to propose if anything in that area and then we would be able to understand the implications of that proposal more broadly but i don't have any further insight about it at this time. >> no existing studies at this point? >> i don't know the answer to that. none that i am aware of, but,, but there may be others that exist that i don't know. >> thank you. following an influx of deposits generally by government stimulus, the fdic approved an aggressive proposal to you m increased bank deposit insurance assessment rates high two basis points until the deposit insurance fund reaches a designated reserve ratio of 2%. this proposal has the potential to disproportionally harm community banks by forcing them to pay between 5% and 25% of the pretax income for insurance assessment. meanwhile, the occ the occ recently approved a 40%

reduction in assessment for occ chartered community banks. banking chair greenberg, , could you please expand a lot of between supporting increases to come into banks fdic deposit insurance assessment rates will be on the statutory requirement and was a study done to determine the ratio of 2% 2%s that an arbitrary number? >> the 2% was the subject of careful analysis and was reached speeded we will be this hearing here to take you live now to the floor of the u.s. senate. you can continue watching if you go to our website c-span.org. the senate is about to gavel in for the day and work on a judicial nomination. life now to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty and everlasting god, te source of power and might, strengthen us. lord, strengthen our faith so that we will trust you in our seasons of joy and sadness. strengthen our will so that we will choose the difficult right and resist the easy wrong.

strengthen our decisions so that we will not vacillate when commitment is needed. strengthen our affection so that we will learn to love you as you have first loved us. lord, strengthen our senators to believe that your purposes will ultimately prevail. we pray in your strong name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 6

the president pro tempore: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved.

mr. padilla: mr. president. the president pro tempore: the senator from california. mr. padilla: i understand that there is a bill at the desk that is dupe for a second -- that is due for a second reading. the president pro tempore: the clerk will read the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 8987 an act to amend the appropriations for catch-up payments for the united states victims of state-sponsored terrorism fund. mr. padilla: mr. president, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding. the president pro tempore: objec tion is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. padilla: thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a

quorum. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, a few minutes ago, before i opened the senate, i e senate, i >> thank for having me. your recent piece on the floor with peter walch of vermont, i want to speak about our new senator taking a new seat in the next few days. i would note as we walked on the floor, unlike the first time i walked on the floor. haf experience from his years as one of the leaders in the house of representatives. and as congressman welch, he

has the right, of course, to come on the floor, but also as senator-elect, he has the right. i told him when i first came here, we were actually a 99-member senate because there had been a tie rate in my -- tie race in new hampshire. i was number 99, the most junior member of the senate. i would have been the youngest member of the senate, but there was one senator who came in two years before who was younger, a senator from delaware named joseph r. biden. we were the kids in the senate. frank church, a distinguished senator, i had been meeting with him, a vote was started and he said i'm going to going to the floor but come with me.

when i got to the door out there, i was state's attorney of chilton attorney in vermont, prosecutor, and naturally i stopped at the door. he said no, no, senators-elect have the privilege of the floor p but even if he had not been a congressman, senator-elect would have. i started forward, and the doorman said sorry, the senate is in session. senator church said, well, this is senator leahy, senator-elect leahy. it was the first time anybody called me senator. and i saw him go down his list. oh, good morning, senator leahy, and i'm like maybe this is going to work out. but i walked on the floor and i saw these giants of the senate in here for a vote. it took me a little while to get

used to it. i think with congressman welch, when on january 3 i'll be privileged to see him sworn in as the new senator, he won't take any time to get used to it. he knows the decorum in both bodies. like the vast majority of vermonters, i'm very proud to have him here. also i realize the distinguished presiding officer is not allowed to respond to comments about himself, i would note for the record that there were cheers in our very small state of vermont when our country's largest state reelected the now presiding officer. and i'm pleased, both my wife marcelle and i looked forward to

seeing that. with that, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: on respect for marriage, the 117th congress, mr. president, will go down, i believe, as one of the most successful congresses we've seen in decades. we're all so proud of that fact. over the last two years this chamber passed historic and bipartisan bills that covered everything from infrastructure to gun safety to chips in science to veterans aid and more. again, a common theme for many of these bills was bipartisanship. very soon the senate can add to our accomplishments when we vote to proceed on the respect for marriage act. for inf -- for information of all senators, we'll hold our first procedural vote op this tomorrow. after that, i hope both sides can work quickly together to move this bill through the senate and onto the president's desk. i firmly believe that passing bipartisan marriage protections would be one of the most -- one of the more significant accomplishments in what's already been a significantly

productive congress. it will do so much good for so many people, who want nothing more than to live their lives without the fear of discrimination. make no mistake that passing the respect for marriage act is as personal as it gets for many of us in this chamber, myself included. so we want to get this done as soon as we can. a mere decade ago, marriage discrimination was legal in many places across the country, and just a few months ago, when the supreme court overturned roe, justice thomas wrote in a concuring opinion that obergefell, which recognized the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, could similarly be overturned. i hope that never happens, but the senate can eliminate the risk of lgbtq americans having their rights curtailed if we act now to codify marriage

protections into law. now, the respect for marriage act is precisely the kind of bill that democrats and republicans can rally around together, and which americans across the country want to see us work on. it already passed the house earlier this year, with significant, 47 republican votes, and i'm optimistic we can achieve a similar result in this chamber. senators baldwin, sinema and a number of my republican colleagues, including senators collins and port main and tillis have done excellent work building support for this bill. i want to recognize all their efforts here on the floor. i hope that at minimum ten republicans will be ready to throw their support behind this sound, imhon sense bill -- sound, commonsense bill. millions of mirns will be better off if we work together on this highly important issue. i urge all of us to vote yes

when the time comes to move forward tomorrow. now, on the midterm elections and maga republicanism, over the past week there's been a lot of discussion here in washington and across the media about how the results of these midterms defied history and defied conventional wisdom. i remember back in april and may, no way democrats are going to keep the majority. they're going to lose a whole bunch of seats. and people are asking what happened. well, i think the answer, however, is rather simple -- this year, democrats ran with strong candidates, we compiled an extremely strong legislative record, which the candidates could run on, and republicans, on the other hand, ran with flawed can dates who spent more time talking about maga extremism than the things that truly mattered to the american people.

after the failures, republican failures, in elections in tweghts and 2020 -- in 2018, 2020 and now in 2022, i hope the message is sinking in -- if republicans continue to embrace maga radicalism, they're going to keep losing. for their own sake, but more importantly for the sake of the country, i hope that very soon the gop reject the maga wing and makes a commitment to work with democrats in the next congress. the worst thing republicans can do right now is to double down on the maga platform and embrace gridlock. but sadly, it seems, that's the path some on the other side still want to take. in fact, senator rick scott, of florida, who notoriously led the unsuccessful republican senate campaign efforts, recently suggested that one of the reasons republicans lost on election day was because they

actually worked too much with democrats to pass bipartisan legislation, that they weren't maga enough. it defies all logic. if republicans want to follow rick scott's lead, make our day. following senator scott is like following a blind man right over the cliff. remember, it was senator scott who released a platform calling for tax hikes on working and middle americans, which our candidates reminded people of in the election, over and over again. it was senator scott who threatened to put medicare and social security on the chopping block, which again was one of the most powerful arguments for why republicans were wrong for the country. and it was senator scott who embraced trump and believed that the maga wing was the road to success, that denying the elections, that spreading the

big lie, encouraging the maga extreme wing was the right thing to do. the american people knew better. american voters ran in the opposite direction and voted for democrats, including many republicans who said i may be a reagan republican, i may be a bush republican, but this republican party ain't one for me. after three failed elections, three in a row, it should be obvious that embracing maga is a total loser for the republican party. if anyone thinks otherwise, just look what happened last night in purple arizona. katie hobbs, the democratic nominee for governor, was declared the winner in her race against kari lake. everyone thought kari lake would win because of her communication skills.

but even she lost. proof positive that maga just doesn't work. i earnestly hope that in the next couple of months republicans will realize it's better for the country, and even better for their party, to focus instead on working with democrats over the next two years to get things done for the american people. now, i know this is not going to happen overnight, in the next week or two. our immediate focus, of course, is the lame duck, where there's a lot of work to be done. but when the dust settles come january and republicans have hopefully resolved some of their own internal fights, we hope that at least some of them will realize that the scorched earth maga policy is a failure. not only for america, but for them. the usually pundits and skeptics and critics are saying, oh, this won't happen. but look at the major bills we

did this summer. five of them, major bills, bipartisan. and before that, the bif bill, the postal bill, all done bipartisan, significant legislation. we democrats are going to work hard to replicate that effort. americans are tired of the chaos. they're tired of the maga insanity. they're tired of the maga attack on the very roots of our democracy. they want leaders who will take their problems seriously. they know that donald trump, to most americans know that donald trump is out for himself, and only for himself. even if it hurts democracy, even if it hurts the republican party. republicans should learn that lesson or risk even more failure in the future. now, let me finish, mr. president, on a truly

bittersweet note. over the many years i've had the honor of serving in public service i learned that there are a handful of genuinely irrefutable truths, and one, certainly applied for me my whole career, is that no senator can hope to succeed without the help of an amazing team of staffers that get you through the day, sometimes nearly get you through the hour. another truth i've learned is there's never an easy way to say goodbye. well, today, both of those truths come together as i say goodbye to one of my most trusted staffers, my amazing communications director, justin goodman. it's hard to remember the days before justin was a part of my team. like so many on my staff, he first joined the office as an intern, back in the summer of

2009, where he quickly demonstrated his talent, his dedication, his knack for communications, which was obviously totally an ail jen concept for me -- ail jen concept for me -- al earn en concept for -- alien concept for me. justin returned as a full-time member of my staff. i'm sure even he had no idea what kind of roller coaster he was in for in the years to come. indeed, when he first joined my team as a full-time staffer, congress was in the midst of a brutal government shutdown and had to wait three whole weeks before being able to come to the office or get paid. what a way to start.well, that n to the schumer operation. and every day since then has been an absolute joy -- for me, at least. maybe not always for him. over the years that justin worked on my team, from his

years leading the dpcc to work as my national press secretary to serving as me i communications director, he's become one of the people i lean on most to get through the day. to call him indispennable would be an understatement. one of the things i'll i am is dialing 55 on my cell phone about 50 times a day. to describe justin as one of the most decent people i know doesn't even begin to touch it. so let the record show that justin began his time on my team in the midst of a shutdown, and now departs as we finish one of the most successful sessions in recent memory. it's a pretty great record, if you ask me. so justin, i don't want to look at you because i'll get a little weepy -- so justin, thank you so much for your work over the many years. my best to you, my very best to

your loved ones and your new little ones, and i don't think i need to tell you that you will always, always, always be part of the family here in schumerland. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: last week, our narrowly divided country went to the polls and elected a narrowly divided congress, including a very narrowly divided united states senate. the next couple of months we'll see a number of long serving senate all-stars taking retirement. but today, we're getting to welcome and meet our new soon-to-be colleagues on both sides of the aisle as the new senators-elect arrive here in the capitol for orientation. among their ranks are an all-star lawyer and leader from alabama, the attorney general from the great state of missouri, the lieutenant

governor of pennsylvania, a businessman and best-selling author from ohio, and three distinguished members of the house of representatives. exactly 25 years ago in the remarks welcoming the new senate class of 1996, senator robert byrd told them that service in this body is both a supreme honor, a serious responsibility and the highest political calling in the land. the famous student of the senate's rules and history, our former colleague from west virginia concluded, as long as the senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure. so, mr. president, it's a high bar to represent neighbors. each of our soon to be colleagues has cleared this high bar.

i'm proud to welcome members of what will be the 118th congress freshman class. i hope sincerely that each of our incoming colleagues will embrace the honor of this immense responsibility. of course our half of the chamber hopes thap even after this week -- that even after this week we will not be through welcoming new senators. hardworking families have been hit especially hard. one party control in washington, the peach state has paid an especially painful price. since president biden took the oath of office, georgia families have watched prices rise nearly 15%. they shelled out hundreds of extra dollars every month to foot the bill for the massive spending binge their two senators pushed through with deciding votes.

needless to say this avoidable democratic inflation tax has put business workers and small businesses in a bind. it has been absolutely murderous one man in georgia told reporters, food, gas prices, inflation is awful. of course it didn't have to be this way, the people of georgia senators didn't have to vote in lockstep with washington democrats to overheat our economy with reckless spending. georgia's two democratic senators didn't have to vote for the $2 trillion in inflationary spending, they didn't have to vote for the left-wing climate policies. every single time the hardworking people of georgia needed a check and balance, their democratic senators only gave them a rubber-stamp. when georgians needed their senators stand up with independence, they just fell in line.

mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: # the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: i ask my defense fellow be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: i ask the following interns from my office be granted floor privileges for today's session, timothy ryan, haley smith, and colter adams. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: mr. president, i rise today to discuss the 2023 national defense authorization act, i want to talk about essentially three big issues, the importance of the bill,

what's in the bill, and the cost of the bill. the first question is, and when i used to appear before the main legislature, the first question is, why are you here? what's the problem? why is this bill so important? it is important because the essence of our defense policy, since world war ii has been deterrence. and deterrence means maintaining the capacity to inflict unacceptable costs on any potential adversary and the will to impose those costs if necessary. what we're really talking about in the national defense authorization act is the capacity, that is, what is it that we have at our disposal that can impose costs on our potential adversaries such that they will refrain from aggression and initiating a conflict, a conflict, which in this day and age would be catastrophic?

why do we have a defense bill? why do we have a defense establishment? why do we have ships and airplanes and space capability in order to deter possible aggression? why is this important? i'm just finishing a book called the collapse of the third republic. everyone knows the rise and fall of the third reich, this is a subsequent book he wrote in the late 1-9d 60's -- 1960's about the relationship between france and germany in the early days leading up to world war ii. the central -- one of the central messages of the book was the failure of france and germany to deter and meet the aggression of hitler early in the -- in the period leading up to world war ii, as early as 1936, led to the -- led to

world war ii. i would urge anyone who questions this assumption to google ryland, 1936, sudatanland, 1938, those were places hitler could have been stopped, not with an enormous expenditure or enormous investment of trools or material -- troops or material, but by a token of resistance from the western european powers that they utterly failed to do. and then we had the rearmament of the ryland, the takeover of the sudatanland and czechoslovakia and the invasion of poland, leading to world war ii, where 55 million people were lost.

shyer makes the point that this was avoidable. had hitler been confronted earlier before he completely rebuilt the nazi war machine, world war ii could have been avoided and all of those losses -- tremendous losses in this country and around the world could have been -- would have never happened. deterrence is also a key to nuclear weapons. nuclear weapons haven't been used in a confrontation or a conflict since 1945. why? because of the concept of deterrence that those other countries, and there are other countries that have nuclear weapons which have them, realized that if they are used they will pay an enormous an unacceptable price. that has been the policy of this country for over 70 years and it's worked.

and it's worked. but it only works as long as the adversary believes that we do in fact have the capacity to inflict that kind of punishment. deterrence is a matter of credibility and you have to have a credible deterrent in terms of the actual capacity and you also have to be credible in terms of your will to use it. and, indeed, at this point in our history, we're talking about deterring the potential use of nuclear weapons in regard to the ukraine conflict by vladimir putin. deterrence means that -- that capacity has to be credible and the problem is here in this country, we have allowed our nuclear deterrent to deteriorate and age to the point where we're having to, in effect, rebuild it, not from scratch, but rebuild it substantially all at

the same time, the triad, bombers, missiles, submarines. we have to rebuild them and it's happening at the same time and it's expensive. and it's because this work was deferred for the prior 25 or 30 years that we're now having to do all three legs of the triad at one time which adds substantially to the defense budget, but it's necessary in order to maintain the deterrent that keeps the peace. i have many friends in maine who come up to me and say, why are we spending so much? why are we doing nuclear weapons? let's get rid of them. the problem is evil exists in the world. always has, as far as we can see, always will. and the best war is the one that doesn't happen. and the most likely way to prevent war is for the potential adversary to know that the cost imposed upon them will be unacceptable.

people also come up to me and say, why are we providing this money to ukraine? you know, i don't get a lot of this, but occasionally people say, why send money to ukraine? we need that money here at home. that's when i always say, google ryland and sudatonland. because putin has told us who he is. he told us he feels the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the loss of the soviet union. i don't think there is any doubt if he were allowed to march into drain in weeks without -- into ukraine without any resistance, the next would be the baltics, and then hungary, czechoslovakia, and poland.

mia anglo says, if someone tells you who they are, you should believe them. he wants to rebuild the soviet union. that's why ukraine is so important, and that's why what we have provided and the leadership other admission has provided to other countries in the world in order to resist the aggression is so important and critical -- critical to avoiding a worse -- much worse conflict involving all of our countries down the road. that's why it is so important. when a take dater takes property, they're going to keep going and that's why what we've done in ukraine has been so critical and important. well, putin has told us what he wants to do and we have joined with the rest of the world and the incredibly brave and resourceful people of ukraine to stop him. that has to be continued.

i'm going to talk about costs in a few minutes, but one quick note on costs is the only thing more expensive than maintaining a credible deterrent is war. occasionally you will see a bumper sticker that says you cannot prepare for war and avoid war at the same time. i believe that is absolutely wrong. the only way to avoid war is to be prepared. and world war ii, history is full of examples that that's the case, that aggressors look for weakness. they look for an opening. if they find none, they're going to pull back. and that's the entire theory of our defense posture and the expenditures that we're making on behalf of the defense of this country and the free world. so what's in the bill? it's a long bill.

there's a lot in it. but a couple of highlights. first there's a race for the troops. there's more money for the people defending our country, which they deserve in a time of inflation, they deserve a significant raise and that's in the bill. another piece that's in the bill that i think is very important in terms of our veterans, and of course we're coming out of the veterans day observance last weekend, is funding and attention in the defense department to the transition from active duty service to veteran status. i believe that we should be spending as much, or the defense department should be spending as much time, money, and effort own the transition out of the service as they spend on recruiting to bring people into the service. the data is that the tragedy of suicide among our veterans is most acute in the first two or tria years after -- two or three years after separation, and

that's where we should focus additional attention and that's in this bill. there's an enormous commitment to technology in this bill, to artificial intelligence, to quart yum computing -- quantum computing to hypersonics to cyber, which is sort of the front line of the potential for aggression going on right now. there's a low-level cyber war going on right now. ask any business in america. i talked to a utility executive recently whose company is being attacked three million times a day, sometimes by state actors, sometimes by ordinary criminals for ransom where, but cyberis one of the most serious challenges we face and this is addressed in this bill. another thing addressed is upgrading the nuclear triad. not because we like building

submarines or missiles, but because we have to have a credible deterrent so that those, particularly those dictators in north korea or other countries that have nuclear weapons not be tempted to use them. they have to know that the price to be paid is unacceptable. there's counter drug policy in the bill. all of that, all of those things are an important part of what this bill does for the country. i want to digress for a moment on process. this bill is a prime example of the bipartisan process that ought to govern all of our proceedings here in this body and in the other body, and indeed over the last year that's been the norm. five of the six major bills passed in the last year in this body have been bipartisan, and that's the way it ought to be, and that's the way it is in the armed services committee.

this bill was reported out of the armed services committee, i can't remember if it was 25-1 or 23-3, but it was vast bipartisan support. i keep a little running tally in the armed services committee when it comes to amendments, and this year we had 433 amendments proposed going into the markup of the defense authorization act. they were negotiated, they were withdrawn, they were modified, but we ended up with 44 amendment votes, 6 were on a party-line basis. 6 out of 44 were on a party-line basis. all the rest were bipartisan, either voice votes or roll call votes that were bipartisan. that's the way this process works and that's the way in bill has come to this body. now let me talk a minute about cost. you often hear, i hear it

sometimes at home, sometimes down here, we spend more on defense than the next ten countries in the world combined. yes, but no other country in the world has the global responsibility that we have. no other country in the world has the global role that we have, that has to look in all directions, not just one direction to one neighbor, but in all directions. we have an enormous responsibility, whether we like it or not, as the most powerful country in the free world, and that means we have to support and defend freedom, democracy, the values that we have based this country on. we have the to be the first line of defense. so the fact that we spend more than other countries, i don't think that's really the question. i think the real question should be how much are we spending with regard to our overall economy and our federal budget.

i think that's a fair question. and the answer is pretty surprising to many people. this is the percentage of national defense of federal spending, of total federal spending going back to 1952, 70 years ago. in 1952, during the korean war -- by the way, it was even higher during world war ii, but 1952, about 70% of the federal budget was for defense. as you can see, it trends down through the 50's and 60's and 70's. in 1987 it was 28% of the federal budget. today it's 13%. it's at the lowest level it's been in 70 years as a percentage of the federal budget. i think that surprises most people. they think all we're doing is spending money on defense. as a percentage of the federal budget, it's actually the lowest it's been in 70 years. the other way to look at this

that i think is perhaps even more important is the percentage of national defense spending of gdp, of our gross domestic product. that's really a fair measure. in other words, what part of our economy is devoted to defense spending. again going back to 1952, it was around 14%. 14% of our gross domestic product was spent on defense. 1987, 6%. today, 3%. so people that argue that we're spending way too much on defense and why do you spend, they're looking at the raw dollars but they really ought to be looking at how big a part of our economy are we devoting to go defending this country and the freedom and values of the rest of the free world. three percent. now should other countries be paying a reasonable share? absolutely. and many of them are stepping up. we're seeing significant increases in defense

expenditures on behalf of many of our nato allies and other countries around the world because they realize they have a responsibility too. but i think this is really an enlightening way to look at this in terms of what does this bill really mean? how expensive is it? the answer to that question is it's half as expensive as it was 20 years ago, 25 years ago, and it's about 20% of where it was 70 years ago. is it a lot of money? absolutely. the question is, what's it for? what's it for is preventing war. as i think i said earlier, the only thing more expensive than maintaining an adequate deterrence is war itself. and that's what this bill is all about. we have passed the national defense authorization act every

year for the past 62 years. i deeply hope and believe in the interest of this country, of our citizens, and of the entire free world, we're going to do so again in the next month. mr. president, there's no more solemn responsibility we have to go back to the first words of the constitution, in order to provide for the common defense is one of the major functions. that's in the preamble. that's the overarching. provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, those are part of the essential function of any government. it's our responsibility. i deeply hope in the next several weeks in this body we will meet that responsibility. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: morning business is closed, and under the previous order the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, maria del r. antongiorgi-jordan of puerto rico to be united states judge, district judge for the district of puerto rico. mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, i want to begin this morning my remarks by first expressing my

profound gratitude to the people of south dakota for once again trusting me to serve as their senator. i'm deeply grateful to live in south dakota and to represent the rushmore state. there are a lot of things that make our state special, like its incredible natural beauty, the legacy of military service, or the fact that our state is a great place to raise a family. but what really makes our state tick, what really makes it special is our people. and it is the honor of my life to represent south dakotans in the united states senate. growing up in murdow, south dakota, population 456, i learned the character of south dakotans, the work ethic, the love of country and commitment to freedom, coupled with the belief in personal responsibility. and the sense of responsibility to the broader community. life in rural south dakota can be tough, but growing up we knew that we were not on our

own. in murdow, we knew if a roof collapsed under the weight of snow or wind storm came through and wiped out a barn or we lost a friend or family member the community would rally around to help. the values i learned in south dakota helped shape my political philosophy and the values i strive to reflect every day here in the senate. as i continue my work here in washington, my top priority will always be doing everything that i can to make life better for south dakota families. mr. president, our country is facing some big challenges. security crisis at our southern border, growing energy problem, serious crime problem, and the worst inflation crisis in decades. i talked to a lot of south dakotans, i traveled around the state this fall and over and over i heard about the toll inflation is taking on family budgets and on the livelihood of farmers and ranchers in our state. since president biden took office the price of groceries

increased 18%, electricity by 22%, utility gas bills increased by 46%. rent prices are up, car prices are up. the price of car maintenance is up. farmers and ranchers are facing higher feed costs, higher fertilizer costs, higher fuel costs. gas prices have increased by $1.37 per gallon since president biden took office. and the price increase for diesel, which powers so much farm and ranch equipment, has been even worse. all told, inflation is currently costing the average household a staggering $753 a month. $753 each month. americans can't afford that. it's no wonder that inflation topped the list of issues that americans were concerned about when they went to the polls. or that 76% of voters rated the

economy negatively, regardless of who's in charge over the next two years, congress needs to spend its time focused on real solutions to our inflation crisis and the other challenges facing our country. i want to congratulate our new republican senators and i look forward to the ideas that they'll bring to the table and working with them to implement solutions to make life better for american workers and american families. mr. president, it's been a challenging few years for the american people, and there are some very serious issues facing our nation, but i have faith in the future. every congress represents a new start, a chance to chart a fresh vision for our country, and i believe that the right policies, we can get america thriving again. i'm ready to get to work. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

>> this is jim with the "washington examiner" who serves of the politics editor to talk about amongst other things what we saw in campaign 2020 and beyond. . you're recent piece took a look at the contrast between how president biden approached this campaign season and president trump approached it. could you compare and contrast what you think means as far as what was seen and a final assessment? >> president biden had a relatively low profile on the campaign trail. he did campaign. he was active but he tended to go to bluer states, states where

democrats found themselves in surprisingly competitive races but were still favored to win. the big exception to that, the one swing state where he did make a lot of appearances was pennsylvania where he is from scranton and john fetterman because of his mental condition was in need of campaign surrogates to speak on his behalf maybe then some of the other battleground states. the president really confined his appearances usually it would be an official appearance when we talk about some initiative of the administration, something signed into law trying to tout the benefits for that state forr the area for that city and then there would be a more or less closed-door democratic national committee reception where he would use actual campaigning. all of the stuff is covered by the press so he could still get his message out but in cases what may be the candidate wouldn't benefit so much from a photo op there really wasn't one just a contrast of former

president donald trump who held a lot of traditional rallies, was out on the campaign trail for candidates quite a lot, maybe that spinning so much money on them but certainly letting his appearances for them and the white house defended the president, the current presidents approach to this pricing lock, when donald trump or barack obama held a lot of rallies for the candidates during the midterm election cycles those elections didn't go very well for the party. under trump they lost 40 seats. under obama and his first midterm 63 house seats. they viewed it as they were not repeating a strategy that it failed for the previous to my presidents. and it looks like that went pretty well. trump in a lot of cases ended up upstaging the candidates he was supporting. there were rumors when he did his last rally for j. d. vance he was actually going to announce a third bid for the presidency.

that night. even though he didn't do that that ended up being the headline out of those events. so biden's low-key approach which is sent him well 20 president of campaign and really worked i think pretty well for him during the summer when they had the real flurry of legislative activity after a time where they had a lot of difficulty getting things past, that sort of low-key approach seems to work well for him. at the very least he knows when to get out of the way. >> host: when it comes to the end results what do you think, what you think was a main cause of the republican showing as we've seen it so far and the democrats doing as well as it? >> guest: that big thing is that independence didn't ship as heavily toward republicans as was expected and was seen in most of the pre-election polling that showed big republican games. instead they sort of split down the middle very, very slight republican edge. republicans were hoping and fought on the basis of the

numbers they were saying before the election that they would get a pretty big advantage for independence. president biden is not very popular with independence but the big difference maker where the voters who only somewhat disapproved of the president. they did vote for a number of republican candidate such as governor brian kemp in georgia but they split against some of the trump endorsed candidates who are more controversial. so herschel walker ended up not carrying those voters even though brian kemp did. that was a difference in some of those races. younger voters had a little heavier turnout than some of the pre-election polling indicated but the big structural disadvantage republicans have is they had some difficulty energizing their own pace and motivating swing voters to come to them at the same time. that's been a problem that predated president trump. it's been at least a decade in the making.

they have won some elections over the course of a decade but they have arguably lost election for both reasons people not being able to get enough swing voters or not being able to get the base enthusiastic enough to turn out to our conversation continued with james antle. it was rick scott on sundays show finally of the reasons for the republicans, turnout and the results. i want to play all a bit of what he had to say and get your response. >> we've got to go back and say to ourselves when republicans do with leadership has done this last year and are candidates have to be frustrated with republican leadership caved in on the debt ceiling, on the gun bill, on a fake infrastructure bill, and then when it difficult for our candidates. we can't do that. we've got to do exactly what stephen miller said, give people something we are hell-bent on getting done and fight for.

that's what we do in florida. i did when i was governor. that's what's been happening when he left and why we have big wins in florida because we stand for something. >> host: that was the analysis of rick scott. what do you think? >> guest: it's like i said, clearly republicans have some difficulty keeping the base engaged at the same time they make overtures to swing voters. hasn't always work that way. they've had some big election wins in the decade or so since the republican governing class really has had difficulty maintaining the confidence level of the base, which ultimately is what culminated in the nomination of donald trump, this sort of crisis of confidence from republican establishment. they don't have credibility with rank-and-file republican voters. that being said, i think you saw some pretty conservative candidates who were not really for any of the things senator scott just mentioned. have some trouble closing the deal in some of these races. a were competitive. republicans were competitive in

a number of races but it was one of those things where we were expecting the red wave. the thing about the way is it isn't so much, it was never expected very many republicans were going to win by a lot. but what was expected is a lot of republicans were going to win by a little. they would win by small margins. you only need to underperform that somewhat in order to end up with a very different election results and that's what happened. a lot of us expected most of the truly competitive senate races would go to republicans. they would either sweep those senate races or they would only lose one or two. i'd instead they split them. and splitting them, they held in wisconsin, they held in ohio, they held in north carolina. they force a runoff in georgia but they didn't hold all their seats. they lost in pennsylvania. they didn't have the pickups in nevada and arizona. that makes a difference and so you do end up something closer to the 50-50 senate, maybe 51-49 based on what happens in the

georgia runoff. that makes a big difference and was on the same thing play out in the house. they should in the next day or so clinch their house majority but the fact it's a week after and we still know who controls the house for certain that really shows how much they overwhelmed. >> host: a senate majority in the house. what does it mean for potential speaker kevin mccarthy as for strategy is concerned? we heard a lot about what they want to do economically. we heard about investigations. do those things dick or does it change? >> guest: they should be able to do the investigations if that's what they want to do whereas a more positive governing agenda becomes more difficult because you are much more dependent on different factions within the house republican caucus. freedom caucus becomes very important. republican study committee. maybe some of the surviving moderates northeast and places like that. so house speaker kevin mccarthy likes john boehner and paul ryan before him is what

it would have to do a lot of navigating to keep that conference together. when they thought they might have 230 seats, he had a lot more margin for error. now he doesn't. probably will face some kind of challenge for speaker. you've got to figure out your weight to 218 218 when you y is hovering around 218. it's going to make things more difficult for him. the reality is whatever was going to happen, joe biden is still going to be in the white house. not likely to design very many bills coming out of republican-controlled house. the senate is closely divided. republicans are still going to be able to filibuster most legislation. republicans holding the house by any margin means that reconciliation the main way they're getting around republican filibusters to pass big spending bills, that's effectively off the table. so not very much can happen aside from 2024 messaging. over the next couple of years,

and the big thing for the present retained the senate is he should be able to fill vacancies in his cabinet, vacancies in the judiciary as long as he can get unanimous democrat support. >> host: juul'ing by james antle. our first call brenda in pennsylvania, democrat's line. good morning. >> caller: yes good morning. i wanted to talk about donald trump's campaign strategy. his campaign strategy in 2016 was to spend months condemning the electoral college at rally after rally. he called the electoral college system a rigged system, it was unfair, it should be done away with. you know, one person, one vote. his supporters jumped on the bandwagon. they called for the electoral college system to be done away with. they were complaining so loudly that "washington journal" actually had at least one call in show dedicated to that topic. and every republican caller said that the electoral college

system was rigged and should be done away with. days before the election donald trump said that if crooked hillary clinton gets in the white house by the rigged, unfair electoral college system, i'm not sure i'll accept the results. and after all that, when donald trump cut in the white house by the rigged a system that he condemned, hillary clinton graciously conceded defeat. and like i say, his campaign strategy in 2020 was to cast doubt on that election before a single vote was cast. he trashed mail-in balloting turkey encouraged all of his supporters to vote in person. mail in ballots was fraudulent and it was rigged, and at the same time his postmaster general louis dejoy decided that the summer of 2020 was a good time

to start dismantling and discarding mail sorting machines. >> host: we got the point which brings us now to the potential nesbit tonight but go ahead try to it was actually pretty sent to the campaign strategy about 2016 answer to 2020 to win when the electoral college. i have never really seen a national campaign more than the trump reelection campaign that was so focused on winning the battleground states. typically obvious it is an electoral college base system but most national campaigns have operated under the premise as long as they are covering the bases in the battleground states, if they win the national vote, expectable probably be fine in the electoral college. it was clear that the trump election campaign was really placing all of its efforts on pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan, georgia, arizona, and ultimately in georgia, arizona, wisconsin, those were the states

that decided the election. trump ended up despite the popular vote margin really losing an electoral college by 43,000 votes in those three states, winning by 77,000 in 377,000 in three states in 2016. clearly that was a pretty big part of their strategy. tonight he's expected to get in for the third time. it's going to be an interesting dynamic because i think he's been question whether republican party, he survived january 6th politically. he has survived the mueller investigation turkey survived "access hollywood" tapes. the former president is more resilient in the face of adversity than any candidate that i can remember in my lifetime. but he also creates more of his own adversity that a typical candidate. he's sort of like a talented but interception prone quarterback. brett favre before he had some

of his off field problems, you know, the line was always he always keeps both teams in the game. certainly that is historically been true to form a president trump at the question is after the midterm elections and after his attacks on other ascended up-and-coming republicans is the party kind of tired of him and ready to move on? >> host: bill from texas, republican line. you are next. >> caller: let me try one more time for bill. >> caller: a little bit opinionated and bottom-line what the next president, the next three presidents are going to be. trump, desantis, and then nikki haley. but before i get into that, it's like at plane goes down every day filled with hugely youngsters on this signal situation. the fentanyl is killing our young people, our future. get with it.

worry about uvalde later. now, i have great sympathy and empathy for the people in uvalde. but think about all the people spread out in that plane t goes in every day with 300, usually young people, but just for some reason get hooked into that chinese deal. >> host: that is bill from texas. he talked about trump, desantis and nikki haley. let's talk about the status for a moment. you wrote a little and a piece recently that the president needs to not employ a strategy that use against jeb bush towards ron desantis. can you elaborate? >> guest: one of the big things that broke trump out of the pack was he sort of made former florida governor jeb bush a foil of use. he went after him in debates. he kind of encouraged jeb bush to go after him in the debates.

it sort of reinforced a lot of what trump was saying about the republican establishment being weak, not being very effective fighters, not necessary to being very representative of the base. bush sort of represented dynastic politics, appointed joint immigration that wasn't very popular with the republican base at that time, was very associate with the failures and iraq. so trump was trying to differentiate himself from that, and bush was very much past his prime at the appointment. certainly wish, jeb bush and many people thought he would end up being the president rather than his brother, that didn't happen largely because he didn't win his initial governor's race in florida in 1994. so george w george w. was by 1999 a two-term governor and his brother wasn't. but jeb bush had been out of office for a few years, is maybe rusty on the campaign trail, was a very good punching bag for

trump. not sure the same strategy works for ron desantis who is the incumbent florida governor, coming off a landslide reelection went, underwhelmed in the midterm election for republicans. very popular figure among not only republicans in general but among the same slice of republican electorate that has been so closely botched by trumpet maybe you can analogize a little bit to ted cruz who is also popular with the base of the time and trump had a lot of success taking him down several pegs. but this is a first-time trump has tried to go after an ascendant figure who appeals to many of his own supporters in the same way without really an argument other than hey, i endorse this guy in 2018 so he sort of those may. not sure that's the greatest look for the former president and i don't think it's going of the same effect as when he went after jia bush. >> host: let's hear from lori,, ohio, good morning under independent line. >> caller: good morning. i'm just calling, i found a couple of times how

hillary clinton had conceded. and yes, she did concede, that you lost to donald trump, but let's just not forget what happened in the primary with bernie sanders. which i voted for bernie, but i knew that he was never going to get near the oval office. i knew that would never happen. that would not be allowed because he really cares about the people. but yes, she conceded but for the next, and we're still going on how russia, russia, russia and out trump, and i cannot stand trump, you know, colluded with putin and that's why he won the election and that russia stole the election. and that is just a lie. people believe that lie. they seriously do. and they beat the drums, and now have approximately going on between us and ukraine and

russia, which putin had no right to invade ukraine but there's a lot of history there that's been going on since 2014. a lot of people just don't know and they are just, you know, waving their little and gold flags. i feel bad for the cannon fodder of the people of ukraine, but the bottom line is politics, probably only about a third of the population are really engaged. we have a two-party system that is corrupt, and they are really friends. they don't, it's just kabuki theater and they are not kidding the internet kidding a lot of people. i do not believe a lot of people that voted for bernie sanders turned and voted for trump. >> host: thanks, laurie. anything to that traffic there was a lot there. but definitely copy , if yot every presidential election since 2000, with the exception of the 2008 and 2012 elections were you did have the birther conspiracy which in itself is aa

sort of a roundabout way of contesting legitimacy of the election. there's been some question by at least some vocal activists in one or the other parties bases about the results of election. a lot of people who, george w. bush selected but not elected. there was a smaller group with people that raise questions about voting machines in ohio, the 2004. obviously the role of russia in the 2016 election, hillary clinton saying that donald trump is not illegitimate president. none of the supporters attacked the capital, absolutely, but we were headed down a road of a lot of questioning of election results. that can lead to a dangerous place. it did lead to a dangerous place. we've seen a steady escalation. so far in the midterm elections we really haven't seen quite as much of that. we will have to see what happens

with kerry lake i suppose in arizona, but by and large republicans in close races have conceded when they've lost, and stacey abrams is also renowned for questioning election outcomes, she conceded rather quickly when she lost to governor kemp. so maybe we're moving a bit away from that and hopefully so. >> host: some. >> host: so president trump's announcement tonight, i guess the question is why now? weisel early? at 124, any thoughts as far as the timing is concerned? >> guest: i really think he is trying to freeze the field. i think is trying to deter other people from getting in. my network for ron desantis. i think it will work for a number of other people. the calculation a lot of republicans are going to make is, especially if they're on the jump aside a twice is well, if i get in and trump drives up my negatives with republican base, i may not win, he may beat me, and i may be damaged goods in the future.

or he does so much to drive up my negatives that even if i win the nomination is worthless. the thought is maybe he won't be a team player, might not endorse the nominee, might take a ball and go home. all postings are running for the minds of prospective candidates. i think trump wants to get that in people's heads early, wants to limit the size of the playing field. i don't think it's a sign of strength, however, for the former president. the quads i incumbent to be declaring this early i think it's a sign of at least fear of weakness. i i think he knows that people are contemplating bids, ron desantis chief among them but he's also going after virginia government glenn youngkin is a possibility. i think he really believes that he needs to strike now to keep other people from getting in and that if he can establish himself as the front runner early, maybe

the field evolves in a way that he thinks he can keep. so if it is trump versus say a larry hogan, soon-to-be former maryland governor, somebody whose position is more of a never trumper, i think that's a favorable field for him. the problem is in ron desantis yet somebody who may not be deterred by this move and can't really be classified as a never trumper or an outlier within the gop, also like you announce it has been a freeze the field in what you go from theirs first strategy is concerned? morales, or television appearances? how do you keep in and out there? >> guest: i mean, if there's anything donald trump is good at is keeping his name out there. a problem with a strategy which i think it works very well for him as a businessman in new york building his brand is at he is a figure there's no such thing as bad publicity. as long as you're talking about you it's good. and politics it's more complicated than that. how will become he is largely made it work for him and it's

also helped him in terms of not having to spend a lot of money on his campaigns because he's able to get free media coverage essentially. so i think it's really more of the same. he's going to try to do what's work for him in the past, which is be the dominant topic of conversation here he's cleared the central focus of democratic campaign messaging whether he's on the ballot or not. he was a central focus in the midterm elections in a way that probably was to the detriment of republicans. i think it's going to try to keep that up. news events may continue to unfold in ways whether that's favorable to them or not will allow him to continue to do that. obviously the mar-a-lago investigation, the recriminations among republicans about the midterm elections, who's to blame, the finger-pointing, trump is going to future very commonly in that. and then trump as he tries to make a comeback against figures who are not quite ready to

overtaking but at least seem to be threatening to do that as a large portion of the republican base and certainly most of the republican governing class is starting to try to look elsewhere for leadership. >> host: because of the result of last tuesday president biden assembled for a second term? >> guest: i think so. look, joe biden has been running for president pretty much since 1987. that's a very long time. most people who have run for president or at least aspire to be present for his longest joe biden never get it. they are sort of a treaty, pub trivia answer and kind of historically we treat them as a punchline. joe biden got elected. i think it's going to be difficult for him to walk away from it, even though at the end of the sector he would be closer to 90 than 80. turning 80 later this month, that is uncharted territory. while reagan left office shortly before his 78th birthday. president biden took office

after 78th birthday. we are in uncharted territory. a lot of democrats that sort of whatever the opposite of a silver lining is the midterm election results i think a lot of democrat want a generational change in leadership because leadership of the party not just the president of the congressional leadership is very old and the democrats' view themselves with some justification as a young party. that's not reflected in the leadership. if you look at polling if you look at the exit polls in the lecture democrats did a lot better than expected a lot of people don't want president biden to rent again but i think the bottom line results of that election should he want to and i does, and he signaled he will run as long as his health is what it is right now, i think it would be very hard for somebody to dislodge them. it's less attracted to launch a primary challenge against him than it was two days before the midterm elections when things looked like is good to be a democratic disaster. so even though that underlying

sentiment of wanting to move on is still there, it's going to be a hard argument to make and it think biden isn't a good position should he want to try to release when we nomination. >> host: for james antle, "washington examiner," mrs. edna from chicago, democrat's line, good morning, pedro. i would like to say i had five uncles served this country all at the same time between 1940, in 1945. five. they didn't volunteer. they were drafted. they serve their country. they came back. thank god. they are gone today. i don't know what all americans are so behind a man who has stirred up so much hatred in this country. my grandfather had the same, the heat is so thick in this country you can cut it with a knife. and bad is bad.

trump is not fit to clean the toilets in the white house. wake up, people. we have right to vote. we never had a problem with voting until trump came along. so why are the people who are in power allowing this man to destroy our country? good day, gentlemen, and thank you for taking my call. >> host: thank you, edna trickett and obviously the fact that trumpist such a polarizing figure is going to feature very prominently in even republican decision-making about who they want to be the 2024 nominee. one of the advantages republicans have even after and perhaps especially after a disappointing midterm election is we saw in 1994 and in 2010 then make big gains but then not having a bearing on what happened in the presidential election two years later. in fact, what's central to how democratic incumbents sort of

adjusted and positioned themselves reelection. in the case of bill clinton there was a course correction. he moved himself somewhat to the center. he worked with republicans in congress and balancing the federal budget. the capital gains tax cut, welfare reform which a been a key promise of his in 1992. with barack obama it was a different course of a course correction. i think obama moved away from no red states, no blue states, all one america, sort of rhetoric and decided to join the side he was on. it was a polarized country. it is a polarized country. he represented one specific poll and he decided to do that, take on the leadership role of that half of america against congressional republicans and sort of even though there was some compromise between the two of them, mostly was a very adversarial relationship joe biden is positioned to do a bit

of both but democrats and the president don't see there being an need for a course correction. so than for republicans the question is do you want to nominate a polarizing candidate against somebody who has already got some problems with the fundamentals in terms of their popularity, or would a fresher face give you a better chance of winning? >> host: from north carolina republican recess: senate lawmakers will return and all the