republicans take control of the house and majority of 50 maybe republican member -- a big majority of house republicans in that case. guest: right. host: it was after that that billon clinton attacked toward e center and reform of welfare for example and is that defensive marriage act is one of the indications where a president does tack towards the republican view and -- to get something passed like that. guest: absolutely. that congress with president clinton, democrat, and newt gingrich, republican speaker, realizing that they could either stand apart and get nothing done or each come to the middle and get a lot done, which is what they did. host: are there issues that -- in a similar situation, with president joe biden and a likely speaker of the house, kevin mccarthy? guest: there's a really good question. i don't't know. i think a lot depends on what kind of deal --->> the

washington journal fulfilling the committee to live gavel to gavel commitment of congress and watch this online any time on cspan.org and take you live to the u.s. senate where lawmakers are returning from thanksgiving holiday break. senators will continue work today on marriage equality legislation with a vote set for 5:30 p.m. eastern time to limit debate on the bill. live coverage of the senate here on cspan2. ...

with liberty and justice for all.

under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 28, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mazie hirono, a senator from the state of hawaii, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 8440.

the clerk: calendar number 449, h.r. 84404, an act to ensure respect for state regulation of marriage and for other purposes. >> she also is our moderator

for the regular monitor breakfast with newsmakers and policymakers. here with us this morning to talk about what's ahead both here in the lame-duckand what's ahead for the 118th congress . there's just a pile of work left to get done in the last five weeks or so, 4 weeks. what our top priorities? >> the first is keeping the government going. the last continuation went through december 16, they have to fund the government through another continuing resolution or a big omnibus spending bill. remains to be seen. there's talk of kicking it down the road another week till the 23rd but members might be looking at staying here until christmas.

>> so they have this deadline that they set a couple of months ago but this is for spending for the current fiscal year we are in. is there any possibility that would slip and they would take it further down the road into the 118th congress? >> i doubt it because the 118th is a completely no government. the republicans won the house by a narrow majority. democrats have the senate, either another time or a one-vote majority depending how the runoff goes in georgia december 6 but main thing , republican majority of the house and that means a whole different calculus on trying to pass anything. >> there are stumbling blocks in that omnibus spending bill though, the annual spending billincluding having to raise the debt ceiling potentially being tagged onto that spending bill . what else are you looking at ?

>> in terms of, so the national defense authorization act, authorization act needs to go through. that funds our defense capabilities, extremely important. other things coming up, respect for marriage act. which is an effort to lock in same-sex marriage and also interracial marriage, added that. this is an offshoot from the dobbs ruling which overturn roe versus wade onabortion so that i think is a top priority . additional funding for the war in ukraine which is, can be a little tricky because some republicans and even some democrats are saying why are we spending so much money in ukraine when we have so much need in this country. so a lot going on. >> for that request in the white house, $38 billion request for the white house is there a chance that might not get done by the lame session? >> it possible that nancy pelosi is speaker and this is

her swansong. she is coming off 20 years as the leader of the democrats weather as teacher or minority leader and she is a speaker with no clear in terms of shepherding and corralling her caucus. she's got a wide range of views including the upstart progressive who want to help push the party to the left and want to keep doing that but nancy pelosi enjoys a lot of respect and especially since now she's stepping down from party leadership in the house i think we will watch her in action. >> i want to ask you about the upcoming leadership elections for the democrats and for speaker as well in the 118th. let's open up our phone lines to hear from viewers and listeners, 202748 8000 is the line for democrats, for republicans to report to

748-8000 one and for independence 202-748-8000 two . linda feldman is washington bureau chief with the christian science monitor. the lame-duck session 1st but what's ahead in the 118, you had a recent piece not long after the election thatthe headline of which said after midterms does anybody have a mandate ? we talked to republicans and democrats, people like the bipartisan policy center, former white house press secretary our e fleischer. what was your sense in that article, what's your take away for the word mandate, is there amandate ? >> there kind of isn't. that there's a sense the democrats one which they actually didn't what republicans want control of the house but they didn't win red wave. they didn't take a huge majority as it passed midterms from first-term president. the democrats beat expectations and the reality

is we have divided government so the question is what can get done in divided government? often times nothing and sometimes nothing is a good thing. in the first two terms he got a lot of stuff passed often with votes on therepublicans . that cost the us government, the american taxpayers a lot of money and so what we're looking at i think is a lot less sending in the second two years of bidens term and actually the markets like that. you saw when republicans locked in control of the house markets went up because of inflation so there's a positive way. what i like about talking to jason gourmet is able optimistic. we saw a lot of stuff and get done with the other party. with a lot of bipartisanship can take place even when controlof the house is very narrow .next two years, maybe not so much.

>> where are both wings of the parties in terms of those moderate members that problem solvers caucus if you will, even unofficially people who weren't members,what does it look like ? >> they hold a lot of sway. we tend to look at the loudest voices or your the loudest voices whether it's in the senate with joe manchin for the young progressives but with a small majority in both houses, any group, any even small interest group can demand attention because they are majority tellers. i think it will be interesting to see in the next congress who rises as the new voices of the existing voices who use the cloud that they do have the leverage to get what they want or block what they don't want.

>> i want to ask what the numbers make because this is what we know so far, it's almost decided in the house. the times reporting 220 republican members, to 13th democrats and tooling races left undecided . somewhat likely they will go republican so say those final numbers, 220 213. what does that mean for a potential house speaker kevin mccarthy ? >> kevin mccarthy has to channel his inner nancypelosi . and corral the votes he needs. there are already five house republicans are on the record saying no, kevin mccarthy is speaker. doesn't mean they won't let. it doesn't mean that therefore kevin mccarthy is not the next speaker. there's not a clear alternative to kevin mccarthy but they're using their leverage to get something to win over their votes from mister mccarthy. >> let's go to calls for linda feldman, mike on the

independent line in circleville ohio . >> are you doing? i am so disgusted with our congress and our senate. we got to house bills that need passed by the 21st, s 2598, hr 9110. this brings bankruptcy protection back to student loans. these loans are predatory right now. you can't ever get them paid off and can't ever file bankruptcy right now i'm a truck driver. i come out of ohio and i'm at home, medical stuff all through this pandemic for these politicians and stuff. and going into these hospitals where they have stopped, they need to get off their back and do something for us and quit worrying about getting paid by these

colleges and by these loan companies for the student loans and get this stuff passed that need passedby the 21st. there are people out here hurting but these loans that we're taking care of , we would have a better economy because right now the lowlands, nothing is going to be taken out by the taxpayers . that's a bunch of bs but these politicians need to get off their butt and vote this bill in. >> lara: >> this is a huge issue so joe biden announced loan forgiveness on student loans a while ago and he's been kicking the can down the road . sort of having a moratorium on student loan payments. he's now done that through june 22 i believe. basically conveniently until the end of roughly the next current supreme court session term. so i think that is where this issue will be decided. go biden wants to

break. last week, it was reported that donald trump, the former president of the united states of the and republican standard-bearer had dinner at mar-a-lago with a notorious bigot, who fansies himself on the hard right, embracing everything from white nationalism to anti-semitism to outright holocaust denial. for a former president to sit down and have didn'ter with a high-profile -- have dinner with a high-profile anti-semite is disgusting and dangerous. to give an anti-semite a small platform, much less an audience over dinner, is pure evil. even assuming the former president didn't realize mr. fuentes was coming to mar-a-lago, for him to refuse to condemn fuentes and his bigoted words after the dinner is appalling and dangerous.

i'm glad some of the former president's friends and allies, particularly those in the jewish commune are pushing him to do the right thing by condemning this vicious anti-semite, since the former president does not seem to have the honor, the decency, the humanity to do it on his own. i vo sieve russly con -- vo sieve russly condemn this, and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. on respect for marriage, as the senate gavels back into session for the final session of the 117th congress, there's a lot we must do before the end of the calendar year. many of these things will require republican cooperation to get done. first, the senate begins this week by picking up where we left off on the respect for marriage act. as a reminder, this chamber

voted 62-37 before thanksgiving to move forward on this bill, with 12 republicans in favor. the senate is scheduled to hold the next procedural vote later this afternoon. in the meantime, both sides are continuing working together on an agreement to move this bill quick i had through the chamber. i hope we can get it done with all due speed, because millions of americans deserve equal justice under the law and peace of mind knowing their right to marry the person they love is protected. taking a step back, it's notable that the senate is having this debate to begin with. a decade ago, it would have strained all of our imaginations to envision both sides talking about protecting the rights of same-sex married couples. america does move forward, although sometimes in difficult ways, and sometimes it's two steps forward, one step back. but today is a big step forward.

we all know that for all the progress, though, we've made on same-sex marriage, the rights of all married couples will never truly be safe without the proper protections under federal law, and that's why the respect for marriage act is necessary. as i've said many times, this legislation is deeply bernl to many of us -- personal to many of us in this chamber, myself included. passing this bill is our chance to send a message to americans everywhere -- no matter who you are, who you love, you too deserve dignity and equal treatment under the law. that's about as american an ideal as it comes. so i hope the senate can finish the work we've started and pass the respect for marriage act as soon as possible. now, on government funding, once the senate passes respect for marriage, there's a lot on the to-do list that we must cross off before the end of the calendar year. chief among them, of course, is working together to fund the

government by december 16. failure to act by then will result in a pointless and painful government shutdown, right as the holiday season kicks into high gear. the best option for avoiding a shutdown, of course, is for republicans to work with us on an omnibus, ensuring the federal government is fully prepared to serve the public in the next fiscal year. a continuing resolution, oriented, is far less desirable, for many reasons. a c.r. would cause grave harm to our troops in uniform, at a time when national defense is critical. with russian aggression in europe and china's aggression in the indo-pacific, the last thing we can afford right now is to turn government funding into another political tit for tat. government funding should rise above politics when the well-being of our troops and our national defense is on the line. just this morning, defense secretary lloyd austin wrote to congressional leaders explaining

why the c.r. is the wrong solution for national defense. it will not only cost our military billions every month, it will also freeze new investments in critical military infrastructure, it will mean many staffing and personnel decisions will be put on hold. when we see some of the advances some of our competitors, china and russia, have made in military equipment, we can't afford to sit still. that's what a c.r. would do, we would just sit still, as others gain on us. as china continues to dial up its saber rattling over taiwan, a c.r. will doom the department of defense's hopes of beginning new strategic initiatives in the indo-pacific region. to quote secretary austin, we can't outcompete china with our hands tied behind our back three, five, or six months every fiscal year. he's absolutely right. i hope my republican colleagues are listening. the best gift congress can give

our troops is -- our troops in uniform is certainty. certainty of resources, certainty of purpose, and sesht that congress will -- and certainty that congress will act to give our military servicemembers the tools they need to keep us safe. the only way that will happen is by congress working together to pass an omnibus bill in the coming weeks. now, on the ndaa, as china -- as the united states senate works on passing government funding, we must also work on a bipartisan basis to pass our national defense bill too. for more than six decades, congress has faithfully passed the ndaa on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, and i expect this year will be no different. but today i want to highlight one of the many reasons that passing the ndaa is especially important. we need to stay tough it on the chinese government and its

actions. last month, i introduced an amendment to the ndaa with senator cornyn that will prohibit the u.s. government from doing business with companies that rely on certain chinese chipmakers that the pentagon has labeled chinese government military contractors. national security leaders have weighed in, in support of this amendment, because they know it keeps our country safe. to this day, many chinese companies have well-known ties to the chinese comiewbist party -- communist party and continue to sell microchips to u.s. businesses that have contracts with the federal government. that poses serious risks to americans' privacy and national security. the main idea here is simple -- if american business wants the federal government to buy their products or services, they shouldn't be using the kind of chinese-made chips that, because of chinese government involvement, put our national security at risk. we need our government and our

economy to rely on chips made right here in america, something my amendment, along with senator cornyn, would encourage. many on both sides -- many on both sides rightfully like to talk about staying tough on the chinese government. our amendment would do just that. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and urge all of us to work quickly to pass the ndaa when the time comes next month. i yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: >> more than any other

southern representation in the democratic conference. here's what he said with margaret brennan. >> ifit is time for a new generation as speaker pelosi had said why do you think it's necessary for you to stay in power ? you think the next generation needs you to guide them? >> there is a healthy respect, this is biblical. we need to have a healthy amount of stress and knowledge and leadership, with the south is left out of it and is trying to make sure that we do not tilt too far to the east or too far to the west but many what we have here there is no other settlement among the leadership in the south. we need our colleges and

universities. where would the senate be today without south carolina? >> host: james clyburn yesterday and likely the new leadership of the democratic caucus could include team jeffries as minority leader from new york, steve aguilar from california, the west and catherine clark b5 right, he makes a good point but there are only three positions. there's only three people in the upper tier leadership and its safe to say they're not going to listen to people from the south. obviously the south is extremely important and nobody knows better than jim clyburn from south carolina to wield power and how tomake the south matter . he was essential to joe lyons nomination in 2020. but what we have now, what we

are likely to have going forward is hot team jeffries is black. catherine clark is a white woman and pete you are a hispanic male there's diversity right there and i think they're smart enough to know they have to consider the needs and desires of the south when their steering their caucus. >> host: back to calls to far rockaway new jersey, this is muriel on the independent line. >> i wanted to make a comment about the same-sex marriage. i wanted to ask the lady, according to the bible, jesus confirmed that those yoked together in marriage should be male and female, thus god intended marriage to be a permanent intimate bond between a man and a woman. so i would like to say it doesn't matter what congress voted on, this is what god says so i'd like to have their thoughts on that matter

. >> host: what should congress do in terms of accommodation for religious views and legislation comingup in the senate ? >> guest: they had to take into account the religious beliefs of americans as the caller said that marriage is only between a man and a woman. we have a law called the religious freedom restoration act which guarantees, takes into account the views of people who have that belief. and that has been applied to the law that's going to be dealt with this week and we've had some very important supreme court cases dealing with that issue. can a customer force of baker to bake a cake that has a pro-gay marriage sentiment expressed on the cake, the answer is number so you know, there's what the law says and then there's what, how people

are feeling they can behave so this will be an issue going forward. >> host: 10 republican senators voted in favor of moving forward with that legislation. i'll take your correction that number, were you surprised by it ? >> guest: that number is huge but my sense is gay marriage is so accepted in the main in this country it's remarkable to see how thought has changed on the issue . it hasn't been that long since bill clinton decent signed the defense of marriage act which was anti-gay marriage and we've now done a 180. and i think for a number of reasons, most americans feel even if they're personally uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage they see that most people believe it doesn't hurt anybody else if two men are married, two r. women are married, they can have children, they can raise and be loving parents.

protected at ours. this year for too many families thanksgiving also brought added stress and anxiety. two years of reenous inflation that pushed up the cost of everything from food to travel to housing to home heating and electricity. in january 2021 with inflation well within a normal range, president biden and this all-democratic party government took power talking a big game about rebuilding the middle class. instead they promptly set out eroding away the ground from right underneath family's feet, taking a match to trillions of dollars, and igniting the worst inflation in 40 years. on president biden's watch, the average american household is paying an extra $110 month on food, an extra $111 on housing,

$270 more on transportation, and $147 more on energy. that's more than $750 in hidden democratic inflation taxes for the average household. thousands of extra dollars per family per year because washington democrats jumped headlong into party line reckless spending that every expert and every republican warned, warned would hurt o ourcountry. all in all prices have soared by 13.9% since president biden put his hand on the bible. thanks to his party's reckless spending, inflation is the highest it's been since the fallout of the carter administration. so it's no wonder this was painfully cost -- a painfully costly thanksgiving. staples from turkey to potatoes to green beans have seen

double-digit price increases in just the past year. inflation literally on top of inflation. this runaway inflation has been hitting families hard ever everywhere. in the state of georgia, for example, local food assistance organizations reported skyrocketing demand heading into the holidays. the ceo of the atlanta community food bank said, quote, we're basically back to the sable level of demand we were at during the height, the height of the pandemic. there's a charitable organization saying that democrats' party-line policies have created an economic environments that owe on -- that's on par with the worst covid shutdown. on the democrats' watch, rising housing costs in georgia have outpaced the already big jump in nationwide average. one relief agency says requests for emergency rent, utility and food assistance have jumped 40% this year.

two years of one-party democratic control in washington have been a disaster for working families in georgia. and their for senators haven't just failed to stop the damage, they've helped cause it. ensured it on. georgia's senate delegation of to democratic senators have been a lockstep rubber stamp along party lines for every bit of liberal spending and painful tax hikes. gist when working families in georgia needed checks and balances, what they got were reckless rubber stamps. earlier this month after the american people voted to break up democrats' one-party government, president biden insisted defiantly, quote, i'm not going to change direction.

it's been two years since the senate democratic leader said if he got georgia's two senate seats, he'd change america. they've certainly done that. on party lines, democrats squandered a promising economic comeback and spent us into staggering inflation and now president biden says he's learned nothing and will change nothing. the democrats have shown the american people what they'll do with power, but in the united states of america, the power ultimately lies with the people and in a little over a week, the people of georgia will have the ability to make their choice between a check and balance or a rubber stamp.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: >> caller: quick comment about the bill i believe passing 96 because it was in response to hawaii passing its allowing same-sex marriage the year before was the main reason i'm calling . if your guest knows anything about the hideous hastert rule and mccarthy, how he feels about that because i saw something on c-span, it was a rules meeting the majority which is a terrible rule that

discourages bipartisanship, discourages the house especially when run by republicans to take bipartisan measures in the senate. loc was more okay with it. but i was wondering if you knew if they're going to try to use that to discourage. it's not the 2013 immigration bill because it didn't have efficient republican support which is really kind of a misnomer for blocking of bill that would otherwise pass. thank you. >> host: the hastert rule. >> guest: the majority of the majority. i don't know if kevin mccarthy has pledged to that.

literally fighting vladimir putin for their lives. we also have issues before us such as the respect for marriage act which confirms, i hope, on a bipartisan basis in the senate that we stand behind the obergefell decision.

we believe people should be able to make their own decisions about the people they love and want to marry and i believe that should pass, i hope it does pass before we leave for christmas. there's another issue of urgent priority that is personal to me. it deals with the legal limbo that has been created for hundreds of thousands of dreamers and daca recipients who are now uncertain of their future. these recipients are immigrants who were brought to the united states as children. some were toddlers and infants. others kids in their teens brought here by their families. they didn't make the decision to come, but they made a life when they came. they attended school. they grew up in america. they stood up in a classroom every morning as all kids do across this country pledging allegiance to that flag believing it was their flag and their country but that's not how the law sees it. some of those, just babies when they arrived, grew up here,

educated in school. they went to school with our kids and our grandkids. their parents attended church with our families. responding to the need to take care of these young people and give them a path to citizenship, a chance to become a permanent part of america legally in this country. 20 years ago i introduced the dream act. we came up with the term dream act between myself and senator orrin hatch, a republican conservative from utah who was my original cosponsor of the bill. it was a bipartisan bill. here is durbin from the state of illinois, hatch from utah agreeing on a bill that was so important that we argued between ourselves who would be the lead sponsor. i deferred to senator hatch the first time we introduced it because the republicans were in the majority and i no the it gave us a better chance to pass it. as time passed, senator hatch lost his interest in the issue

and withdrew as a sponsor. but over the years we've had the sponsorship of many republicans who believe as i do that these young dreamers deserve a chance to prove themselves, to earn their way to citizenship in the united states. we've had a few conservative republican cosponsors but we need many more. we needed 60 votes to pass the bill on the floor of the united states senate. we had several attempts at it. i think almost five where we brought the measure of the dream act to the floor. and we made it clear you had to have come to the united states as a child. you must have lived here without substantial legal or criminal record. and you must be given a chance to have a citizenship opportunity in your life. that was basically the bill. we brought it to the floor five different times. we had a majority each time,

but in the senate a majority is not enough, as you know. it takes 60 votes. we fell short each of those times. i remember one saturday, it was a lame-duck session, as we ended the year, and we decided to make it a try for the dream act. harry reid was the democratic leader in the senate and said i'll give you a chance for a vote, so we had that vote on a saturday morning. the whole gallery was filled with young dreamers. they decided to come in their caps and gowns from their graduation ceremonies, so they brought those caps and gowns out of storage and wore them on the floor to prove they were going to be a valuable addition to the future of the united states. they were so excited to think this would be their chance. sadly, we had a majority but not the supermajority that the senate requires. i met with them afterwards and there were a lot of tears that were shed by them, by me, as they thought about what it meant. they were uncertain as to where

they were going to go, what their future would be. i decided to try a different approach. if we couldn't pass the dream act in the senate, maybe, just maybe my cosponsor of the dream act, the former illinois senator, barack obama could find a way as president of the united states to help. and thank the lord he did. he came up with daca. this was an approach which said to these young people, here's what i can give you. if you will stand up and apply each year to be protected in the united states, we'll give you a chance. if we check your background and everything is fine, we'll give you two years at a time to stay here and live in the united states as dreamers, be able to work legally, and no fear of deportation. he issued that executive order. i remember it well. the day was august 15, 2012, ten years ago, more than ten yearsing a.

congressman -- years ago. congressman gutierrez and i decided we would have a celebration at navy pier in chicago. we didn't know how many would show up to sign up for daca. we got together a few immigration attorneys who volunteered their time to help them fill out the forms and we waited. we started hearing this rumbling of people who were interested. i remember speaking to congressman gutierrez wondering are we going to have 100, 200? the estimates started going up just wildly as people started saying there will be many more than you can imagine. it turns out there were thousands. ten thousand applicants showed up at navy pier on that day. they overwhelmed all the volunteer attorneys that we had. some of them had been waiting outside through the night to make sure they had their chance to sign up for daca. in the end some 780,000, maybe

even more, across the united states answered president obama's call and were protected by daca. what they've done with their lives is nothing short of remarkable. let me tell you about one that i think is just so amazing. this was a young lady who was in the line to sign up on 2012, august of 2012. and she was one of the first dreamers to receive the protection of daca. a young woman from chicago, her name is karen via gomez. karen's parents brought her to america from mexico when she was just two years old, the same age my mother was when her family came to the united states, and i know the presiding officer is an immigrant herself and proud of her family story and the courage that your mother showed especially in bringing you and your family to the united states. well, karen was two years old

when she was brought into the united states from mexico. she didn't really discover that she was undocumented until she applied for college. she was accepted. she grew up in chicago but accepted to college at the university of rochester in new york. because she was undocumented and daca, she fortunately didn't qualify for any federal assistance to help her through school. that meant working jobs, her parents helping her, putting together all the money they could so that she could go to college. she wasn't eligible for ten cents in federal financial aid, but she wasn't going to be stopped. karen was a freshman at the university of rochester in new york when i first heard of her. it was spring break of her freshman year in college. she was hoping to fly home to chicago to surprise her family. instead she was arrested and detained by i.c.e. one lawyer told her she probably had about four months before she was going to be deported back to

mexico. karen and her family called my office. there was a lot of emotion in this phone conversation. my staff and i reached out to the federal agencies and said don't deport her. give her a chance. you won't regret it. she has no background that suggests she's any danger to this country, but she has so much promise and determination. give her a chance. well, they decided to give us a reprieve, a short-term suspension of the deportation. karen went on with one reprieve after another, never knowing whether she was going to be deported before she could even finish college, but she finally did. then she came back to chicago, and she was accepted at northwestern university law school, law school. with daca, she was able to work as a paralegal, then as a counsel for the city of chicago, graduating law school, she became a clerk for a federal judge in chicago.

she got married, and three weeks ago, on election day, at long last she was sworn in, naturalized as an american citizen. i was there to see her take the oath of citizenship. you know what she was going to do as soon as the ceremony ended? walk across the street, register to vote, and vote as an american citizen for the first time on the day that she was naturalized. there wasn't a dry eye in that court chamber as we all celebrated this wonderful journey of this amazing young woman. incidentally, there was a baby on the way. she and her husband are so proud that they are both part of this country and its future. more than 830,000 young people just like her have been able to live safely and work in america because of daca, but there is uncertainty as to what's going to happen in the future. last month the fifth circuit federal court remanded a case to a lower court to determine whether daca would remain the

law of the land. it's still under attack. here's what it gets down to madam president. unless congress acts in the next three weeks to protect daca recipients, daca could end as soon as next year. an average of 1,000 daca recipients would lose their jobs and their legal right to work every single week. in health care and in education, in sectors of our economy that are so essential to our growth, daca recipients are doing the work. they turn out to be the nurses, sometimes the doctors, as well as teachers, engineers, policemen, firefighters, and they're going to be deported if we don't come to their rescue and finally make daca legal once and for all. does anyone think for one minute that america would be better off if we start deporting doctors and nurses and teemps who are now -- teemps who are protect

by daca or men and women who are risking their lives in the military or with police and firefighters? the answer is clearly no. you know right before thanksgiving a few hundred dreamers flew to washington. i think, madam president, you said you met with them. they met with me and were telling me what's at stake here. one young man in particular, what an amazing story. because of daca, he was able to graduate from college with an engineering degree. he decided he would start his own company since he had that opportunity, and now started several companies and has paid, he said last year i paid $180,000 in federal taxes. and i said to the group that assembled there, there are many large corporations in america that don't pay as much in taxes as this young man, this daca protectee was able to pay. it's an indication of the creativity, determination, and the quality of these young people. we've got fo give them a chance to be part of our future. some republicans have

cosponsored the dream act. senator lindsey graham, my friend, former chair of the senate judiciary committee, is currently a lead sponsor with me. i've also worked with senator graham and other republican senators over the years to deal with comprehensive immigration reform. i have had conversations with a number of republican and democratic senators who understand the urgency of dealing with this issue. i'm not going to name names here or in the hallway, but i will tell you conversations are taking place, and i'm encouraged by them. i will join them and provide whatever resources i can. or if i can help by standing to the side, i'll do that too. the goal is to make sure these daca recipients have a future. we need ten republican senators to join all the democrats to get that done. just ten. we can break the filibuster, get the supermajority we need under the senate rules. i've heard many republican colleagues say they won't help daca recipients or even talk about immigration until we stop this so-called flood of

immigrants and asylum seekers at the southern border. look, every democrat in the senate agrees we need an orderly process at our border, but simply closing the borders to families fleeing violence is not a simple, practical or worthwhile solution. that's why biden as president is adding capacity, building better systems at the border, and we need to do more, and we should do it together on a bipartisan basis. today there are over 23,000 customs and border protection agents working at the southwest border and i.c.e. surged over 1,300 personnel to stop human smuggling networks. the administration is building new migrant processing facilities, working on a system that hall louse meritorious claims to be processed sooner. but we can't fix these problems alone and we can't do it all in three weeks. many of my republican colleagues have tried to blame the families that are coming across the

border for fentanyl. the overwhelming majority of fentanyl that enters this country isn't being smuggled in by undocumented immigrants. it's coming in through legal ports of entry, by people who are authorized to enter the u.s. many of these people are u.s. citizens. i'm not making excuses for them, but for goodness sakes, let's be honest about the source of the problem. let me give you a few numbers that tell the story. this fiscal year customs and border patrol seized six times more illegal drugs from authorized travelers at landed ports of entry than they did from migrants crossing the borders. six times. and nearly seven times more fentanyl was seized at land ports of entry than at the border. i want to stop the deadly flow of fentanyl. it hits my state and all across america. you won't do it by turning away asylum seekers and separating parents from children at the border. you do it by scanning every passenger and commercial vehicle

and all freight rail traffic crossing the border. we have the technology to do it. let's get it done on a bipartisan basis. president biden has signed the omnibus funding legislation and the infrastructure bill which we've talked about before. it includes resources to meet this screening goal which ought to be our basic starting point of this conversation. sadly, a majority of republican senators voted against both of these bills, but i beg them to come back and join us again and see if there's some common ground. we can fix america's immigration system in a way that honors our values and does make us safer, but we need to focus on reality. we need less political posturing and more compromise and determination. we should start now in this lame-duck session to protect the dreamers for their future and our own. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. wyden: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, a little later today the senate is going to vote on the respect for marriage act. this vote is an affirmation that

the united states senate will stand up and protect the rights of all americans to marry the person they love. although this is about codifying rights that same-sex couples already enjoy, this is an important step in a long-running battle for equality. during my 1996 campaign for the senate, i ran on the proposition that there is a fundamental right to privacy in america, and i summed it up by saying if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. so i became the first member of the senate to openly support marriage equality. soon afterwards, there was a debate on a truly bad law, the defense of marriage act, which i opposed for the same reasons.

it was a breech of our country's -- it was a breach of our country's fundamental right to privacy. now the senate has a chance to rectify that wrong and repeal it. i'm always going to go to the mat to defend the right to privacy in america. the bottom line is that protecting somebody else's rights doesn't take anything away from your own rights. our country is indisputably stronger when everyone's rights are protected. some members of this body have questioned why we need to pass this bill when marriage equality is the law of the land. the answer is pretty straightforward -- the dobbs ruling, which overturned roe v. wade, showed that the senate cannot take any modern legal precedent for granted. with the possible exception of brown v. board, no precedent is

safe as long as clarence thomas and sam alito are openly calling for the court to revisit major rulings. it's not just justice thomas and justice alito making these arguments in public. these days many republicans have openly talked about their belief that the court ruled incorrectly in some of the most significant cases dealing with the expansion of recognize -- and recognition of individual rights in america, the obergefell realing, marriage equality, the griswold v. connecticut ruling, the rights of women to use contraception. even the loving v. virginia ruling, the right to interracial marriage. some members of congress have called all those other legal precedents into question. these backward debates, madam president, now unfold in congress and the courts, in the statehouses. the backdrop behind them is

frightening, raising levels of hatred and vial spewed at lgbt americans every day of the week. the far right is now targeting gay and trans- americans in an effort to scare everybody else into taking away their rights. there's no question that when leaders participate in ratcheting up antigay rhetoric, it spills out into the real world across the country. the community of colorado springs is still mourning the lives lost in a mass shooting at a gay nightclub a few days before thanksgiving. five people were killed, more than a dozen others hospitalized with gunshot wounds. if not for the actions of a few brave individuals, including a military veteran, the death toll would have been much higher. passing the respect for marriage act, madam president, is not going to end the hateful

rhetoric and violence for good. the senate has an opportunity and an obligation to declare with this vote that hate is wrong. we will stand up and -- that we'll stand up and protect the vulnerable, that we'll protect the rights of all americans from a far-right majority determined to turn the clock back by decades. there just is no place for hate or intolls reasons in our great country. so today i'm proud to be able to cast a vote in a bit for individual rights, for freedom, for privacy, and equality. i want to thank all the members of this body who've worked for months to bring this bill to the floor with bipartisan support, and i hope that the senate will be able to continue this progress with colleagues on both sides in the months and years ahead. madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> recognizing same sex marriages as legally valid even if they've taken place in another state that does not recognize those unions and would repeal the defensive marriage ability signed in 1998 and one man and one woman under federal law and the debate is set scheduled for 4:30 a.m. central time. you're watching live coverage of

the senate here on cspan2. >> focuses on defense news and defense ministry at the pentagon and congress in particular and the defense authorization bill and more. the big outstanding issue is the annually passed defense authorization bill, what's holding up passage of that? >> the first thing was the government going into a c r and keeping things later than they'd like it to b. the defense authorization bill is one that's been, i believe, 61 years straight and been passed and

it's a point of pride for the members of house and senate armed services committee getting it done in a bipartisan fashion and the assumption is once the election is over, we'll move on and get this passed pretty quickly and everyone can kind of move on to the appropriations site. then when it became clear that republicans are on track to take the house, kevin mccarthy, who's the expected to be speaker of the house going forward threw a wrench in the plan and said i think we should wait to do this till we take over. there's been mixed reaction so far. >> has it passed the senate? >> the senate agreed to a version of this and in june and september, i believe. basically it tap intoed the reconciliation and both the leaders of the house and senate authorization committees have said, we're working on this and expect it to happen. the mccarthy saying we should hold off and not do this till we

take the house officially in january, that's been the senator outgoing republican who's name is on the ndaa this year or the top republican on the hassing saying we need to get these done and talk about it and move forward. the nda is too important to become partisan politics. >> remind us what the defense authorization bill does. it's not the money part of the equation. tell us more about that. >> basically the nda is the policy bill and a lot of things specific to the military and do things as paid benefits for members of the military and different services can spend policy, aspects such as weapons and those kinds of things and they're the ones that control the money, the ndaa once it's

done the appropriations weigh in and weigh in and what the discussion is about that. this is what the nda is passed and that's the policy bill and be the one holding up the pay rates for the troops or the policy aspects. synergy home seems to be a wrench throne in for policy concern and mansion in energy legislations and in talks for the defense spending bill and not the ndaa but the spending bill. what is joe mansion trying to get done with the spending bill? >> that goes back to the fact that the guy that kills the fed thing and you often see and i'll get it back at least in theory.

you often see people trying to add things to that. in this case, senator mansion and essentially saying change the way the fact that he's trying to tack this on and working on for awhile and this is what people try to tack onto a defense bill and biden in there and that'll help and getting traction for the leadership on either side right now in terms of supporting it. ukraine refugees and >> i would

expect so. this is the type of thing that you crane situation, for the most part has had very strong bipartisan support. i think especially with winter coming, you crane indians have been very -- ukrainians have been open about the fact it's going to be harder and seen over the last few weeks russia targeting energy inside ukraine, civilian infrastructure inside ukraine to make it as painful as possible as winter settles in. this impact will pass and the thing that we'll have to keep an eye ongoing forward is less about the defense money for ukraine and ultimately that'll get through and it's the nondefense spending in ukraine i think will be potentially politically difficult to manage. >> why is that? >> traditionally nondefense spending and something that republicans say we want to cut that or becomes a tradeoff you

push for more defense spending and we'd expect to say something similar here and we're seeing pressure inside the gop for donald trump himself saying something along the lines and we know there's some members of congress in the republican side that said why are we supporting ukraine and sending them money and europe needs to be doing more. why are we doing this? you'll see those political lines act up in the next years and the veteran of chief and welcome calls in.

>> mike turner of ohio and mccall on abc's this week talked about potential for whether republicans would make things difficult in passing additional ukraine aid. here's what he said. >> i went to ukraine for a bipartisan group for the soul purposes of telling president zelensky he has contingent support and will have bipartisan support. the issue is we don't need to pass $40 billion large democrat bills that have been being passed to send $8 billion to ukraine. what we're going to do and it's been very frustrating, even to the ukrainians with the large number in the united states and we'll make sure they get what they need and the other thing they need is air defense and that's a vulnerability on our part. our air defense systems are so complex and we need to make certain we work with partners and pull together air defense system they can put together to defend kyiv, defend their infrastructure.

>> we know what leader mccarthy has said about this. he's not going to write a blank check and colleagues like marjory taylor green of georgia, thomas macey of kentucky who are unlikely to support more aid. are you certain that republicans will bring this to the floor? >> i think as mike said, the majorities on both sides of the aisle support this effort. everybody has a voice in congress. you know, the fact is we are going to provide more oversight transparency and accountability. we're not going to write a blank check. >> two key members to ukraine aid. what did you hear? >> some politics that come into this. again, there's waiting in the republican party including members in the house and they're kind of opposed to the idea of giving aid. there's others saying, hey, maybe we're giving too much aid or not being smart about it. you hear the term blank check and that's a phrase we'll continue hearing when talking about biden and the ukraine

plan. the air defense focus is a particularly interesting one and there's a lot of questions about what actually>> mr. jenkins in elingwood, georgia, the democrat line. go ahead. >> thank you for taking my call. the funding in the defense bill, would that include funding for the pentagon? i understand the pentagon has not been audited. i'm 94 years old and never known

it to be audited. thank you very much. >> yeah, the pentagon audit is a really interesting thing and for years the pentagon said we can't be audited, we're too complex and too many systems and we're not going to bother. congress even saying you have to be audited and the pentagon wouldn't. in the first or second year of the trump administration --

with, well, the justices made clear in dobbs that's not true, they mentioned griswald v. connecticut, loving v. virginia, one justice wrote that overruling roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents or cast doubt on those precedents, i don't know what more the supreme court

could say to indicate that obergfell is not threatened by this court any time soon, so imleft with the conclusion -- so i'm left with the conclusion to preserve this legislation what is already ruled by the supreme court as a constitutional right, that this is, frankly, a scare tactic, nevertheless, some of our colleagues claim this legislation is absolutely necessary, while this bill does not move the needle on same-sex marriage, it will raise questions on religious liberty, we know that many americans hold religious beliefs objecting to same-sex marriage, obergfell did not place any requirement on those individuals or their religious institutions, the

obergfell he could existed with other with other cases, each of these decisions recognized that religious liberties shall and must be protected as required by our constitution, namely the equal protection clause, for example obergfell doesn't compel catholic priests or jewish rab rab -- rabbis -- to lawsuits for exercising their deeply held religious objections to same-sex marriage, if the respect for marriage act becomes law as it is currently proposed without amendment, that would change,

unlike obergfell, this legislation expressly empowerses private litigants to pursue religious institutions, faith-based organizations or private parties who oppose same-sex marriage omnibus bill think back to the masterpiece keg shop lawsuit, the owner of a bakery in colorado refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because it didn't align with his religious beliefs omnibus if this bill pae can expect other lawsuits from cake bakers to venue owners or just about any other small business that doesn't bend a knee to their world view, but it's not just individuals with deeply held religious beliefs who will have a target placed on

their back, it is also religious institutions themselves, i'm not talking about churches, synagogues or mosques, i'm talking about social service agency, nongovernmental agencies or charities supported by people of faith as their mission. well, this legislation would permit a private lawsuit against an institution of higher learning, like a major university or your child's preschool or mother's day out. it includes religious charities that carry out meaningful work. it includes anyone acting under, quote, the color of state law. that's an interesting choice of this scope of a private right of action. anyone acting under the color of

state law. this is a very broad term that comes directly from the text of bill, and it's not clear entirely who would be subject to this provision. if a person receives a professional license from their state to serve as a lawyer, an accountant, a bartender, a realtor, a barber, are they acting under color of state law? i think that's a plausible argument. if a nonprofit receives public funds to perform a service on behalf of the government, are they acting under color of state law? it's not clear and it needs to be clear omnibus bill the range of -- clear. the range of people who can be sued will only be limited by lawyers imaginations. trial lawyers and the biden department of justice could have a field day. individuals and organizations

trying to do good work, consistent with their faith, would be forced to spend a small fortune defending themselves in court, just as the owner of masterpiece cake shop did for ten years. this legislation could open the door for the government to take serious action against religious institutions for adhering to their sincerely held religious beliefs. the federal government could deny grants for research to colleges and universities, lake baylor university, southern methodist or christian university in my state. faith-based groups, nongovernmental organizations could be barred for not taking care of the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children coming across the border as part of the current border crisis. cities as

could den identify permits to religious organizations that do an immeasurable amount of good, including catholic charities, little sisters of the poor, or bubutner international. the internal revenue service could seek to revoke the tax exempt status of organizations that fail to comply with this new secular mandate. now, lest you think this is a fever dream or a conspiracy theory, let me just take you back to the obergefell arguments. justice alito asked the solicitor general if the institution that opposed same-sex marriage could lose its tax except status. the solicitor general said it's certainly going to be an issue. and he was correct. and now the issue is front and center. now, i believe that the sponsors of this legislation sincerely believe that the consequences

i'm describing will not follow. they may have believed in good faith that they have protected the free exercise of religion and religious liberties, but i don't believe they've been successful in doing that. that's why i believe the amendments that have been proposed by senator rubio, senator lee, and senator lankford should be voted on to make clear what i think the sponsors of this legislation intended to do but wrntsz quite success -- weren't quite successful in clearly accomplishing. well, just remember the irs has virtually unlimited authority to target religious schools, nonprofits, and organizations by revoking their tax except status leaving them to the dead end of ruinous and years consuming

litigation. this isn't, as i said, a far-fetch conspiracy or unrealistic doomsday scenario. we've seen what a politically motivated internal revenue service can do. perhaps we all remember the irs targeting controversy under the obama administration. under the leadership of lois lerner, bureaucrats -- conservative groups to a different set of scrutiny. employees at the irs actually developed a spreadsheet take became known as a be on the lookout list or simply the bolo list. if the name of the political group included terms like tea party or patriot, it was subjected to a different level of scrutiny. these irs bureaucrats delayed the approval of these organizations' tax except stat -- exempt status and requested

completely unnecessary information. it asked some applicants to disclose the name of their donors as well as the amounts of each donation which is constitutionally suspect. a pro-life group was even asked to provide the percentage of time that the groups spent on prayer groups compared with their other activities. well, this irs targeting scam happened about a decade ago, but since then the irs has been given even more power and more authority. the most recent reckless tax and spending bill, the so-called inflation reduction act, gave the internal revenue service an additional $80 billion and 87,000 new irs agents. this army of new agents would have the capability to turn its attention on every church, school, and organization that did not recognize same-sex

marriage because of their sincerely held religious beliefs. so you have to wonder who will be on the bolo list next. given everything we've seen and the experience we've had in this area, i can't say i have much confidence in how this will be handled. so to summarize, this legislation does not move the needle in terms of the rights of same-sex couples. they can already marry in every state in the country. and this bill doesn't change that. what it will do is force religious organizations to make an impossible choice, abandon your beliefs or face the wrath of the u.s. government. so let me just repeat what i said a moment ago, madam president. i believe the proponents of this legislation thought they were protecting and preserving the

religious liberties of people with sincerely-held religious beliefs. but when they include a private right of action for someone acting under the color of state law, it refers to any public act, any right or claim. and as i said, you can interpret color of state law to cover everything from professional licensing to teaching certificates to building permits to food and beverage licenses. so i think that if the proponents of this legislation really believe that protecting religious liberty should be our goal, the best way to accomplish that is to allow votes on these amendments by senators lee, rubio, and senator lankford who provided an extra clear

assurance that this legislation does not constitute a national policy endorsing a specific view of marriage. i know it may sound like a simple clarification, but it could mean the difference between faith-based nonprofits ending up in the crosshairs of the irs or some private party lawsuit claiming they're operating under color of state law and the ability to maintain their tax exempt status or carry on the important good work that many organizations do in our commun--do in our communities as the country. so if that indeed is the purpose of our colleagues to try to protect those religious organizations, those people of faith who are doing good work that we want to encourage and we want to support, then i believe that we can accomplish their goal by passing the amendments

that have been proposed by senator lee, senator rubio, and senator lankford. if that is their goal, they shouldn't have any objection to this clarification. but we simply can't stand by and allow this legislation or any legislation for that matter to foot stomp the first amendment right fs people of faith -- rights of people of faith. unless this bill is amended, it will invite a wave of lawsuits against churches, synagogues, mosques, religious nonprofits simply because they're living in accordance with their faith. one other thing i should point out that was mentioned by the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. in the one area that i would call it a safe harbor to protect religious liberty, i think it's

6b in the bill that's been offered. the protection of religious liberty that again i think our colleagues in good faith intended to provide is limited to those whose principle purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion. so that clearly would involve things like church services or religious observations at a mosque or a synagogue. but would it cover a church's day care facility, they provide for the children whose parents attend their church? would it cover universities like i mentioned earlier, baylor university, a baptist university, southern methodist university, texas christian

university and the work they do. how about catholic chaishts? its -- charities. it's one of the principal providers of services at the border that resulted in the border crisis that we're experiencing. none of those would be protected, i would argue, under the limitation in section 6b. and this was actually pointed out by the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. i think they're right. but again, if the goal of the bill is to preserve religious liberty, i think the bill needs to be amended. religious liberty is the cornerstone of our democracy. it's explicitly protected by the united states constitution. and we cannot allow it to be trampled on. madam president, i yield the floor and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

is the annual passed authorization bill. what's holding up passage of that? >> what's holding up passage is the government going into cr and getting things later than they'd like it to b. the defense authorization bill is one that's been, i believe, 61 years straight and impasse and kind of a point of pride for the members of house and senate armed services committee and get it done in a bipartisan fashion and the assumption has been once the election is over, we'll move on

and get this thing passed pretty quickly and everyone can kind of move onto appropriations site. i think we should wait touchdown pass did they'll we take over. the leereds of both house and senate -- authorization committees have said we're working on this and expect this to happen. the mccarthy saying he thinks we should hold off and not do this till we take the house officially in january, that hasn't been met with all enthusiasm by the senator that's the out going top republican who's name is on the ndaa this year nor by mike rogers.

sending weapons and authorizing training and that kind of thing. they're the core of the military and how to operate. appropriators is everyone in dc will always tell you quickly and they're the ones that control the money and nda once it's done the appropriators weigh in and say this is what we fund and what we are and a big discussion about that. this is what ndaa is always tasked and more of a policy bill

and never wants to be the ones holding up the pay raise for the troops or these kind of policy aspects. >> mansioned determined to advance the talks of the spending bill. not the ndaa but the spending bill. what is joe mansion trying to get done here with the spending bill? >> just going back to the fact that nobody wants to be the guy that you often see people with situations frying to tack on to the defense bills and the appropriations and naa because these are seen as must pass bills. this is national security and nobody wants to mess around with that, at least in theory. so you often see people try to add things to that. in this case, senator mansion trying to add this bill, which i'm not an energy expert, my understanding is essentially

saying to change the way their environmental studies are done and make it easier for oil and gas to be mind and productions to begin on that . the fact he's trying to tack this on, something he's been working on for awhile and had some support on both sides and again, this is the type of thing that every year somebody tries to take onto a defense bill. the thought is we can kind of slide it in there and that'll help. doesn't seem like it's getting traction from the leadership on kind of either side right now in terms of supporting. >> on the white house and couple of weeks ago announced an additional $38 billion request nearly $22 billion of that for weapons and equipment, $14.5 for humanitarian and budget support, $9 billion for healthcare and support to ukraine refugees and $626 million for nuclear security support and likely that congress will take up and pass additional defense? defense and other spending aid to ukraine before the end of the

$117? >> i would expect so. this is the type of thing that ukraine situation for the most part had strong bipartisan support and ukrainians open about the fact it'll be harder we've seen over the last few weeks that russia is targeting energy inside ukraine and effectively to make it as painful as possible as winter settles in. i think this aid package will pass. the thing that we're going to have to keep an eye ongoing forward forward is less about the defense money for ukraine because ultimately that'll get through. it's the nondefense spending in ukraine i think will be potentially politically difficult to manage. >> why is that? >> traditionally see nondefense spending is something that republicans say we want to cut down and trade off trying to push for more defense spending and that's something similar here and the gop far resident

with donald trump and members of congress and their republican side saying why are we supporting and you'll see those political lines act up in the next few years and down the line >>-- republicans (202)748-8001 and democrats (202)748-8000 and independents is (202)748-8002. mike mccall of ohio and mike turner talked about whether republicans would make things difficult in passing additional

ukraine aid. hear's what he said. >> i went to ukraine on bipartisan group for the sole purposes of telling president zelensky he has contingent support and bipartisan support and we don't need to pass $40 billion large dembeles that are being passed to send $8 billion to ukraine. it's been frustrating for ukrainians hearing the large numbers of the numbers they need and they'll get what they need. you saw it in your piece and the other needs air defense and that's the ability ton our part and we need air defense systems is so complex and we need to make certain that we work with partners and pull together air defense system they can put together to defend kyiv, to defend their infrastructure. >> we know what leader mccarthy said about this. he's not going to write a blank check and you've got colleagues like marjory taylor green and

unlikely to support more aid so are you really certain that republicans will bring this to the floor? >> i think as mike said, the majority on both sides of the aisle support this effort and everybody has a voice in congress and we're going to provide more oversight transparency and accountability and we're not going to write a blank check. >> two key member when is it comes to ukraine aid. what did you hear there, aaron meadow? >> some signals there'll be some politics that come into this. again, there's a wing in the republican party including members in the house and how they're kind of opposed to the idea of giving aid and others who are saying, hey, maybe we're giving too much aid and not being smart. you heard the -- phrase lank blk check and we'll continue hearing that when it comes to ukraine and the air defense is a particular need and what is the u.s. capable of producing and how much capability and the

situation from poland two weeks ago that underlines the need from this type of equipment. >> the mike turner talked about working with partners. is the focus likely to be also on the republican side asking more of other nato countries to contribute 1234 >> i would expect that's a line and something we'll see a lot of. to be fire, that's something the biden administration has been doing quite a bit of since the ukraine situation started. >> go to callers, we'll hear from mr. jenkins in ellenwood, georgia, on the democrat side. >> thank you for taking my call. the defense bill, would that include funding for the pentagon? i understand the pentagon hasn't been audited and i'm 94 years known and never known it to be audited. thank you very much.

>> in the first or second year, they launched an audit and the way they've been doing it is essentially going kind of system by .s things we need to republican about the defense department is it's not like other government agencies in that there's one big government. there's a million little subagent seizure disorderses as big as other -- subagent seizure disorders. they completed the fifth audit and failed again and we expect to be a couple more years before they reach the point to be a cleared audit. the systems were cleared about what was cleared last year. >> what does that mean when the system is cleared in >> essentially they know where the money is going and they've

actually gone through and lined up the books with what's going in and out. it's -- you know, thankfully i don't know the full extent of this but effectively what it is is saying we're confident in what these parts of the department say they have firing the auditor if i weres. >> next up is john in nahalem, oregon. independent line. john, go ahead. >> very good. this will be talk from eastern european nato allies and from

ukraine itself of the need for western tanks, jet planes, advanced antiair capabilities right now. you crane is being drawn into a -- ukraine is being drawn into a crater. i don't know how many people are going to die from that. but i will say that if the republicans cut off the ukrainian people who are fighting to preserve their independence and a rule of law system, they will regret it. it's good to have wise oversight, spend money well, but we have to support people that are trying to preserve their independence. i'll take my answer off the air. >> thank you, john. >> ukrainians since day one said give us anything you can.

planes, tanks, and care craft system -- aircraft systems have be ton of the lift. a lot of systems are not comfortable sending fighter jets to ukraine or concerned that it crosses a red line with russia on keeping nato on one side of the ron applicant. we're seeing more of a -- conflict and we're seeing more of a push and in the air defense systems and missile defense or antiadminister craft systems and another area with -- antiaircraft systems and one aspect is a lot of countries don't have a ton of material to send to ukraine. especially eastern european countries that have to worry about keeping their border secure. while the countries are trying to send stuff and a significant amount for themselves, it's not enough to turn the needle. there's a lot of pressure on u.s., uk, france and germany is the big four that the ukrainians are pushing more to do more and send more. >> how much is our armament aid,

the vehicles and the weapons we're sending, a drain on our armory as it were? >> it's becoming a concern? it's not something where the u.s. will run out of equipment any time soon, but the u.s. has been very cognizant about not sending everything right away because we need reserves. the u.s. is operating around the world right now and at any given point, 24 hours a day, there's a military something happening around the world. i can't afford to accepted all of our -- send all of our equipment to ukraine. there's plenty of older excess equipment and people saying we have old tanks lying in a desert somewhere. couldn't we get them together and ship them on a ship and send them over? i think you'll see more and more pressure on that. the longer the ukrainian conflict has gone on and outlasted the russians and more willing partners and sending stuff. i don't expect that to stop any time con.

>> calls (202)748-8000 for democrats, (202)748-8001 for republicans and (202)748-8002 for independents. >> i would take the good defense is a good offense and i would take that to mean the american public should be behind a thing or confident that the plan is a sound one. when i hear all of this disparaging of whether or not it's worth saving the lives of the ukrainians, i wonder whether or not these people who were december pagerring ukraine -- disparaging ukraine have any loyalty to the country. are they actually trying to set up the budget so that we're going to buy a bunch of worthless stuff rather than have a sound, you know, a sound

arsenal? i was wondering, i guess the quicker way to ask it is the social contract is when we the people know we're getting our money's worth from our taxes. can your guest describe any of these republicans that have any loyalty to the social contract? ... at the same time, and this is the reality of washington country, the next two years will

be about 2024 and how presidential contenders can differentiate themselves from joe biden will be a big one will see policies shifting to support those. one way is a question of should we continue to give aid, can we continue to give these large amounts of aid or pushback? >> because of the policy bill as you mentioned, other notable policy changes were new things we should be aware of? >> there's some stuff, there's nothing wildly out of what's happening, out of the norm, generally a bill that continues what we seen. where i think you will see going fo forward, continue to support aid over questions of things like --

mrs. blackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. for the past two years the covid pandemic dominated every news cycle, and if the mainstream media is to be believed, it was the leading topic of conversation at every dinner table, whether it was washington or nashville or san francisco. and as the months wore on, it became glaringly obvious that while the pandemic was a concern, people were less worried about the virus itself and more worried about how the

democrats were using it to justify one power grab after another, even in the face of catastrophic inflation, the employment crisis, the failure of public education, and the slow creep of lethal opioids into rural communities, the democrats chose power over progress every single time. and in doing so, abandoned their duty to the american people. and now, as this year draws to a close, my democratic colleagues have declared that now it's time for everybody to just move on, move on from the pandemic. when dr. fauci appeared for a final press conference before his conveniently time to retirement, the white house made sure he wouldn't have to answer any questions on the

origins of covid-19. the talking heads in the mainstream media have spun the harm done to students by virtual schooling as a tragedy rather than the completely predictable effects of forced isolation on our precious children. and the white house remains determined to blame inflation and shortages in the energy market on vladimir putin. they want us to ignore their own self proclaimed war on american energy independence. i suppose they think that if they just erase the mess that they've made from the daily talking points, the american people will just forget about it and move on. i hate to spoil their ending, but the american people are not

ready for that. they want some answers. they will never ever forget the damage that these policies have done to their families and to their communities. and now the left tried their best to frame the debates over lockdowns and mask mandates and vaccine mandates as conspiracy fodder, but we all found out, no, it was not. it was personal, especially after it became clear that control was the democrats' end game. yes, control over you, over your life, over your children, over their education, over student loans. control is what they want. now the science changed, but the narrative never did. and tennesseans have noticed this. they've caught on to this.

the ongoing fight over the military's vaccine mandate is particularly raw for tennesseans because it's proof that the democrats are willing to jeopardize our national security to score points against political rivals. this desire for power and control is in direct opposition to the federal government's sworn mission to provide for the defense of our nation. this isn't a matter of opinion. it's a fact confirmed by president biden's chosen military commanders. this year the number of new servicemembers joining the ranks has hit an all-time low. so did academy applications for our nation's prestigious military academies.

the army fell 15,000 soldiers short of their recruitment goal for 2022. the other services and the national guard also struggling. the pentagon doesn't expect the situation to improve even for the next few years. the army predicts they'll be down 21,000 troops in 2023. and the national guard says they're going to lose 14,000 soldiers by the end of 2024. the strongest, fastest, and most lethal fighting force on the planet is moving backward. meanwhile, the new axis of evil, they are marching forward. we know for a fact that tehran is sending drones and military equipment to moscow to support putin's war in ukraine.

north korea is conducting ballistic missile tests that threaten south korean sovereignty. and the chinese communist party is doing the exact opposite of what the pentagon is doing. they're focusing on readiness and building up their military. in june they christened first ever aircraft carrier to be completely designed and developed in china. their goal is to increase their fleet by 40% by the end of 2040 and quadruple their nuclear stockpile by the end of the decade. this is all consistent with beijing's broader goal of becoming a military super power. they are focused on global domination. they are focused on readiness. they are focused on defeating

us. meanwhile, our pentagon is focused on a vaccine mandate. the strong men in control of russia, china, iran, and north korea, that axis of evil, are notorious for their aggression, and none of them have bothered to keep their hatred of the united states of america a secret. the wolves are at the door, mr. president, and yet here we are debating a military vaccine mandate that has zero, zero basis in science or common sense. it will gut the ranks of the military and make us more vulnerable to the rising threat from the new axis of evil. this isn't just my opinion. it is another fact confirmed by

the people president biden trusts to lead our nation's military. the army confirmed in a november 4 press release that the vaccine mandate has already separated 1,796 active duty soldiers from their service. bear in mind they raised their hand, they took an oath, they did this because they want to serve, protect, defend. and what has happened? what has happened to that service, to that loyalty? look at what has happened. they're getting a slap across the face. as i said, 1,796 were shown the door because they would not take a covid shot.

they wouldn't take a shot. for the soldiers who remained, the army has approved less than 4% of medical exemptions and just over 1% of religious exemptions. the guard has only approved 15% of the medical exemptions and -- get this -- 0.0047% of religious exemptions. and the reserves, they've approved little more than 5% of their medical exemptions, and 0.0044% of religious exemptions. leader schumer left washington for the thanksgiving holiday without acknowledging this manpower crisis in our military and without offering a clear answer on when we will take up

the fiscal year 2023 national defense authorization act. now that we're back in session, i would hope that he has a plan to stop dangling this bill over the heads of our servicemembers and their families. but while we're waiting, i'd like to offer a small improvement to what is already a very strong and bipartisan piece of legislation. mr. president, as you new -- know, senate armed services committee finished their work on this bill back in june. when we were debating the ndaa in the armed services committee, i introduced two amendments that would have protected servicemembers from the arbitrary effects of the vaccine mandate. the first would prohibit the involuntary separation of any servicemember for refusing the

covid-19 shot until each service achieves its authorized end strength. good common sense. not saying you can't implement your mandate. just saying you can't do it until you have reached your goal, your recruitment and your retention goals. the second amendment would make sure that members of the national guard or reserve maintain access to both pay and benefits while their request for a medical or religious accommodation is pending. my democratic colleagues on the armed services committee killed these amendments, but i do hope they'll change their mind and support them now that they have had the opportunity to hear from folks back home, to hear from our military, our guard, our reserves. i hope they'll give this another look. but if they don't, they'll have

another opportunity to fix this mistake. i have combined the amendments into a single bill called the preserving the readiness of our armed forces act, and i'd be happy to add each and every one of them as a cosponsor, as we begin what i'm sure will be a mad dash to the end of the year, i want to encourage my democratic colleagues to keep preserving readiness at the front of their mind. when the pentagon first revealed this vaccine mandate, veterans, military experts, and active duty servicemembers up and down the ranks told us exactly what would happen if the biden administration went through with this. and you know what? they were accurate in their assessment. because of the democratic actions, this white house's

actions, they have fired thousands of service members and tens of,000s more -- thousands more are in jeopardy. bear in mind, these are people who have chosen to serve. this chaos has prompted many soldiers, sailors and marines to decide against entering the service and who knows how many will choose not to enter the national guard. the biden administration is digging in their heels at the worst possible time. the new axis of evil, they are on the rise, and they're counting on the rest of the world to remain complacent. over the past few years each of these nations have been exposed on the international stage as factories of repression,

violence and misery, but in the aftermath, nothing changed. just last week the ccp reminded us how little value they place on human life. ten people in shi xinjiang burned to death when their building caught fire. the firefighters couldn't get there in time because of the ccp walls. protesters took to the streets. in response the ccp brutalized journalists, and claimed that the residents who died were too weak to save themselves. i would remind my colleagues that these are the same officials who claim that the uighur muslims are comfortable in their concentration camps,

that the tibetans welcomed ethnic cleansing. exposure will not symptom them. outrage will not give them pause because they are on a quest for global domination. they're not going to take a time-out because the democrats in control of our government decided to prioritize a shot over our nation's security. let that sink in. they are going full steam ahead. they're increasing their military ranks, they're building their navy, they are working to develop new missiles, and we're focused on removing military members because they will not take a shot. and, by the way, you can get

vaccinated and boosted and it doesn't keep you from getting covid. unfortunately our adversaries have decided to take advantage of weak leaders in the house and in congress and to exploit our vulnerabilities until we force them to stop. our military is not the only tool we use to keep this country safe, but it certainly has the power to be the most decisive, and i cannot think of anything more foolish than to sabotage it while the enemy watches and says, look at america's priorities. i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

that's specific charge handled by the. >> something that's been referred to them, we seen, i think it's safe to call them atrocities based on recording from ukraine's government and other government as well. massacres of forced migration a lot of reports recently how russian taking ukrainian kids claiming they are sending them, kidnapping them.

a safe assumption and one inside washington is held true that there have been were crimes committed but the reality is working happen, it's a big question. you can charge for war crimes but unless you get him to the court which seems unlikely, there's not much to do about it. >> what hear from stefan on the independent line. go ahead. >> some real reporters talked to ukraine people and they said they don't care which government bonds them. it's politics, corrupt ukraine and russia playing politics, they don't care. the same government and style, russia can't be your bogeyman forever. i remember little kids, russia was the bogeyman but a couple of years ago ukraine was corrupt so

which one is it? >> i think it's both. billions of billions of tax dollars, billions, please stop. thank you and have a good day. >> i think there is an aspect something want to talk about, ukraine is not perfect, it's a country that had corruption with questions about law and politics in the past and it's a factor. going forward there will be an issue that comes up, it happens to a wartime government and how they react and if they crackdown on freedom of speech and things like that, something that is a concern that needs to be looked at. at the same time russia invaded ukraine, no question about that. while russia they claim it did it because they were russians in ukraine threatened or they were a false flag, russia can make

the claims, they have been disproven and ultimately one country wins the other and both can be true. ukraine can be imperfect and flawed as a country, leaders can be flawed and make mistakes. also in this case, clearly a country that's been the victim of an assault by a larger company. >> we thankfully do not have been actively involved in ukraine but other places in the world with u.s. troops, marines and u.s. armies and etc. engaged in conflicts assistant countries involved in conflict? >> just brought the? >> yes. >> certainly u.s. is everywhere, africa and special operation forces there and counterterrorism, iraq and middle east probably we have forces in saudi arabia under drone attack in the last year

end syria we have forces that have come under attack recently so u.s. forces are engaged around the world in essentially combat operations in some places and others simply like japan, a huge force there, a regional posture is not seen thankfully any conflict region in many years. >> what hear from new york, lee is on the republican line. >> hello. i was concerned about the taking of crimea during the obama administration, hillary clinton did reset button with putin on an open mic. president obama -- obama said during my second term i'll have more flexibility. then russians over crimea and we

gave them two people who are conquered and when president trump came in the russians did not invade ukraine at all for four years and biden came in and we have the invasion. thank you. >> did you think it was always russia intent going back? >> if it wasn't there full intention, it's at least something they were considering. the one thing about vladimir putin's strategic genius or opportunist? does he have a long-term plan where crimea was the first to develop or did he say ukraine looks like we could take right now, we could take leadership out and get it done, let's do it if given what we've seen from

russia in terms of this, there's a great consensus. he saw it -- schumer: i move to d to executive calendar to consider calendar number 1148. the presiding officer: the question is on the motions. all those in favor indicate by saying aye. posed, no. the motions it agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, jerry w. blackwell, of minnesota, to be united states district judge for the district of minnesota. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive number 1148, jerry w. blackwell, of minnesota, to be united states

district judge for the district of minnesota, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: schumer i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motions. those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the motions is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to executive session to consider calendar number number 1129. the presiding officer: all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have, the ayes do have it. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, doris l. pryor, of indiana, to be united states circuit judge for the seventh circuit. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive number

1129, doris l. pryor, of indiana, to be united states district judge for the seventh circuit. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, november 28, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the

baldwin substitute amendment numbered 6487 to calendar number 449, h.r. 8404, an act to repeal the defense of marriage act and so forth and for other purposes signed by 20 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 6487 offered by the senator from new york, mr. schumer, to h.r. 8404, an act to repeal the defense of marriage act and ensure respect for state regulation of marriage and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: