nurse made for illegal immigration -- maids for illegal immigration. this invasion is wreaking havoc on communities all across our country, and it simply cannot go on any longer. it's long past time for states to protect their interest because joe biden has made it clear the federal government will not. president biden's dereliction of duty and failure to take care that the laws be faithfully

executed at our southern border has directly put the citizens of all 50 states in danger and has resulted in loss of life. let me be chris cal clear. the violent activity and smuggling of drugs, humans, guns and other illicit goods carried out by drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations meet the definitions of actually invaded under clause 3 of section 10 of article 1 of the united states constitution, an invasion under section 4 of article 4 of the united states constitution and governors of all 50 states possess the authority and power as commander in chief of their respective states to repel the invasion described in paragraph 2. i encourage the passage of this resolution to stand in solidarity with the governors of these united states who must take matters into their own hands to protect their citizens against this invasion. i yield back.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. with me, mr. president, today is mr. wesley davis, one of my able aides in my office. i would like to talk for a few minutes, mr. president, about crime. it's up. it's way up. the largest city in my state, mr. president, is new orleans. and new orleans is on track to becoming the murder capital of the world.

and my state -- and in my city of new orleans, we have seen a 136% rise in homicides, a 1% rise in shootings and a 194% rise in carjackings. and this is not just a louisiana and new orleans problem. baton rouge, louisiana, of course my capital city, and shreveport are not much better and violent crime is also on the rise, as you know, mr. president, in major cities from the west coast to the east coast. we hear a lot about chicago, of course. and new york city. but from may of 2021 to may of 2022, crime was up 23% in seattle. it was up 21% in washington,

d.c. and i would respectfully suggest, mr. chairman, this is no -- this is no coincidence. for mr. president two years for almost two years now, two years, a long time, some people in positions of authority in our country have been calling to defund the police, to dismantle the police. and they have been disrespecting the police. many of our public officials, not all of them, but some happen to be mayors in major cities. they believe that cops are a bigger problem than criminals. they do. they believe that when a cop

shoots a criminal, it's automatically the cop's fault. when a criminal shoots a cop, it's the gun's fault. and we also have prosecutors, district attorneys, not all of them, but too many of them who live by the motto hear no evil, see no evil and prosecute no evil. and we can now see the result of that attitude. it's an antilaw enforcement attitude, mr. president. now look, i know cops aren't perfect. i get it. some of our police officers get out of line intentionally. and when they do, they should be punished. but when a radical jihadist who happens to be a muslim blows up a school full of schoolchildren, we are told don't blame all

muslims because of the acts of a few. and gosh, i agree with that. and i know you do too, mr. president. how come the same rule doesn't apply to cops? i don't understand it. this anty law enforcement -- antilaw enforcement sentiment understandably has resulted in lower morale among cops. duh. its led to massive resignations. its led to massive early retirements. it has in my state and it has in most other states. it turns out that when you spend years vilifying police officers and making harder -- making it harder for them to do their jobs, some of them no longer want to stay. that's not surprising. in the city of new orleans, we have fewer than 1,000 police officers. we need 2,000.

this year alone more than 100 police officers have already quit. that's around the same number of police officers who resigned, retired, or were fired in 2020. and these statistics are nationwide. it's not just new orleans. the dallas police department, it's down 550 law enforcement officials. and portland, oregon, the department is looking to fill more than a hundred positions for cops. a headline from last week said, quote, as officers leave in droves, new orleans police department's response times soared to two and one-half hours. that's not the way our country should work. now, you can talk about defunding the police all day. and i don't want to paint with too broad a brush here.

not everyone does. but too many people do. but the rally is that defunding the police results in delayed responses to 9/11 phone calls. it demoralizes cops. it causes a lack of good recruits and it causes our communities to be less safe. i don't know why this is, mr. president. if i -- there are some people in our city, not just in america, but throughout the world, these people are not sick. they're not mixed up. they're not confused. it's not that their mother or their father did not love them enough. they are just antisocial. i don't know why. but they are. and they hurt other people. and they steal other people's stuff.

and they can't live in society. and to protect us from them, we have to have law enforcement. it's just that simple. so here's in my opinion, mr. president, what we do because it's hard not to notice that what we're doing right now is not working. i don't mean to be cruel, but a lot of americans look around at the people who are disrespecting and defunding the police or trying to and the attitude of those americans is look, don't bother to send in the clowns. they're already here. the american people want and deserve better. what should we do? number one, we have to empower our cops. and when they're not -- when they make a mistake intentionally, when they

intentionally violate their oath, they should be punished. but that's a small minority of our law enforcement officials. so we need to empower our cops. as i said, we have too many people in positions of authority really -- who really think cops are a bigger problem than criminals. we have to pay our cops. we've got to hire more of them. we've got to stand behind them. when they make a split-second decision, mr. president, they shouldn't be thinking oh, my god, i might lose my family and my home and my job. when they act in good faith and have to make a split-second decision, we have to stand behind them. and we have to tell our police officers to enforce all laws, not just the big ones.

the little ones. and we have to get rid of the hear no evil, see no evil, prosecute no evil prosecutors. it's also important, mr. president, that we ask ourselves another question. why is it that so many young offenders, especially in our inner cities, why is it that so many of these young criminals are more likely to grow up and go to prison than own a home or get married? why is that? because that's true and that's an embarrassment. and i'll give you one reason, mr. president. because their schools suck. they do. too many of our schools are failure factories. we need to fix them.

we need to find out which of our teachers can teach and pay them. we need to find out which of our teachers can't -- can't teach and either teach them how or tell them to find a new line of work. i can't recite to you, mr. president, the first six presidents of the united states in proper order, but i will never forget ever, my first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth grade teachers. teachers matter. we need to have no excuses schools. i believe every child can learn. i do. it's tougher for some than others, but i believe that every child can learn. and i think we need a new rule. i don't care how old you are, i don't care, you are not going to get out of the third grade until you can read and write. no exceptions.

none. and also, mr. president, i think we have to give our public schools some competition. we need more charter schools. we need more school choice. we need to empower our parents. give them vouchers. give those public schools some competition. it will make all of our schools better. i want to end this way, mr. president. look, it's hard to be a cop. it's hard to be a cop. and cops are like all the rest of us. they're not perfect. they make mistakes. but only a small, small, small percentage intentionally violate their oath. we need to empower those that abide by their oath because they're the ones keeping our communities safe. thank you, mr. president.

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

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in con ultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar 1100, hipali de sai to be united states district judge, that there be ten minutes for debate, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on the nomination, without intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent to vitiate the previous actions on s. 734. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor and pensions be discharged from further consideration of s. 734, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 734, a bill to amend the child abuse prevention and treatment act, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the cornyn amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. 742, national lobster day. submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report. the clerk: s. res. 742, designating september 25, 2022, as national lobster day. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of senate res. 743, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 743, congratulating the colorado avalanche on winning the 2022 stanley cup final. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and finally,

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 12:00 p.m. thursday, august 4, following the prayerer and pledge, the morning hour be 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 the con klug of morning business, the senate resume consideration of s.j. res. 55. further, on disposition of the joint resolution, the senate execute the previous order, with respect to the desai nomination. finally, if any nominations are confirmed during today's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: for the information of the senate, there will be two roll call votes at 1:45 p.m. with additional roll call votes possible. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the

remarks of senator sanders. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. sanders: then we should not vitiate it. mr. president, my understanding is that the so-called inflation reduction act may be coming to the floor in the coming days, and there are some people who think this bill is worth supporting, there are others that think that it is not, but whatever your views on this bill may be, let us be clear, as currently written, this is an extremely modest piece of legislation that does virtually nothing to address the enormous

crises that working families all across this country are facing today. this reconciliation bill falls far short of what the american people want, what they need, and what they are begging us to do. given that this is the last reconciliation bill that we will be considering this year, it is the only opportunity that we have to do something significant for the american people that requires only 50 votes and that cannot be filibustered. in other words, this is the opportunity because on anything significant, we're not going to get 60 votes. so this, in my view, is a moment

that should not be squandered. mr. president, let us do what we too rarely do here in the congress or in the corporate media, and that is take a hard look at the reality of what is going on in our country today. very often we sit here and we argue about this and we argue about that, but we don't take a look at what's going on in america today, especially among working people and lower-income people who do not have paid lobbists here trying to get us to pass legislation to benefit them. people back home are just too busy working 50, 60 hours a week, trying to make it on social security, trying to deal with their student debt. they don't have the lobbists here that the drug companies and the f fossil fuel companies hav.

what is it going on it in america today? for a start, in the richest country in the history of the world, half of the people live paycheck to paycheck and because of a bad situation that has been made worse. millions of people today are wondering how they're going to pay their rent, how they're going to buy the food to feed their kids, how they're going to pay off their debt. that's what's going on for half of the people in our country. i know we don't talk about them. they don't have any reputation, no lobbists, no nothing, but that is the reality. does this reconciliation bill address their needs? does it raise the minimum wage to a living wage or do we continue to allow so many workers to try to get by on $10, $12, $13 an hour? does this bill make it easier

for workers who want to join a union to be able to do so or can they continue to be attacked by their employers making it hard to form a union? no, this bill does nothing to address that reality. mr. president, at a time when tragically this country has the highest rate of childhood poarcht of almost -- poverty of almost any major country on earth, does this bill extend the $300 per month tax credit that was so important to millions of families last year? does it address that issue? does it say that maybe there is something wrong with millions of children in this country are dealing hunger and with other basic human needs? no. not a word in this bill addresses that. mr. president, in my state of vermont, and around thb country, -- and around this

country, families are paying on average $15,000 a year on child care if they're lucky enough to find a slot. $15,000 a year. that's one-third of a family making $45,000. i don't know how people afford child care and meanwhile child care workers earn horrifically low wages and poor benefits. at a time when we have the highest childhood poverty on record, does this bill address the functionality of our child care system? not a word. this is a reconciliation bill where we need only 50 votes to make these changes. mr. president, at a time when over 70 million americans are overinsured or underinsured, when we spend twice as much per capita on health care compared

to other countries, while insurance companies make tens and tens of billions of dollars a year on profit, when 60 million people a year die because they can't afford to get to a doctor when they are sick because they're underinsured, does this bill do anything to help us create a rational, cost-effective health care system which guarantees health care for all, a human right, something that every other country on earth does? no the bill does nothing to address the extraordinary health care crisis that we face. mr. president, at a time when 45 million americans are struggling to pay student debt and when hundreds of thousands of bright, young people every year are unable to fulfill their dreams, unable to get a higher education because they cannot afford the high cost of higher education in this country, does this bill do anything to make it

easier for young people to get a higher education? no. it doesn't do a thing. it doesn't do a thing on student debt. mr. president, 55% of senior citizen in our country are trying to survive on incomes of $25,000 a year or less, which is something hard for me to understand. it really is. think about being 80, 90 years of age trying to make it on $25,000 a year, maybe your spouse has died, i don't know how they do it. but more than half of the seniors in our country are trying to do that. many of these seniors cannot afford to go to a dent its, and -- dentist, and in vermont and i expect in arizona as well, there are senior citizen walking around with no teeth in their mouth or teeth that will

rotting. there are seniors in this country who can't communicate with their kids or grandkids because they can't afford a hearing aid, they can't afford a decent pair of glasses. it there anything in the bill to do what 70% to 80% of the american people think we should do and that is to expand medicare for dental aid and hearing aids. and when we talk about our senior citizen and disabled americans, does this legislation do anything to help the millions who would prefer to stay in their homes rather than be force hd into nursing homes? it's an issue i hear quite frequently in vermont. can't find help for someone to come to my house to help my mother or disabled father.

does this bill address the crisis of home health care? it's a very serious crisis. no, not a word. mr. president, i think there is no disagreement that we have a major housing crisis in america. some 600,000 americans are homeless and nearly 18 million households are spending an incredible 50% of their limited incomes for housing. everybody acknowledges that we have a major housing crisis and that rents are soaring. does this bill, which is supposedly -- which supposedly represents the needs of the american people, even deal with housing? one word? no, it doesn't. mr. president, i understand that in our politics today super

pacts and billionaires play an enormous role in what we do here and what we don't do. just yesterday we saw the power of billionaire superpacts electing corporate candidates who represent their interest and defeating candidates that represent families. it has been made worse since citizens united. but right now in our country, and i know don't talk about it very much, i hear almost no discussion on the floor, we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in 100 years. how do the american people feel knowing that three people own more wealth than the bottom half of american society? does that sound like the america we believe in? the america we think we should be? we talk about russia and putin and the oligarchy over there,

it's true. an oligarchy robs the country blind. we have an oligarchy here as well, three people own more wealth in society, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 50% and what we have seen during the pandemic is billionaires becoming much richer while working people, by the thousands, die because they have to go to work to make a living. today c.e.o.'s of large corporations make 350 times more than their average workers. that's what's going on in america. i know we don't talk about it because we don't want to offend the people who fund our campaigns. tt makes them uncomfortable to talk about how much inee -- it makes them uncomfortable to talk about how much inequality we have in this country. that's the reality. not only do we have income

inequality, we have more concentration of ownership than at any time in the modern history of this country. sector after sector after sector we have a handful of giant multinational corporations often engaging in price-fixing who control what is produced and how much we pay for it. i think many americans now notice that at a time when we're paying increased costs at the gas pump, increased costs at grocery stores for food, surprise, surprise, surprise, these large corporations are making record breaking profits. paying five bucks for a gallon of gas. the good news is exxonmobil and other corporations are making huge profits. unbelievably, mr. president, three wall street firms now control assets of over $20

trillion. that is the gdp of the united states of america controlled by three wall street firms. that of concern to anybody? might be something we might want to talk about in a reconciliation bill? nah, can't do that. these are very powerful guys and we're not supposed to defend the wealthy and the powerful. these three wall street firms are the major stockholders in 96% of s&p 500 companies. check out companies that you -- products that you buy. find out who owns them. find out who owns the companies that you are familiar with and time and time and time again you will find that the major stockholders are these three wall street firms, black rock, state street, and vanguard. does this bill do anything to

even begin addressing the enormous concentration of ownership in our country and make our economy more competitive? not a word. so my point, mr. president, is that we are living in a moment of unprecedented crises. this bill does virtually nothing to address any of them. and this is the opportunity because theoretically, it could be done with 50 votes here in the senate if all the democrats voted for it. any republicans that voted for it would be great, plus the vice president, we could do it. but as currently written, it is not being done. now, let me say a few words about what is in this legislation, a bill which has some good features. there are some good things in it. but it also has some very bad features. the good news, mr. president, is

that the reconciliation bill finally begins to address the outrageous price of some of the most expensive prescription drugs under medicare. as you know, we pay by far the highest prices in the world for our prescription drugs. and for those under medicare, this begins to address that issue. under this legislation, medicare for the first time would be able to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug prices. that's the good news. bad news is that we will not see the impact of these negotiated prices until 2026, four years from now. why? got me. i don't know. but it will not go into effect until four years from now. and by the way, the pharmaceutical industry is the most powerful entity here in d.c. and if you think during those four years whatever modest

provisions are in this bill, they will not attack and get out, you would be mistaken. they would certainly work hard to do that and they have four years to do that. four years to come up with an entire pricing structure. because if you're not covering all of the drugs that can come up, me too drugs that look alike or sound alike, they can evade these price controls. moreover, with the possible exception of insulin and that's not clear yet, this bill does nothing to lower prescription drug prices for anyone who is not on medicare. under this bill at a time when pharmaceutical companies are making outrageous profits, the drug companies will still be allowed to charge the american people by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. now, if we had the courage to seriously address this issue, we know exactly what to do. it is very, very simple. for over 30 years, the veterans

administration has been negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower the price of prescription drugs. moreover, for decades virtually every major country on earth has done exactly the same thing. that is why in canada drug prices in mexico, drug prices in europe are much lowerren that the u.s. -- lower than the u.s. the result of medicare not negotiating prices has been that today medicare pays twice as much for the same exact prescription drugs as the v.a. and americans in some cases pay ten times more for a particular drug than the people in canada or in other countries. how insane is it that you have one federal agency called the v.a. that pays 50% of what medicare pays? how crazy is that?

so, mr. president, when it comes to reducing the price of prescription drugs under medicare, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. we could simply require medicare to pay no more for prescription drugs than the v.a. pays. end of discussion. a rather simple solution. and if we did that, we could save medicare some $900 billion over the next decade. that is nine times more savings than the rather weak negotiation provision in this bill. nine times more. they get a hundred billion. we would save $900 billion. by the way, that money could be used to add comprehensive dental, vision, and hearing benefits to every senior in america. it could be used to lower the medicare eligibility age to at least 60. and it could be used to extend the solvency of medicare. well, mr. president, that is why

i will be introducing an amendment to do just that. and to make sure that medicare pays no more for prescription drugs than the v.a., not a very radical idea and i would hope that that amendment gets widespread support. mr. president, in terms of the affordable care act, this legislation will extend subsidies for some 13 million americans who have private health insurance plans. as a result of the aca, over the next three years. without this provision, millions of americans would see their premiums skyrocket and some three million americans could lose their health insurance altogether. this is a good provision. i support it. but let us not kid ourselves. the $64 billion cost of this provision will go directly into the pockets of private health insurance companies that made over $60 billion in profit last year and pay their ceo's

exorbitant compensation packages. it would also do nothing to help the more than 70 million americans who are uninsured or underinsured and it would do nothing to reform a dysfunctional health care system that is not designed to make people well, but it's designed to make the stockholders of private health insurance companies even richer. let me talk about the issue of climate change for a moment as it is dealt with in this bill. mr. president, this legislation provides $370 billion over the next decade to combat climate change and to invest in so-called energy security programs. the good news is that if this legislation as written is signed into law, it would provide far more funding for energy efficiency and sustainable energy than has ever been invested before.

given the existential crisis that we face, given the fact that we are fighting to make sure that this planet remains habitable and healthy for younger generations, this clearly is not enough of an investment, but it is a step forward. it provides serious funding for wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps, electric vehicles, energy efficient appliances in low-income communities that have bore the brunt of climate change. that is the good news. however, mr. president, the bad news is that this legislation includes a huge giveaway to the fossil fuel industry, the people who are causing the climate crisis. now, it might seem a bit incongruous to people why we are rewarding the people whose emissions are driving the temperature of the earth up and causing massive destruction, but that is in fact what this bill

does. under this legislation, the fossil fuel industry will receive billions of dollars in new tax breaks and subsidies over the next ten years on top of the $15 billion in tax breaks and corporate welfare that they already receive every year. above and beyond what they currently get. in my view, if we are going to make our planet healthy and habitable for future generations, which i would hope that every sane human being believes we should, we cannot provide billions of dollars in new tax breaks to fossil fuel companies that are destroying the planet. on the contrary. we should end all of the massive corporate welfare that the fossil fuel industry already enjoys. under this legislation up to 60 million acres of public water, 60 million acres of public waters must be offered up for

sale each and every year to the oil and gas company before the federal government could approve any new offshore wind development. to put this in perspective, 60 million acres is the size of michigan. mr. president, let me read to you the headline that appeared in a july 29 article in bloomberg. quote, exon loves what manchin did for big oil, a $370 billion deal. end quote. according to bloomberg, the ceo of exxonmobil called the reconciliation bill, quote, a step in the right direction, end quote, and was, quote, pleased, end quote, with a quote, comprehensive set of solutions included in the reconciliation bill. barons recently reported that exxonmobil, this ron and ox dental are a few of the fossil fuel companies that would benefit the most under this bill. now, mr. president, if the ceo of exxonmobil, a company that

perhaps has done more than any other entity on earth to cause climate change, if they are pleased with this bill, i think all of us should have some very deep concerns about what is in this legislation. further, under this bill, up to two million acres of public lands must be offered up for sale each and every year to the oil and gas industry before leases can move forward for any renewable energy development of public lands. in total this bill will offer the fossil fuel industry up to 700 million acres of public lands and waters to oil and gas drilling over the next decade, far more than the oil and gas industry could possibly use. mr. president, that is not all. the fossil fuel industry will not just benefit from the provisions in this reconciliation bill, a deal has also been reached to make it easier for the industry to receive permits for their oil

and gas projects. this deal would approve the $6.6 billion mountain valley pipeline, a frac gas pipeline that would span 303 miles from west virginia to virginia and potentially on to north carolina. this is a pipeline that would generate emissions equivalent to that released by 37 coal plants or by over 27 million cars each and every year. well, to my mind that is a heck of a way to address the climate crisis. mr. president, let me quote from a july 29 letter from over 350 environmental organizations, including the sun rise movement, food and water watch, 350.org and the climate justice alliance. a letter addressed to the president and the senate majority leader expressing concerns about this bill. and this is what they say. quote, any approval of new fossil fuel projects or fast

tracking of fossil fuel permitting is incompatible with climate leadership. oil, gas, and coal production are the core drivers of the climate and extinction crises. there can be no new fossil fuel leases, exports, or infrastructure if we have any hope of preventing ever worsening climate crises, catastrophic floods, deadly wildfires, and more all of which are ripping across the country as we speak. we are out of time. therefore, we are calling on you, president majority leader, to fulfill your promise to lead on climate starting with denying approvals for the mountain valley pipeline, rejecting all new federal fossil fuel leases on shore in the gulf of mexico and alaska and everywhere else and preventing any fast-track permits for fossil fuel projects. and, mr. president, i would like

to put into the congressional record the letter by these hundreds, 350 environmental groups written on july 29. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: thank you. mr. president, here is what the center for biological diversity had to say on this bill, and i quote, this is a climate suicide packet. it is self defeating to handcuff renewable energy development to massive new oil and gas extraction. the new leading required in this bill will fan the flames of the climate disasters torching our customer and is a slap in the face to communities fighting to protect themselves from filthy fossil fuels, ends quote. mr. president, in my view, we have to do everything possible to take on the greed of the fossil fuel industry, not give billions of dollars in corporate welfare to an industry that has been actively destroying our planet, and i will be doing -- i

will be introducing an amendment to do just that. finally, mr. president, this bill has a tax provision in it, and under this bill corporations will be required to pay a minimum tax of 15%, and that is good news because we have many, many large, profitable corporations in this country, including companies like at&t, federal express and nike who, in a given year, make billions in profit and don't pay a nickel in federal income tax. this provision has been estimated to raise $313 billion over the next decade. further, under this bill the irs will finally begin to receive the funding it needs to audit wealthy tax cheats. each and every year, the top 1% are able to avoid paying more than $1160 billion in taxes that

they legally owe because the irs doptd have the staffing needed to conduct audits of the extremely wealthy. this bill will begin to change that. this bill will make very modest changes to the carried interest loophole that allowed billionaire hedge fund managers on wall street to pay lower tax rate than a further, teacher, or firefighter. that's a good thick. a good thing. the bad news, this does nothing to repeal the trump tax breaks that went to the very wealthy and large corporations. trump's 2017 tax bill provided over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1% and large corporations, and this bill does nothing to repeal that. mr. president, let's not forget it is very likely the congress will be doing a so-called tax extender bill at the end of this year that could provide corporations up to $400 billion over the next decade in new tax

breaks. if that occurs, that would more than offset the $313 in corporate revenue included in this bill. so mr. president, that is where we are today. this legislation virtually ignores every major crisis facing working families who are struggling so very hard to stay alive today, child care, pre-k, expansion of medicare, home health care, higher education, raising the minimum wage, and more. ignores all of those issues. this is legislation which at a time of massive profits in the pharmaceutical industry takes a very modest step, which will go into effect four years from now, to lower or control the price of medicine. so, mr. president, this bill has, as i have indicated, some good and important provisions,

at the same time it has some pretty bad provisions, including massive giveaways to the fossil fuel industry. this is a bill of more than 700 pages, which was made public after a number of months of secret negotiations. in my view, mr. president, now is the time for every member of the senate to study this bill thoroughly and to come up with amendments and ideas as to how we can improve it. and i intend to play an active role in that process. mr. president, thank you, and i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

♪ ♪ c-span as your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. ♪ broadband is a force for empowerment. that's where charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. giving you a front row seat to democracy. he spent his unfiltered coverage bring you the latest from the presidents and other white house officials as well as congress. international perspective all on