florida families fighting hard to recover from the hurricanes. they're being use as pawns in exchange for approval of the massive and reckless spending bill. immediately after the storm passed, i made clear that i would fight for and support a stand-alone funding panel to get floridians the assistance they need to recover. i wrote to senators leahy and shelby, the top appropriators, urging them to work with me on getting aid to florida families as quickly as possible in a stand-alone supplemental disaster bill. my letter was written on september 30, just two days after ian made its land fall. the aid floridians needed was turned into a hostage taking by senate leadership so it could be stuffed in this massive omnibus bill. to tell folks in the sunshine state that this aid only comes as part of the 4,000-plus page

omnibus spending bill is sickening and i am not going to stand for for it. the government has a role to play in our society and core responsibilities. we all pay taxes so the government has the resources to keep its promises to us and provide core services like national defense, social security and medicare. if this spending bill helped balance a budget and only contained the things that the federal government should be responsible for, i'd gladly vote for it without hesitation. but that's not what we're facing here. what i ran for the senate, i promised to make washington work for florida families a -- families. that's how we governed when i was govern of florida. because we governed responsiblably, the economy grew. we could cut taxes and pay off state debt while also making record investments in education, environment, and public safety.

washington can work this way, too, but not while politicians refuse to be accountable with your money. the truth is that more than 4,000 pages, the pelosi-schumer spend something bill has a lot of policies and funding priorities i actually fought for. it has more funding to preserve and protect florida's everglades, funding to protect the military and disaster aid for the families devastated by hurricanes ian and nicole. i will never support the other parts of the bill that continue gross, rebel spending. -- reckless spending. $2.3 million so the department of education can reach out to student loan beyers. more than 7,500 member projects or earmarks, funding for biden to continue super-sizing the irs with 87,000 new agents, and continuation policies that force every family to give the irs visibility into their personal

finances. we just found out this bill prohibits border patrol from using its funding to do its job and secure the border. the bill says, quoting, none of the funds provided in subsection 1-a shall be used to acquire, maintain or extend border security technology and capabilities except for technology and capabilities to improve border patrol processing, end quote. so nothing to stop illegal crossings. we are just going to focus on processing people who already broke the law by illegally crossing the border. and while we're throwing a muzzle on our own border patrol, we're giving money to countries like egypt to security their borders. that makes no sense. we can do both. florida families deserve better than to be forced to accept these radical policies and more reckless spending in exchange for disaster relief. it's insane that i even need to come to the senate floor to say that, but i'm sick and tired of seek dysfunction create hard times for fowlkes in the sunshine state. i'm here to get things done for

families in my state that are hurting and ask that the senate take up and pass the disaster aid and continue the omnibus as a separate measure. this is the exact same language as what was written in the omnibus bill that my democrat colleagues seek to pass. i did not limit this just to florida. the aid i was asking the senate to pass benefits other states that have been impacted by disasters like tornadoes and wildfire, too. more may be needed but getting this done is a a good first step and something that should never have been jammed into a massive spending bill. we can pass it on its own to get relief on to families. i'd hoped my colleagues would see the common sense in this simple request. instead, democrats blocked this from passing tonight. madam president, america's national debt is $31 trillion and growing. when are we going to be so fed up that we decide this isn't sustainable? when we get to $35 trillion, $40 trillion, or 45 trillion?

debt. too many politicians washington are too happy to close their eyes and pass another reckless multitrillion-dollar spending bill we can't afford. i will not calve to more spend -- i will not cave to more spending and let the people of my state be treated as pawns. to do so would be a betrayal of my promise to floridians that i will fight against washington's corrupt dysfunction. we all get hired by voters in our states to represent them in the senate. how is adopt ago massive 4,000-page-plus bill without reading it or debating its contents doing the job we got elected to do? think about it this way -- if you hired someone to negotiate a big, expensive contract for you and they told you to sign it without reading any of it, would you hire them again? no, nobody would hire somebody like that. that's exactly what's happening here. we're still -- we'll still -- we're still being used to approve this massive bill just

days before a new majority takes over in the house. it is a betrayal of our house colleagues and the conservative voters in florida and across the nation who elected them. it is insane that my colleagues insist on holding this aid hostage in a massive omnibus instead of standing with families hurting from the hurricanes and getting them relief today. with inflation up nearly 14% since biden took office, labor participation at historic lows, federal debt skyrocketing and recession on the rise, there's never been a more important time to stand up and demand fiscal san city in congress. that's why i think it makes a lot of sense that house republicans have made clear they do not support passing the pelosi-schumer spending bill. passing the omnibus right now ties the hands of the new republican majority and extends the hands of nancy pelosi and house democrats. shockingly, some in the senate have tried to argue that we

should ignore the wishes of house republicans. they argue that expecting a new slim house republican majority to keep the government funded is just too much to s i think that's nonsense. the way i see it, the decision before senate republicans is as simple and straightforward as it gets. we can either stand with republicans or once again cave to the democrats. we can either make sure it is house republicans, not pelosi, that get a say in how congress spends taxpayer dollars next year or we can hand the recently fired speaker a massive retirement gift on her way out the door. i'll tell you this. florida families know that the process we have up here is not working. inflation is raging. debt is out of control, and congress routinely passes massive, thousand-page spending bills without giving anyone time to read them, that even the press doesn't bother to scrutinize this broken system anymore. this might be business as usual in washington. hardworking americans find it disunfortunate going. congressional republicans should be taking every opportunity to stop the reckless, big

government policies that joe biden, nancy pelosi and senate democrats have jammed down the throats of the american public. i promised florida families that i won't do that and i won't back down on my word. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i first wanted to thank senator portman for his incredible work on ukraine. he has given dozens and dozens of talks on this floor, but what's equally important is all the work he's done behind the scenes, working across the aisle, making sure the funding is there for the weapons, meeting directly with president zelenskyy, and i just want to thank him for his incredible leadership. and we will continue his work, and i have a feeling he will be

calling us from ohio or wherever he is to make sure we're doing it right. so i thank you for that. we are here today to speak about democracy, and of course that's on the line in ukraine. president zelenskyy reminds us about it every day when he says the same words we are here. that's what he said the day of the russian invasion. he went to the street corner and said, we are here. well, that's what we are here to say today is that there are people that are carrying the torch for democracy in our own country. i am glad to be joined with my colleagues today, senator whitehouse, who has been such a leader when it comes to the disclose act and that part of our democracy as well as voting to make sure our democracy and make the case our democracy does not work if we do not have campaign finance and things that

are transparent and know where that money is coming from because it drowns out the voices of everyday people. senator king is with us today on the floor, who is a member of the rules committee, introduced with senator durbin and myself the original reform to the electoral count act and has been a true leader when it comes to voting reform. the presiding officer herself will be addressing this from the great state of new hampshire, where they understand a little bit about a democracy and freedom and that means, and then senator merkley, the original sponsor of the for the people act, which really set the table for the discussions we've been having on voting rights and the close vote we had when it came to finally passing a the freedom to vote act, which was built on the work that senator merkley and many others did on the for the people bill.

madam president, nearly two years ago a violent mob of insurrectionists stormed into this chamber, right here. we're looking at the desks that they were opening up. we're looking at the presiding dais, which they invaded. they desecrated our capital, they interrupted the hallmark of our democracy, the peaceful transfer of power. just this last week, we gave the capitol police, the d.c. metro police, the police that protected us, the congressional medal of honor. so many brave officers were there for us, and democracy prevailed that day. but what we have learned is that what the insurrectionists didn't finish with bear spray and flag poles in the united states capitol, others have tried to do with voter suppression laws, nonsense lawsuits, threats of violence. they have literally attempted to shut down the rule of law, to

shudder, shudder our voting laws, and to -- they literally have mocked and made fun of political acts of violence. simply put, we know that federal action was and is needed. that's why we introduced the freedom to vote act to protect every american's right to vote in the way that works best for them. through a summer of intense for example goes, we got all -- summer of intense negotiations, we got all 509 senators on -- all 50 senators on board. still, we are making progress in other places. a number of state laws have been -- voter suppression laws have been thrown out by courts, including by conservative judges. a number of state legislatures have taken action to protect the right to vote. and then finally, as part of

this omnibus bill before us, we are on the verge of getting the bipartisan electoral count reform act signed into law. we thank senator manchin and senator collins for their leadership as well as so many other senators that were part of that effort. i thank the members of the rules committee. we were able to get the bill with some changes that senator blunt and i worked on together that were supported on a bipartisan basis through the rules committee on a 14-1 vote. this year it became clear that our democracy itself is on the ballot. the american people could be moved to act and opponents of democracy, as we know, tried to put election deniers on the ballot. but whether it was democrats, moderate republicans, independents, they rallied around people who would stand up for our democracy. in many states across the country when it came to election day, the highest vote getters were not the most famous

politicians. they were the secretary of states who in many cases were not household names but were running against people who were election deniers, and they ended up, including in my own state, having the highest vote percentages, highest vote totals of anyone this the state. -- in the state. so what about the electoral count act? this is an antiquated law passed in the 1800's, which was never meant to be a trigger point for an insurrection. what we have done with this bill that i believe we will pass this week, we've made it absolutely career that the vice president does not have the power to reject electoral votes. we all remember the horrific words hang mike pence uttered just a few yards away from the vice president in this very building. we need to also raise the threshold for objecting to electoral votes so that it takes more than two out of 535 elected

members to gum up the counting. even before the insurrection when senator blubt looked at the cases made by one, two throorks, three, senators, it would take 24 hours to get through them. there is nothing stopping under this antiquated law a single senate or house member to objecting to every state, including the states perhaps their candidate had won, just to gum up the works. that is why we have pushed for the electoral count act. moving forward, we must address the root causes, not only of these antiquated laws, not only of voter suppression, but also disinformation and misinformation that allows lies and undermines our elections to go viral and violent. on january 6, we saw the cost up close. that is why we have to address the impact of disinformation online, on our democracy.

we can start by looking at the liability protections that we have put in place, back when, yes, internet companies were starting in garages, back at the beginning. we have a legal provision, section 230, that protects social media companies from liability for the posting and spreading of dangerous content on their platforms. we know people are going to post things that are hateful, that aren't true. but the question is, when companies' algorithms are designed to make money off of repeating those lies and expanding them and despite some efforts to reduce them it keeps coming and coming and coming, i don't know why we would put in liability protections for that. if someone were to yell fire in a crowded theater, that person would be liable. that is not protected speech. but if the theater are in rules that protected its patrons, they wouldn't be held liable for

that. but what if the theater was a multiplex and decided they would broadcast the words of the person yelling fire in all of its theaters? would we think that was okay? well, that is exactly what is going on with disinformation and hate speech on the internet right now. companies are allowed to repeat hateful disinformation, and they actually can profit from it. and that's why many of us believe it is time to look at section 230 and the immunity that this congress has given them. in addition, americans should know who is behind the political ads they see online. we need to put in place the same rules for social media platforms that currently apply to political ads sold on tv, radio, and in print. that is a bill i had with senator mccain and now with senator graham. it is time to bring that bill up for a vote. even though the fec made some

changes, they're not nearly what we need to have in place to allow americans to have the information they need. finally, we have to talk about protecting people's right to vote. in the 2020 election, in the middle of a global pandemic, more than 160 million americans voted, more than ever before in what the then trump department of homeland security called the most security election in american history. a big reason turnout was so high in 2020 was that states went out of their way to make it easier for people to vote because of the pandemic. in the wake of that record voting, we saw a coordinated effort by state legislatures to make it harder to vote. in 2021, 18 states passed 34 restrictive voting laws, but the people of this country pushed back. look what happened in georgia. there were concerted efforts to limit voting during the runoff and make voting by mail more confusing. still, georgians found a way to

make their voices heard. some look at the result and decide this was a threat, overplayed. to paraphrase my friend senator warnock this outcome doesn't mean voter suppression does not exist. it simply means the people have decided their votes will not be silenced. that is what we're dealing with, and we should be making an effort to make it easier to vote and the best way to do that is to set some minimal federal standards for voting. last thing is to thank senator blunt, who has been my cochair of the rules committee. he's been ranking, i've been chair. i've been chair, he's been ranking. we've worked together, especially on the issue of protecting election workers and making sure that federal funding was allowed to go for that purpose. it was senator blunt and i that were the last senators here at 4:00 in the morning on the night of january 6, with vice

president pence. we made that walk through the broken glass by the spray painted pillars with the three pairs of pages holding the mahogany boxes with the last of the ballots up through wyoming. we got to the house chamber and democracy prevailed. after that, senator blunt and i went downstairs, the sun was coming out, and visited the parliamentarians' office. i look at our valiant staff right now sitting there, what i remember is the chaos and destruction in their own office, which had been targeted by the insurrectionists. i remember the broken picture on the floor. i remember all the papers all over the place. that's what we saw that day, and that was forever, ever marked in my memory of how close we were that this antiquated law was being used as a reason for these insurrectionists to come in to our very offices. senator blunt and i walked out of the pawrmts' office that --

parliamentarians' office that day, sun coming in, he looked at me said, well, i'll see you tomorrow, then, we've got a lot of work to do. i'm proud of the work we've done since then. one of most important is to reform this law. i thank my colleagues that understand that is just the beginning and not the end. with that, i will turn it over to senator whitehouse. thank you, senator whitehouse, for your incredible leadership on campaign finance. mr. whitehouse: ma'am president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: first let me thank senator klobuchar for organizing us to the floor this evening and her leadership to support our elections. we got lucky this year. there's good news. democracy prevailed against the big lie, and most of the state election deniers lost their races. so, that's a good-news story. unfortunately, we have a lot of work left to do to safeguard our

democracy from the twin threats of dark money, which is a seeping poison, a toxin in our political system, and a runaway supreme court that dark money built. dark money political spending went from under $5 million in 2006, when senator klobuchar and i were elected to the senate, to a billion dollars in 2020. a billion dollars in 2020. and outside group spending from billionaires and special interests has climbed to $2.1 billion in the midterms. and most of that outside spending is anonymous, it's dark money. this torrent of dark money

looses a tide of secret influence, improper, ungovernable, corrupting secret influence, and americans despise it. they understand what's going on. more than 90% of americans support ending dark money through greater transparency for political spending. because when some big special interest is spending $2 billion you know the american people aren't winning. my disclose act would have stopped it. unfortunately, not one republican would vote for it. so we have work to do to build public pressure to make sure that the disclose act becomes an irresistible force. when $2 billion comes into one election from big special interest, you can bet on one thing, and that is that the people will not be heard. now, over at the court $580 until at least has been spent to

acquire a supreme court eager to hand major wins to big republican donors and the party. the campaign legal center has described this as perhaps the most anti-democratic court ever. and if you hook at their record -- if you look at their record you can see why they say that. all the voter suppression, all the partisan gerrymandering, and now in a case before them, called moore have harper, -- moore v. harper, potentially taking on an extreme theory, debunked theory, the independent state legislator theory, which unleashed and lets partisan state legislators ignore their state constitutions regarding elections. well, i filed an amicus brief with representative hank johnson highlighting the individuals and funders behind amicus briefs in that case who pushed that fringe

legal theory in their efforts to jordan turn the 2020 president -- to overturn the 2020 president election but didn't disclose that to the court. there was a group, the honest elections project, which didn't disclose to the court its elections to groups that spent tens of millions of dollars to put those justices on the supreme court. that's a conflict of interest, it's potentially due process violation, and at a minimum it ought to have been disclosed. the court that dark money built is increasingly a danger to democracy itself. dark money is dangerous because it's a tale as old as time that secrecy breeds corruption. and in a great democracy like ours, where the people are supposed to rule, where citizens are supposed to make the decisions, to deny the people,

to deny the citizens the basic information about who's behind what organization, to hide who's behind what jersey on the playing field, is a grave disofficer to democracy. dark money influence on our politics and dark money influence at the court have got to be put to an end. with that, i will yield to the distinguished senator from maine, senator king. mr. king: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: madam president, democracy, our system, is an anomaly in world history. the norm are pharoahs, kings, dictators, emperors, presidents for life. that's the norm. the vast sweep of human history is all about authoritarians running their society.

the idea that the people can actually participate in the building and operating and electing -- electing and creating their government is an unusual one. it's an anomaly in world history. that should tell us something, because that means it's fragile, and we have seen how fragile it can be. on january 6 our entire democracy came down to the integrity and courage of one man, mike pence. if vice president pence had succumb to the pressure, number pressure that he was under, to try to throw out certain electoral votes and choose and count others, we would have been in literally uncharted constitutional territory. there is no telling how that chaotic situation would have been resolved. our system is unusual and it's

fragile. likewise, the secretary of state of georgia, a republican, a strong republican who voted for president trump, what if he hadn't done the right thing? what if he had responded to president trump on that infamous phone call saying, i'll see what i can do to jigger the numbers and find those 11,770 votes? where would we be? the point is we should not put ourselves in situations that depend expressly upon the luck and good fortune of having the right people in the right place at the right time. our institutions, our institutions should be solid and viable and work regardless of who is at the levers of power. the electoral college and the

electoral count act is a time bomb under the edifice of democracy. i rarely disagree with alexander hamilton, but if you read the 68th federalist, where he justifies the electoral college, he just gets it wrong. actually, he doesn't so much get it wrong. history proved him wrong because the electoral college never worked in the way he described it. we have to realize the framers were a little suspicious of democracy. the only institution in our government, in 1787, that was popularly elected was the house of representatives. senators were elected by state legislatures until the 20th century. presidents were elected by the electoral college and of course supreme court and court judges were appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate. only popular election for the house of representatives.

now, hamilton's concept for the electoral college was that it would be a sort of council of elders. when you read the 68th federalist, he doesn't even think about the electors being pledged to a particular candidate. he basically says the people of each state will elect wise people to come together to select the best qualified person for president. he used an amazing phrase in light of what happened on january 6. he said the system we've proposed is not perfect. it's at least excellent. but then he goes on to say, it was also particularly drierable -- desirable afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. well, that's the definition of what happened here on january 6. it was tumult, created by an

edifice that never worked. i think we should abolish the electoral college. the people of the united states should elect their president and the votes of each citizen of each state should count equally. instead of getting into this game situation where you go to particular state, ignore other states. some states you know where the votes are going to go. i think the people of america should choose their president. that's what we all think we're doing on election day. yet as we learned on january 6, we created this structure which never worked as hamilton and as the framers envisioned it that has turned into a kind of russian roulette with our democracy. so in the 1876 election, it almost broke down. it was so close, nobody could decide who won. they ended up with a commission to decide the election which turned out to be a dark chapter in american history. because that commission ended up

resolving the presidency between haze and tilden on essentially a corrupt deal. hayes could become president if he agreed to end slavery in the south. that ended up with 70, 08 years of jim crow. not a happy experience in our history. after that experience, the electoral count act was passed well intentioned to try to solve some of the problems that were manifested in the hayes-tilden election of 1876 but the problem is it's a terribly drafted law. scholars, politicians, lawyers all concede it was confusing, ambiguous, and again led to the problems of january 6. i should also mention that presidents who won the popular

vote almost universally in our system also won the electoral college. recently that hasn't been the case. twice in this short century we've had presidents elected by the electoral college who lost the popular vote by millions of votes. so is that reflection of what we all think our democracy is all about? i don't think so. the bill that we have before us now is, i believe, one of the most important pieces of legislation in this congress. because it deals with the structure of democracy itself. all of our policy issues, whether it's the defense department, ukraine, all of the policy issues, health care, all of those things are critically important, but the infrastructure that underlies the system is even more important. we can't do good policy if we don't have a solid underpinning of a structure of our democracy.

and that's why the bill that is now part of the budget bill, the omnibus bill, is so important. the bill is bipartisan. i think that's critically important. i sat in the rules committee. it passed 14-1. supported by leader mcconnell, supported by leader schumer. 14-1. i rarely see votes like that in that committee. but because there was universal realization that we needed to do something about this, we had a hearing on it and i remember senator blunt speaking at the end of that hearing and saying this is something we need to take care of before the end of this congress. and that was a very important announcement and it led us to this moment. we had hearings. we brought in experts from across the country, election experts, legal experts. we made changes to the bill.

the bill came to us as a result of bipartisan negotiation led by my colleague senator collins from maine and senator manchin of west virginia. and a group of senators who came together organically to create this bipartisan piece of legislation. what does it do? it's really pretty straightforward. clarifies the role of the vice president of the role of the vice president is what we call ministerial. that is, just simple. count the vote. pick them out. not policy. we clarify now, forever, and always that the vice president does not have a substantive role in deciding which votes should count. it raises the objection threshold from one to 20%. right now under the electoral count act, one senator and one representative can object to the votes of any state, and then we have to go through a process in either house which can go on for a lengthy period of time.

but it's only one person. what we do in this bill, it has to be 20% of the house, 20% of the senate. that way you're sure that the oaks have some substance, some merit, and aren't just the fantasy of one or two people. so that's one of the pieces of this bill. it raises the objection threshold. it ensures a single, accurate slate of electors. to be clear of what the rules are in each state. it expedites judicial review, and that's important because right now it's unclear how disputes are resolved. what if a governor, for example, refuses to certify an election in their state in this gives -- this law gives a path to the judiciary expedited consideration, expedited consideration to the supreme court to decide these disputes so that we don't have a lengthy period of uncertainty in how our democracy is supposed to work. it also prevents mischief like

moving and canceling an election for anything but the most extreme problems. i think this is the most important bill that this congress will consider. there's a lot more to be done. it doesn't solve every problem involving our election as our other speakers have noted. there's a lot to be done about the casting and counting of votes. there's a lot to be done about campaign finance. but this is an important building block that this -- that we need to attend to. i want to end by thanking senator manchin, senator collins who formed the group that brought the bill forward, to thank my colleagues amy klobuchar and dick durbin who i work with early on to develop a first draft of this legislation. i want to thank senator klobuchar and senator blunt for their leadership on the rules committee and senator schumer and senator mcconnell for working together to form a bipartisan consensus that this is an important piece of

protecting the fundamental structure of our democracy. mr. president, as i said, what we have in this country is unusual. it's an anomaly in world history. it's fragile. and we have to at all times be vigilant and diligent in protecting it and maintaining it, in filling in those cracks in the union to make it more perfect. ronald reagan made a wonderful observation about the every four years inauguration of a president. he said, it is a commonplace occurrence and it's a profound occurrence. it's profound because it's commonplace. the peaceful transfer of power is what distinguishes our system from almost all others in the world. we have to be sure that that

continues to be the north star of our democracy. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: mr. president, i am grateful today to join my colleagues as we continue to sound the alarm about the ongoing serious threat to our democracy. this is a perilous time. and i want to thank senator klobuchar for her leadership on this issue and all of the rest of my colleagues who have been so eloquent tonight and i know will be eloquent tonight who are hear today to highlight the challenges to democracy that we are currently facing. and the opportunities that we have to protect it. mr. president, i am honored to represent new hampshire, a state that does democracy better than anywhere else.

i want to start by talking about one of my favorite new hampshire moments, events. shortly after i was first elected governor in 2012, i attended our statewide veterans day ceremony at the new hampshire veterans cemetery, a remarkable, serene, beautiful space in the heart of new hampshire. ive had attended that ceremony in the past, but on this particular veterans day, i had just days before and for the first time been elected to statewide office to lead and protect my state. my predecessor was also at the ceremony as were current and soon to be members of congress, members of the current state legislature, and those who had just been elected. new hampshire had seen a pretty dramatic change at both the state and federal level. two democratic congress women had won election replacing republicans. the state house of representatives had flipped from

republican to democratic control in pretty dramatic fashion. but despite these changes, state and federal elected leaders, veterans and their families, and citizens from all walks of life who wanted to ensure that our veterans knew how much they, the veterans, mattered were all there. there to celebrate the people, the citizen soldiers who had stepped up in every generation since our country's founding to keep us safe and preserve our democracy so that the best of us could live in freedom. i've always loved this confluence of election day and veterans day. on an early tuesday in move, americans flood to the polls and cast their votes expressing their hopes for the state and country that they envision and want to be a part of it. confident that they have a voice as stakeholders in our democracy. and then just days later they

joined their friends, neighbors, political allies, and opponents to honor our veterans and the principles that they sacrificed and fought for, the mownizational idea -- foundational idea that every person in our democracy matters and has the opportunity to be included in our civic life. just days after a pitched political battle, as my dad would have said, a war of words, we were together standing united to support those who serve and have served and in doing so to support the remarkable idea that is the united states of america. this unifying moment year after year, election cycle after election cycle, didn't happen by accident. it happened because americans have understood since our founding that the cornerstone of our democracy starts with free, fair, and impartially administered elections.

now, throughout our history, we have failed and then struggled to include and treat equally all americans. but as we have made progress to acknowledge the full citizenship of all of our people, we have committed to expanding voting access and to protecting an impartial electoral system that ensures the full and fair counting of all votes cast. and the acceptance of the outcome of these elections so that our country could continue to function, grow, become more inclusive and thrive has been essential, not just for the sake of stability but for the sake of a democracy in which the government is truly responsive, truly of, by, and for the people. a government so responsive that a constituent, a 9-year-old little girl named jada can approach her senator to talk to her about the sadness in her

family after a beloved cousin died of an opioid overdose and expect her senator to take her seriously and work to expand access to prevention and treatment services for those with substance use disorder. a government so accessible that a constituent named cy can approach his senator at a business in town and thank her for passing her the burial equity act which allows those who serve in the national guard or reserve but aren't deployed to be buried in their state's veterans cemeteries. cy, likes so many of his fellow reservists, volunteered and was ready to answer the call to sacrifice for his country but was never called up to do so. artificial bureaucratic barriers prevented his service from being recognized in the same way that other military service is. but thank to the advocacy of guard reservists, that's now change add. cy's service is being recognized, and he's being

included, as he should be, in the remarkable legion of citizen soldiers who have kept this country free and who can now be buried in a sacred place of honor. jada's voice counts. so does cy's. their experiences, their lives matter, and in a true democracy, so do their opinions and their votes. but the question for americans today is this -- for how much longer will the voices of everyday americans úasn state after state, including in new hampshire, democracy was on the ballot. there were in fact candidates who questioned the sacred right to free and fair elections. individuals who expressed their willingness to overturn the 2020 election and their willingness to try to reject or overturn election outcomes in the future

if their preferred didn't win. i want people to think for a moment about what this means. these candidates were open in their willingness to reject the votes of their fellow citizens, leading to a system in which those in power are unaccountable and, therefore, unresponsive to the people they claim to represent. in race after race, anti-democracy candidates proposed extreme, unpopular agendas, whether it was eliminating social security and medicare or imposing a nationwide abortion ban. ideas that voter after voter opposes. this disconnect, of course, explains their election denial. in a functioning democracy, the few cannot impose an extreme, unpopular agenda on the many. the only way for these extremists to accomplish their goals is to reject the votes cast by the majority. mr. president, the welcome news is that in many cases the

american people rejected some of the most vehement election deniers. on a brisk, cold tuesday, this november, granite staters, like millions of americans, once again went to their polling place to cast their vote. they did so not with the expectation that their preferred candidate would win but, rather, that their vote -- their individual vote would be counted. they did so at middle schools and town halls, before work and while grabbing lunch, and they did so in new hampshire in record numbers. voters recognized the real threat posed by those who would undermine our democracy. they saw the need to reject those who would disenfranchise them. they used their votes and their voices to stop those who would have otherwise jeopardized our democracy. in november, democracy prevailed. but that does not mean that the

work is over. we know that while many election deniers lost their races, some won and some remain in congress. those who threaten the integrity of our elections will remain persistent in their efforts, and those who stand on the side of democracy must remain persistent as well. mr. president, our founders understood just how fragile our democracy is, and the generation of americans who have followed have understood it as well. and if we are to live up to their example and if we are to ensure that people like my constituents jada and cy are included and can make a difference, americans must continue to do all that we can to uphold our freedoms and democracy. in congress, this means that we must continue to fight for access to the ballot box and reinforce a -- and share a commitment to accepting the results of elections.

we can do that by supporting legislation like the john lewis voting rights advancement act and the freedom to vote act, and this week we will take an important step forward by passing the bipartisan electoral count reform act. and across the country we must continue to do what the american people did this year -- reject those who would end democracy as we know it. if we are truly to remain a government of, by, and for the people, we must stand up and ensure that its foundation of free and fair elections, truly accessible to all eligible voters, remains protected for generations to come. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i'm delighted to be here with my colleagues here tonight, with the chair of our rules committee, amy klobuchar, who worked so hard and so intensely on the for the people act and the for the people act 2.0, freedom to vote act, that

was sought to address the foundations of democracy in our country. and i'm delighted to be here with the former governor and senator from new hampshire, who really understands from both the state and national perspective the importance of the rules of democracy, and to my colleague from maine who was just speaking about the election of 1876 that had so many parallels to the election of 2020, because in that year there were four states that submitted two different slates and the republican party said, let the vice president decide because he's targeted in the constitution to receive the ballots, and the democrats said, well, he's not given the power in the constitution to decide which slate of ballots to accept. and that led to a standoff and a commission that was set up of five senators and five house members and five supreme court justices to try to decide which

slate of ballots to accept. and as he pointed out, that election led to the electoral count act for the first round. and ten years later, they rewrote it again. but it wasn't sufficient. and i just want to compliment for him and the work that the entire set of senators did to bring forward a much-improved version that will be included in the omnibus bill we'll be considering. as i'm here with my colleagues pondering, pondering the state of our democracy, the state of our republic, i can't help but think about that story from benjamin franklin and the constitutional convention, seeing him walk out of independence hall on the last day of the convention. a woman came up and asked dr. franklin, well, dr., what have we got? is it a republic or a monarchy?

to which dr. franklin replied, a republic, if you can keep it. a republic, if you can keep it, recognizing the challenge of sustaining this framework in which we voluntarily work together to have a system of ballot integrity, of registration integrity, of voting integrity and in fact of counting the ballots with integrity. and if i go back to that ballot of 1876, the deal that was struck was a dark deal. it was a deal which said, as my colleague, senator king, pointed out, that we will take, even though one candidate was one vote short of winning the electoral college, we will give those four slates to the republican, if the republican will pull the troops out of the south and reconstruction.

and what that meant was ending civil rights for black southerners, not for one or two generations but for the better part of three-quarters of a century. three generations. it wble, dark, evil deal that came out. but in this body, there was a senator who said, we need to restore those rights to the south. and he waited through 1888, on into 1890, until there was a possibility of passing a bill that would protect voting registration, voting at the ballot box, and the counting of votes. it was called the lodge act. sir henry can a baht lodge from the house, who later came to the senate, supported it and sent it over here.

and senator horr. senator horr proceeded to champion it in this body, and it was a filibuster by southern democrats that killed that bill, a filibuster later accompanied by support from northern republicans, northern republicans who wanted to get to a tariff bill, the mckinley tariff act, and supported by western republicans who wanted to get to the silver currency bill. in other words, people from all over the country in this chamber failed to stand up for the civil rights of every american. it is indeed true that our institutions are far more fragile than we ever anticipated. we believe in the vision of a republic and how does that differ from the vision of a

dictator? it differs from a dictator or a king in that power flows up from the people. it doesn't flow down from the powerful. but we have seen a steady erosion of that vision here in the united states of america with the wealth inequality. we have come to see that there is an incredibly loss of government of, by, and for the people. let me explain. when you get that kind of power concentrated at the very top, that money becomes sets of lawyers who work 24/7, 365 for the powerful and against the people. you get that kind of concentration, you get media campaigns spending huge sums of money to change how people think about issues. power for the powerful, not government by the people.

and then let's think about the fact that that same set of powerful are using campaign funds to get the outcomes they want, and they're using dark money. my colleague, senator whitehouse, was talking about the disclose act and how important it is that we at least have transparency. where are these hundreds of millions of dollars from the richest americans, the most powerful corporations coming from and what is their goal? at least we should know the who. the supreme court has said, they cannot be stopped under kind of a corrupted vision of free speech. they can't be limited under that supreme court decision. but at least we can know the who and understand better how the american people -- understand who is behind the funding. that ending of dark money is so important.

gerrymandering, it's estimated that down the hall in the house of representatives there is a 20- to 25-vote bias in favor of one party over the other because one party does more gerrymandering than the other. well, neither should do that, and it's our responsibility to end that corrupt distortion of equal representation. and then to the ballot box. 34 laws passed in 19 states aimed at one mission, and that's to stop targeted groups of americans from voting. and who are those targeted groups? those targeted groups are black americans and hispanic americans. it's low-income inner 21 americans city americans, it's native americans on reservations, it's college students. laws deliberately designed in a lays area-focused manner to block certain groups of

americans from voting. that's the powerful who don't want to have the voice of the people working for the people. well, we had last january a chance to pass a bill in this chamber, just like they had in 1891 to pass civil rights for all americans, for us it wasn't the lodge act. for us it was the freedom to vote act. the freedom to vote, that would take on gerrymandering, that would end anone must dark money -- anonymous dark money, that would proceed to ensure that every american can get to the ballot box in a fair fashion to vote. know, it was in 2018 -- excuse me, in 2020, we had one state where the wait time in predominantly black precincts to vote was five to ten times the wait thyme in white precincts -- the wait time new mexico white

precincts. don't tell me that that is how acceptable in the united states of america, that kind of racial bias baked into our election system. it was deliberate. it was planned. and why is it that president trump hated vote-by-mail? well, let me explain it to you. he hated it because it let people get to the ballot box that he didn't want to vote. he wanted people to have to vote on election day because on election day, you can really, really play the game. you can move the voting locations from where they were the previous election so people don't go to the right place, the plays where you don't want people to vote, you put them where there's no parking lots so it's hard to vote. you put out false information about when the election was, saying, so sorry you missed it even though it's this coming tuesday. people will think it's the last tuesday. you can manipulate and obstruct targeted groups of americans and prevent them from voting much

easier on election day than you can vote-by-placement -- vote-by-mail. my state initiated vote-by-mail. it is the most secure system in the country. every signature compared. you would be more likely to be struck by lightning than to be able to find a mistake made in which somebody voted intentionally who wasn't allowed to vote. incredibly secure. incredibly appropriate to counteract all of those schemes on election day designed to target americans. my colleagues, we have so much work to do to defend the very foundation of our democracy. it is the ballot box. it's the ballot box. we have to take on on the gerrymandering. we have to take on the dark money. and we have to defend the opportunity of every american to vote.

if you came into this room and you swore an oath to the constitution, you have a responsibility to defend that constitution and defend the integrity of the ballot box. thank you, madam president. ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i want to thank the senators who did such a tremendous job today, really going through all the arguments for why our democracy is still fragile, why we must stand up for democracy. so many good ideas. and i especially with aens to thank -- and the i especially want to thank senator whitehouse for never giving up hope when it comes to campaign finance reform. i think of john mccain, if he was sitting in here right now -- we miss him very much, a friend of both senator whitehouse and mine, and how he stood up for

campaign finance reform. it was all of our issue. i think of senator merkley's incredible diligence and command of the rules of the senate and how we can make this place work better. and then senator king's very maine-like independent take on all this. and then, madam president, your incredible remarks, tying it into -- i hadn't thought about that fact, that on veterans day, which is always after the election and your dad's words that that's just an election -- an election is just a war of words, and it's something you go through in a democracy, and it could be really tough, but it's nothing like a real war when people are putting their lives on the line. so thank you for that. i wanted to turn to two other issues that are still on our plates in such a big, big way. still integral actually to our own democracy and what we stand for. the first one -- and i'm going to be putting later on the

record some remarks of senator durbin, who's been such a big supporter of the electoral count act and the like. this is another area, another important major, major moment for democracy that senator durbin has been leading on. and that is the against need to ensure dreamer can remain here. i'm proud to support and cosponsor his efforts in the past on not just the comprehensive immigration reform, which we know included protections for dreamers that we passed, and i strongly supported out of the judiciary committee when i first got to the senate, senator kennedy, senator whitehouse and myself to be the first new senators involved in the immigration effort, which included protecting dreamers that president bush supported. and each time, sadly, we have been stymied in getting this into law. president obama moved on his own with executive orders to protect

dreamers, and now their status continues, continues to be in limbo. there is an urgent need right now to ensure dreamers can remain here in only country that they have ever called home. we know them in our community as teachers and health care workers, builders and firefighters, reporters and entrepreneurs, like generations much immigrants before them, they have made our country better. but for too long their livelihoods have been subject to the whims of court decisions and partisan politics. they are incredibly sad and frustrated that congress has not been able to come together to make progress. comprehensive immigration reform should include a pathway to citizenship for dreamers, or at least right now in this chamber we should pass the dream act. i have been working on this for

years. we have many times come raiser-thin close to getting -- come razor-thin close toest going it passed. we are close to getting a deal even during the trump administration, then the trump administration gut-punches us. you, madam president, were part of that agreement that would have guaranteed a place in our country that's already in our hearts for our dreamers. we cannot wait another way to pass the american dream and promise act and provide these dreamers with the stability and security that they deserve. they know no other country. many of them for decades have been here working. i know that democrats support this bill, and i know that there are a number of republicans that do. but we are never able to the overcome the opposition on the other side of the aisle that is there there there to -- there to

bring it forward. the time is overdue and we must pass the dream act. the second issue on my mind tonight is the work that we must do with the afghan adjustment act. this is a bill that i have been working on for the past year, and i want to thank senator coons and i want to thank senator lindsey graham for working with me on this bill. i also want to thank our other cosponsors, which include senator blunt and senator blumenthal, senator murkowski, senator shaheen, senator moran, who has joined the bill after we made some changes to strengthen the vetting process. his support is very important. senator leahy, senator wicker has joined us on this bill now, the incoming ranking member of the armed services committee.

why is that? because this bill is so important to our military. so many of these afghans have worked with our military. they had the backs of our military. they were their translators. they did all kinds of very, very difficult jobs to help our military and freedom in afghanistan. and when they came to this country, so many of them thought we would be there for them. and right now their situation is tenuous, at best. they are in limbo, and i can't tell you how many members of our military have come up and said, i don't understand the chief of mission has verified their status. half of the afghans, roughly half of them that are here right now have been vouched for by our own military. we have put together the afghan

adjustment act based on instructions from the past. we saw what happened to the vietnamese and the mung -- i know in my own state, we have the second biggest population of the mung in the country. they came here and our country knew that we owed them something because they stood with us. and we put them 0en a path that involved green cards, which is what we are doing here. all we're trying to do here is actually more intense than what we did back home, and i just asked the other senators to look at the mung and vietnamese in their own communities. they are now many generations ahead. they are police officers. they are serving in the state legislature. they are pillars of their community. and if in the after gangs we have the same possibility, i remind my colleagues, they are

already here, and that is why senator wicker has now joined us because there is the belief and senator graham i'm hoping that we will have a group come together to talk about this. senator graham understands as well from thinks own service, when people have your back overseas in the hardest of times, you do not abandon them when they're in a hard time. that is going to get around the world if we just let them sit in limbo. so this is truly our moment to at least start this process. what does it mean? well, it means according to this bill that we will be doing a vetting of the afghans who i note to my colleagues are already here. they will submit to additional vetting, including in-person interviews. it makes the process much more orderly and much more thorough, which is why you see conservatives joining this bill.

this bill has earned the support of some of our nation's most revered military leaders, including admirals mike mullin, william mccraven, james stavridis, and generals richard meyers, dose he have dunford, stan mcchrystal. they support this bill. the veterans of foreign wars, the vfw supports this bill. the american legion supports this bill. their members have been here in members' offices asking them to support it. i cannot tell you how important it was to senator coons and myself to make sure that this bill was bipartisan in nature. and we worked very hard all summer to strengthen the bill, to get at the concerns of our colleagues, and that is why we have such a strong group of

senators supporting the bill. this is our moment to get this done. if we are unable to finish it at the end of the year, i consider this not an end but a beginning. we are so close to getting, as i know from my discussions with my colleagues, more and more republicans on this bill. i think that is because they understand that if we leave these people who helped us in limbo, what will people think it the next time that they ask for our help in forecountry, in another -- in another country, in another war, in another conflict? i implore my colleagues to join us in this effort. i'm looking forward tomorrow where we'll have a bipartisan group of senators take the floor, but i didn't want to let another day go by without mentioning how important it is to get this done. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i know we've been joined by

senator lee. thank you. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, this act, this bill before us is an act of legislative barbarism. this is an act of extortion. being leveraged on the united states senate right before christmas. make no mistake why this happens. this bill, in all 4,155 pages of

its glory or infamy, was negotiated in secret by a four- or five -- by four or five members of congress, excluding all oh, which means that nearly 330 million americans were disenfranchised in the production of this legislative behemoth. they wrote it utterly in secrete design of creating an artificial emergency, threatening a shutdown right before christmas. in fact, they set up government funding to expire the day before christmas eve, realizing that that is when members are at our point of vulnerability, members of both houses and both political parties want to get home, understandably, to spend the holidays with their families. it's also the moment they realize our constituents are most vulnerable, most fearful of a government shutdown. that's when the most pressure

will be brought to bear on members of the house and senate, democrats and republicans, if, heaven forbid, there were a shutdown. so at this time of manufactured crisis, it is said that is the right moment to unveil this bill that they've drafted in secret. the point that's stunning is that enough members of the united states senate, a body that prides itself on being the world's greatest deliberative body, would choose to support this bill, never having read it. that really is stunning. as an entity that strives to be the world's greatest deliberative body, we sure don't act like it sometimes. but we should. our rules, our traditions, our customs and our obligation to our constituents demands nothing less. we and those we represent

deserve proper, full consideration and the chance to read, debate, and amend this legislation and not get circumvented through some backroom deal. so opposing this legislation isn't radical. running our government this way is. and it's indefensible. it used to be, madam president, that amendments and debate and discussion were a common practice of the legislative process. it's what the legislative process is all about, in fact. now these days we have to beg, plead, and barter, feeling likely for any legislative scraps thrown to us underneath the table. it's not the legislative process. it's certainly not a legitimate way to keep our government funded. there's no greater priority,

nothing more impactful than voting on legislation to fund the government, especially when you lump all of the 12 categories of appropriations bills into one giant bill, an omnibus spending package as we call it. when you have something like that, in theory you could have a fair process surrounding that but you would need a considerable amount of time for public notice and debate and discussion and, yes, an opportunity for amendments. a bill like this could be rendered fair if it were cured through weeks of open amendment process where this was subjected to discussion in review under the light of day. and yet, madam president, here we find ourselves having -- having received this legislative text, it's not just us who had been excluded, it's not just we who have been excluded, it's the

american people, it's the media who have been excluded from this process until less than 24 hours ago. and all of a sudden they drop 4,155 pages of legislative text and they expect us to be ready to go within a few hours to vote on it. and to vote on it under particularly extortive conditions. they tell you okay, we've got this bill now. this bill is ready for you. you've got -- it's up to you. you've earned your election certificates. you are free to vote yes or you're free to vote no, but by the way, if you vote no, you'll be causing a government shutdown and we'll make sure that you're blamed for a government shutdown. and, by the way, we will also threat ton take away your -- to take away your christmas, not only yours but millions of americans in the process. that's not free. that's not operating our

government as a constitutional public that it was intended to be. it's not even a representative government at that point. that becomes a legislative oligarchy in which a small handful of people -- we might call it the law firm of schumer, mcarthur, mcconnell, pelosi -- puts together a bill in secret and uses extortion to extract votes out it of it. tragically a number of members seem to express gratitude for their ability to vote on the finished product. oh, thank you through our legislative overlords. oh, thank you. thanks for making this possible. thanks for making it happen. it presents some real problems. madam president, we find ourselves in a precarious economic position as a country. we've accumulated over 31 -- $31 trillion in debt. we've seen federal spending explode astronomically just over

the last few years. prior to the covid-19 pandemic, we were spending no more than $4 trillion a year. that was still a lot of money then. still a lot of money now. but if we were just spending now what we were spending then, our budget would be almost balanced. last year we brought in over $4 trillion in revenue. hasn't been more than just a few years ago we were spending only $4 trillion a year. what happened during and since the covid-19 pandemic commencing in 2020 changed everything. we went from spending about $4 trillion a year to to $6.5 triln to $6.8 trillion. still hasn't gone down

completely. we're on track to spend about $6 billion this year. it's one of the problems when we run with numbers this big. the numbers million, billion, and trillion start to run together, and i've made that mistake enough times. i want to be very clear. you go from spending $4 trillion a year to $6.8 trillion a year, $6.5 trillion a year. still spending $6 trillion a year. we're still borrowing borrowings year about $2 trillion. it's such a staggering sum of money. the way our system works, you're doing more than just printing it. you have to go through additional steps of selling u.s. treasury bonds. it functions in a way that makes it feel almost indistinguishable from just printing money. certainly has the same effect on the economy as if you were just printing money because

definition -- by definition inflation is the condition in which you've got too many dollars chasing too few goods. one, you've just increased the money supply. you make it less affordable for people to do the things that they need to do. everything gets more expensive. this is being felt everywhere. in utah the average family is having to spend an additional $1,000 a month every single month on their basic monthly expenses. not luxury items. i'm just talking about the basics. housing, food, fuel, health care. $1,000 more, the same basket of goods and services they were purchasing just a few years ago. in fact, just before the day joe biden took office. those things were $1,000 a month cheaper than they are now. this is the predictable,

foreseeable, and in fact foreseen result of the government spending trillions of dollars a year more than it has. it's creating huge problems, serious problems and yet no one has been able to answer the question why are we still spending $2 trillion a year more than we're bringing in? we are looking at the pandemic of covid-19 as something that's behind us. doesn't mean the virus has gone away, but we're no longer in a pandemic lockdown situation. there's no reason why we should be incurring ongoing annual deficits of that magnitude, and it's not sustainable, and this is not a victim-free event. this has victims everywhere. you know, look, rich people, rich people can figure out a way to get through inflationary

periods just fine. they can absorb it. it means less to them. they've got savings they can rely on, assets they can liquidate. they'll be just fine. in fact, most sophisticated rich people can find a way to get richer during periods of massive inflation because of the inflation itself. it's really sad. the rich get richer and the poorer get poorer and it's the government's fault and it's our fault because we spend too much money. we're the ones causing it. bills like this pass. members of congress from both houses and both political parties go out and brag about it. they predictably get a lot of praise by the media, pretty much uniformly loves it when we pass big spending bills and hates it when members vote against it because they're not drinking the kool-aid. so you get short-term praise by the media when you do this. you get criticism when you vote against it. that's why most of our members

end up voting for it because they want praise. it's understandable to want praise. but at what cost? when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as a result of our terrible spending decisions, especially decisions for which a lot of our members try to escape accountability by saying sorry, i didn't want provisions a, b, c, d, and e. i wanted only provisions f and g. and i couldn't get those in unless i voted for the whole package. that's how we get to be $31 trillion in debt. that's how we get this federal government that spends like a drunken sailor in a way that puts drunken sailors to shame everywhere. that's how we get there because you roll it all into one. this is the prego spaghetti sauce of spending legislation. you name it, it's in there. it's all in there. 4,155 pains long. that's owe -- 4,155 pages long.

that's pretty long. when i speak on the floor, i'm told i average about 120 words per minute. i'm told at times it's too fast. i should speak slowly but it's the rate i tend to speak. even if at this rate if i were to read this bill out loud on the senate floor at my usual rate of 120 words a minute, it would take me five straight days. by five straight days, i mean the whole 24-hour period. no bathroom breaks, no sleeping, for lunch break, no anything else. reading 24 hours a day back to back at 120 words per minute would take me five straight days. that's -- that sort of puts it in perspective. yet we've gotten this this morning and literally by lunch we were receiving pressure to schedule a final vote on it. so you leave us hanging for

months. the fiscal year ended on september 30. we've been operating with a continuing resolution since september 30. and all of a sudden we get to december 20 and we're told oh, this is -- you've got to do this right now. can't operate another day on a continuing resolution. it's -- continuing resolutions are bad now. they're so bad in fact, you're going to have to vote for this bill or shut down the government. can't do this for another day. that's weird. but it's not just weird, it's devious. it's a corrupt process and we all know it. the more we count on this process by supporting bills like this and pretending it's okay when we know it's not, we improvish the american people. we -- impoverish the american people. we do them a disservice. sthaim on -- shame on us. whether you're democrat or republican, a liberal or conservative, you can see that people are getting hurt. you can see that people are poorer because the federal government is spending money

that it doesn't have. there are a small handful of people who will get rich off of this bill. everybody else will get poorer by degrees. it's harder to tie those who have gotten poorer and the fact that they're getting poorer, it's hard to tie any one of them to any individual bill because it happens so subtly and so gradually. that's what makes it so evil by design but it's intentional and it's wrong. the bill is being advertised as a $1.7 trillion bill, something that's going to cost a total of $1.7 trillion. but as budget analysis from a number of entities has shown, it's more than that. the heritage foundation has conducted some analysis of this bill and it's demonstrated that this bill will actually cost taxpayers at least $1.85

trillion in 2023 thanks to these base appropriations along with the emergency and disaster spending and the statutory pego waiver built into the bill. now, the authors of bill recognize that if the bill were considered according to its own merits, it could not, would not pass. there are a whole lot of features in this that fit that description that couldn't pass on their own. that's why they lumped them all together. it takes priorities important to this member and to that member. you lump them all into one bill and then you tell members you're not going to be able to vote for any of these things in isolation so you better vote for this one or else you'll get nothing. and by the way, you'll be shutting down the government at the same time.

there have been a number of people who helped go through the analysis line by line. my staff has done an enormous amount of analysis. we've combed through this and tried to figure out what some of the highlights and the low lights are. my friend scott parkinson identified a series of the low lights in one twitter thread. he identified a few that i may point out here. in one ever them, good news for the outgoing speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, she'll have a federal build being named after her, on 7th street in san francisco. it will be the speaker nancy pelosi federal building. congratulations to her. that's great. fantastic. the senate appropriations committee chairman, my friend

and colleague, the distinguished senator from vermont, pat leahey, he's got some earmarks, including a measure renaming the lake champlain basin program, as the patrick leahy lake champlain basin program. that came at a cost. we had to stuff $35 million each year for the next five years in order to get that. that's a pretty expensive name tag. i mean, gosh, you could buy the naming rights to a major sports arena for a lot less than that. he got that one in. but i've got to be bipartisan here. i'm not going to make this a strictly partisan speech. we've got other things in there. apparently, there are some buildings in the state of alabama that have yet to be named after our colleague richard shelby.

i loved richard shelby. great man. distinguished career. i guess there are some things in alabama that still haven't been name after him. so, he's gotten the facilities of the fbi -- that the fbi has at the redstone arsenal. those facilities are going to be named the richard shelby center for innovation and advanced training. that's great. congratulations there. if you're a fan of presidential museums, this bill has some provisions you might like. this bill adds $6 million to the ulysses s. grant museum. now, he's got a museum already. i guess that museum needs some more bling in it. i don't know whether they're going to be gilding the walls of it, but they'll have $6 million to make it real nice. some of this stuff, really,

obviously, in the category of brazen partisanship. we've got $1.7 billion that's being spent on transportation projects specifically designed to help fight climate change. that's a lot of money, $1.7 billion. going to fight climate change. not just transportation projects of the sort that are already needed, transportation projects specifically designed to fight climate change. something tells me that wouldn't have the votes to pass the senate, if it had to stand on its own. in fact, i'm absolutely it wouldn't. but never mind -- that's what the omnibus is for, another christmas miracle. throw it in there. some of the more egregiously woke earmarks in the bill

include a million dollars going to something called zora's house in ohio, which is known as a co-working and community space for gender-expansive people of col lore, $7 -- people of col lore, $750,000 for the trans latin coalition, as well as for the equity ink yiewbator in maryland. $791,000 for equitable energy resilience and electric vehicle infrastructure in sonoma, california. i'm not sure what equitable energy resilience means, but i know it's woke, and a lot of people have got to be real happy at that. 477,000 dollars will go to the equity institute in rhode island. i don't know what they do there, but it sure sounds like fun if you're into equity programs. in the federal -- and the federal taxpayer will, of course, be picking up the cost

of $2.4 million tab for the new england aquarium corporation in boston. they say that it's for modernization and educational programming at the aquarium. i love aquariums. sounds like fun. i love going to aquariums. they're neat. they're great. it's not radical to suggest that the taxpayers in the city of boston or the commonwealth of massachusetts, hardly poverty-stricken areas of our country, shouldn't be funding that project that is specific to their community. no one's made the case as to why that aquarium's got to be built, why this has to be a federal taxpayer project. but no matter. another christmas miracle. just throw it in the omni.

it would also advance the left's attack on the traditional family by funding gender studies in pakistan and in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species, closed quote. what the heck does that mean? i think i know what that means. it's basically insisting that human beings should exist with less prevalence in some parts of the world, and we want to make sure that that doesn't happen, because they might be bad for the environment in those areas. that's what that means. why in heaven's name we should be taking money from a poor farmer in iowa or from a poor single mother of three in orum,

utah, and sending that to pakistan to tell people they've got to have fewer kids, because biodiversity and climate change demand it. i'm sorry, that's too far. we do some crazy stuff up here, and sometimes we have to look the other way or we try to look the other way, sort of like you do when you drive past a really awful accident, but this one, i can't look past that one. that's crazy. i'm not sure i could find more than 20 or 30 members of this body who would feel comfortable, openly, publicly advocating for this. not when you're taking money from a poor farmer in iowa or a poor single mom in orum, utah. the senate, for that purpose. but no matter. it's another christmas miracle. put it in the omnibus. the omnibus includes a total of

about 3 00 earmarks. do -- 3200 earmarks. what do i mean by earmarks? well, earmarks are special interest giveaways, they're targeted spending congress directs for a particular purpos purpose. earmarks have been severely abused, and one of the many ways in which they've been abused is through this process of lumping them all in. i've heard them referred to in the past as sweeteners. when members don't want to vote for a particular bill, you add earmarks to it, strategically allocating them one state at a time so that you can buy up votes. i don't mean buy them off in a legally corrupt way. this is a corrupt process, but it's not corrupt in a way that's legally, judicially cog

nizzable. this is a way in which you accumulate votes, by promising sweetheart deals for which members of congress will receive praise. the rest of those people aren't going to know or care about the fact that we're sending money to pakistan to tell people they've got to have fewer kids because climate change requires it. they're just glad that they got their handout and their carve-out. it's what creates the corrupt process. people who defend earmarks are fond of saying, well, they represent a relatively small portion of total federal spending, and that's true. the same could be said of the engine car on a train. it's a very small percentage of the length of the train. yeah, but it's what's driving the train. people who advocate for this bill, i've heard them make this argument many times, including today, they will likewise say i

don't know why you're worrying this bill, because after all, this bill deals with discretionary outlays, discretionary spending, not mandatory spending, money that congress gets to decide one year after the next where it goes, as opposed to mandatory spending, things like social security that are already required to be spent under existing, ongoing law. a lot of people will say you should vote for this bill because, yeah, we have a $31 trillion debt, and yeah, we've got an annual deficit still clocking in at around $2 trillion a year. but no worry. don't worry about that, because the real bogeyman is the mandatory spending, because that's bigger. well, that's true that it's bigger, but the fact that something is smaller than something else doesn't mean you don't have to worry about that. the fact that earmarks are a

relatively small percentage of total federal spending doesn't mean that earmarks don't have a really nasty effect in corrupting our political processes. it doesn't mean they don't produce bad results. the fact that discretionary spending is a smaller percentage of total federal spending than mandatory spending doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about it. it is, after all, the part over which we have discretion. so why we wouldn't worry about it is beyond my ability to comprehend. we have, moreover, dramatically increased the amount and percentage of mandatory spending in federal outlays just in the last few years. it's part of what's exploded as we went fairly quickly from $4 trillion in total federal outlays, as of 2019, to almost

$7 trillion at the high-water mark of the covid pandemic era spending. so it's not abe answer here to say -- it's not an answer here to say there's more that we're spending elsewhere. we're still spending this money. this money still is under our control. we've got some responsibility to review it, and that review is rendered more or less impossible to achieve when you pass a bill this way. this is wrong. it is a corrupt process that uses extortion and fear in order to coerce members into voting for a bill that they note in their hearts is wrong. they know this is fraught with all sorts of problems. there's a part of me that has a

much easier time understanding my democratic colleagues on this one. i'm a republican, a conservative republican at that, and yet i kind of have an easier time grasping and accepting democrats' support for this. this is much more consistent with democratic priorities. this is, after all, a democratic template, funding a lot of democratic policies. they're being consistent with their policy. i have a harder time accepting it as a republican, a harder time accepting that we're going to have an estimated 20 or so republicans who are already expressing support for this bill. only less than 18 hours after this bill first saw the light of day, we've already got about 20 republicans expressing support for it. it baffles me.

it baffles me because, look, the democrats openly embrace the idea that they are progressive, that they want more government, that they feel more comfortable with more government than republicans do. so they're acting in a manner in conformity with their policies, platform, and their history, their traditions, their customs, their priorities. much less so with republicans. in fact, this is directly contrary to what republicans campaign on. so what do we do, when we've got 10 to 20 republicans who immediately support this? a bill that is predictably going to be supported by all 50 democrats. he had are -- they are united on this, and hats off to them for keeping their body, their caucus united on this. they're all united. 50 democrats are all in lockstep with this. they can't get it passed unless

they get to 60, and so they need at least ten republicans. we supply those. there are ten to 20 republicans who are going to vote for this, uniting the democrats around democratic priorities and democratic policies and democratic spending levels. so yeah, i have a much easier time accepting and respecting those on the democratic side who do this. they're at least on brand. we're not. and this, madam president, is one of the reasons i think why republicans lose more than many of us would prefer. when we dilute the brand, when we dilute the message, we dilute the proclaimed policy preamps -- preferences for a more responsible process by which we allocate federal funds, then we do this? this is tough. now, some of my republican

colleagues will respond to this by saying, no, no, no, that is win. i promise you. they'll cite a few things. they'll say, well, this is a big win because, among other things, it contains cuts to irs funding. i'm sorry, that's really hard for me to accept when whatever cuts, whatever restraint was shown with regard to irs funding here is absolutely dwarfed by the fact that the irs just got $80 billion of supplemental funding in august. so i -- forgive me, but i found that difficult -- no, impossible to accept as a legitimate explanation as to why this is a win for republicans. to make matters worse, perhaps the most offensive part of this is the senate republicans voting

for this bill are choosing to forfeit the power that they have, that we have, the power of the purse. it could be used if we woulded more a-- -- it could be used, if wielded more assertively, at the border end to the crisis. this bill, while providing funding for government agencies including the department of homeland security in charge of enforcing the border, but utterly and defiantly, willingfully refusing to do its job, this bill prohibits customs and border patrol funding from being used to improve border security. let that sink in for a minute. not only are we losing the opportunity, forfeiting it by passing this, to put in aggressive measures requiring border enforcement as a

condition precedent for the receipt of certain federal funds, we're actually providing their funding and allowing language to be included in there that prohibits them from bolstering border security, at a time when we're being besieged by illegal border crossings. this is lawlessness. so, no, i really struggle with calling this a win for republicans, especially given the fact that we just had an election, and in that election, we went from having a congress consisting of a democratic house and a democratic senate and we've of course got a democratic white house. now we're going to still have a democratic senate but we're going to have a republican-controlled house, just in a matter of a couple

weeks. for this reason that i came to the floor last week and twice tried to pass continuing resolutions that would keep us funded on a short-term basis into next year. had we done that, congress still may have chosen to enact this spending legislation, which we hadn't seen until about 19 hours ago. still could have done that but it wouldn't have been under the extortive threat of a short-down at -- shutdown at christmastime. tragically, the senate declined to adopt that, declined to adopt either of those resolutions and instead opted for this position. why? well, because had they adopt odd either of those continuing resolutions, it would have become impossible to use the ex-forrive threat of a christmas -- extortive threat of a

christmastime shutdown in order to secure votes for this. so of course the proponents of this legislation didn't want that. that would rain on their party. it would make it harder for them, the american people suffer as a result. but what you've got, republicans will vote for this bill. they're going to be facilitating democratic priorities and by so doing undercutting the republican house of representatives that's about to be sworn in. house minority leader kevin mccarthy is opposed to this. he's stated publicly and privately he thinks this is a mistake. it's a mistake for republicans. and it is. you know, madam president, since 1954 we've seen that the house

of representatives has had a shift in the party in control of it only five times, each during mid-term elections. just five times since 1954. doesn't happen that often. in all five of those instances since 1954 when it's flipped, congress did not enact a comprehensive omnibus spending package during the lame-duck session following the election. there are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that members of congress, i think in both houses and political parties a, understand that elections are supposed to have consequences. it's really inappropriate, i think, at least for republicans -- again, i suppose i have to have a form of respect for my democratic colleagues in wanting to enact their policies. but i struggle with understanding why republicans

would want to help them in doing that, rendering the incoming congress less capable of enacting republican priorities, especially when you consider a couple of things. number one, this spending bill, assuming it passes, which it appears certain, just about certain that it will, this will keep the federal government funded through the balance of fiscal year 2023, up until midnight on september 30, 2032. -- 2023. that by itself is a big chunk, a very large chunk of the entire time that the 118th congress will even exist. it's a big piece of that. part of it will be having a government that doesn't operate

under a spending bill with a significant republican imprint. but it's not just that, madam president. in light of the fact that we're going to have a divided congress, we're going to have a democratic senate and a republican house with a democratic white house, it may be difficult, of course, to pass another omnibus or perhaps a series of spending bills. it could end up resulting in more continuing resolutions. well, guess what continuing resolutions do? they keep spending levels where they have been. that's where we get to the point where over time this has spillover ramifications. the high cost of this bill will far-out last this congress -- will far outlast this congress. it'll last for years.

the committee for a responsible federal budget recently estimated that over the next decade, this could end up increasing federal outlays, just this omnibus spending bill as compared to a continuing resolution. it would likely cost a total of an additional $2 trillion over the next decade just because of the baselines being shifted. why republicans want to do that is beyond my ability to understand. i implore them to reconsider. there's a good reason why outgoing congresses in the past have not enacted omnibus spending packages post election during a lame-duck session when control of the house has just shifted. meanwhile, our border crisis continues to boil over. it's getting worse and worse and worse every day, and it's --

it's subjecting far too many people to the harms associated with human trafficking. a very large percentage by some studies, 30% or so by some studies -- it's more like 65% of the girls and women who come across with these drug traffickers who operate as human smugglers bringing them into the united states, making these drug cartels billions of dollars a month, somewhere between 30% and 65% of the women and girls brought through that process are raped or sexually assaulted in the process. it has also resulted in fentanyl pouring into the united states enough fentanyl to kill millions of men's. we're doing ngo about that in this -- we're doing nothing

about that in this bill. as i said, what we're doing in this bill is making it more difficult to fund border enforcement. it prohibits the funds going to customs and border enforcement from being used for border enforcement, to increase border security. and meanwhile, as our border crisis continues to boil over and we do nothing about it and we plant the seeds to make sure we can do nothing about it through this legislation, we do nothing about that -- we do nothing about that, but we do do something that's really, really curious. it provides jordan, lebanon, egypt, tunisia, and annannd 410 million to secure their borders. that's great. that's just fantastic.

if you live in one of those countries. this bill is all about middle eastern and north african border security. it's not about american border security. this bill is not america first. it's america last. what we're doing here is putting america last. what we're doing here is putting our constituents last. what we're doing here is putting a small handful of elites first. this bill is the product of wall street and "k" street, not main street. we've got to get back to a process that respects the rights of individual members, and i call on all within the sound of my voice -- democrat or republican, house or senate, all members of congress within the sound of my voice, whether you plan on voting for this bill or not, if you're thinking about voting for it, i implore you, reconsider. if not us, who? if not now, when? if we don't stop this at some point, some time, this will

continue and it will continue to weaken america. we can stop this if and only if, when and only when members stop supporting this nonsense. i don't care where you are on the political spectrum. you know this is wrong. let's stop it before it's too late. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. king: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. the junior senator from maine is recognized. mr. king: madam president, i come to the floor tonight as united states senator from maine. why am i here to discuss lobsters on the floor of the u.s. senate? because my state is facing its most serious crisis, in my view,

in my 18 years of public service on behalf of maine. there is a provision in the bill that we'll be voting on tomorrow that is of vital, critical importance to maine and i believe the country. in november a federal court here in washington issued a ruling under the endangered species and the marine mammal protection act that effectively shuts down the entire maine lobster fishery in two years. it issues requirements that simply can't be met in that time frame. the only choice will be to shut down the fishery. what does that mean? what is the fishery? what is the lobster industry? we talk about the lobster industry. the lobster industry is this guy right here. thousands of small, imed

businesses -- small, independent businesses. these boats aren't owned by amazon or walmart or whole foods. they're owned by individual people, families, generations in a town like this. that's what we're talking about. we're talking about the livelihoods of thousands of maine people that will be cut off by virtue of this decision within two years. is it a real threat? people are already canceling orders for boat. the business of the people that make lobster traps is down 25% or 30%. people are starting to put their boat on the market because they see this closure coming of an industry that's been a mainstay of the maine economy for 150 years. well over a billion and a half dollars a year is based upon this unique, iconic product that

comes from the cold waters of maine. now, why am i here? because this decision of the court that effectively closes our lobster industry down is based upon the idea of protecting the north atlantic right whale which needs protection. it is indeed an endangered specie. the question is whether the remedy, in this case the closure of the maine fishery, will actually help in the preservation of the right whale. i want to start with a couple of data points. here's the first. this is the number of right whale deaths ever attributed to maine lobster gear. zero. the number of right whale deaths attributed to maine lobster gear, zero.

here's another data poi. the number of right whales even being entangled in maine lobster gear in almost the last 20 years, zero. so the question is, is there sufficient evidence for this draconian remedy, the shutdown of the entire industry. the other data point is that according to the maps of whale sightings produced by -- based upon data from the department of commerce, noaa, the whales are moving away from maine. they're congregating now to the far north in the gulf of st. lawrence and also around cape cod. and i'm going to talk about that in a minute. but the real -- the number of whales sighted and detected

along the maine coast is steadily declining. so why are we doing this? why did the court make this ruling? the judge felt compelled by the law because there may be a risk. there may be a risk. is the lobster industry, is this guy doing anything about that speculative risk? yes, a lot. maine lobbermen all mark their gear so -- lobstermen all mark their gear so if there is an evening tanglement, a whale attached the gear, you can tell where it came from. they mark their gear. they change all the ropes with weaker ropes so if there is an entanglement, they break. number three, they put weak links in their ropes so if there's an entanglement, the leak will break and there won't be -- the plirveg will break and there won't -- link will break and there won't be a problem. if these entanglements were

happening, the lobstermen would know it. every lobsterman knows where his gear is. i've talked to lobstermen who have been out there for 30 years and have never seen a right whale in the gulf of maine. there may be a few out there but they've never seen one. in other words, it's a very, very low risk. finally, madam president, they've changed the way they fish. it used to be, and i remember this, you'd have buoys -- you'll all seen those picturesque -- no, that's a mooring. that's not a lobster buoy. you have a buoy and a rope that's down to the trap on the bottom. and so every trap had its own line and buoy. that's no longer true. now they have a buoy one line and the trap is on the bottom which are attached so you can pull up a number of traps with only one piece of rope. in the last ten years, maine lobstermen have removed 30,000 miles of rope from the gulf of

maine. to mitigate a risk that we're not even sure is there. now, i've been in environmental policy all my life. i know about the precautionary principle which means if you're not sure, be careful. and i understand that. i understand if you're not sure, be careful. but this is the precautionary principle run amok where there's so little evidence and the punishment is so severe. so we're talking, madam president, about an economic death sentence for an entire way of life, for the town of stonington, for the thousands and i mean between 5,000 and 10,000 people who work on the water and thousands more that work in processing and involved in this industry, over a bill and a half dollars a year of economic impact in the state of

maine. but if you were in court and you said we're going to impose an economic death sentence, well, here's the way the law looks at things like that. if it's a criminal case to take away somebody's liberty beyond a reasonable doubt. no beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. it's not even close to beyond a reasonable doubt. okay, in a civil case you have to prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence. is there a prepond rans of evidence that fishery is contributing to the loss of right whales? no, there's no prepond der rans of evidence. how about any evidence? zero.

zero. now, a solution to this crisis is in the bill that we'll be voting on tomorrow. it's one that the maine delegation, myself and senator collins, congresswoman pingrick have been working on since this decision. what it is a compromise that's been negotiated between the various people interested in this issue in this body that leaves in place all of those protective measures that i mentioned. the weak links, the weaker ropes, the ropes out of the water, the marking of the gear, all those stay in place. importantly, it provides funding for two purposes. one is the development of gear that will reduce the risk even further. lobster gear that is. for example, there's a lot of discussion of something called ropeless fishing which would be traps on the bottom and a bowie

-- bow eye on the bottom that will come to the surface so you can pull the traps up and there is no rope in the water. the problem is it's not ready for prime time. it's being tried. there's experiments going on with it. there's some serious problems with it. for example, currently if you're a lobsterman, you go out and you see other biew biew -- buoys. until we figure that out, we can't have multiple traps laying on top of each other and becoming entangled. the other problem is it's very expensive. we're talking about tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for the guy that owns this boat. so what the bill provides is funding for research of how to develop, whether it's ropeless fishing on fishing -- fishing or some other

technology we don't know about it to mitigate any risk there is even further. so that's one funding in the bill. the other funding is for data to know where the whales are. to know because the problem is, would data we have indicates there are practically none along the maine coast. but we don't know that for sure. again, what we're doing is sentencing this industry to death, economic death without the information upon which that decision should be made. and i'm very comfortable, i'm anxious to work on that data. whether we do it by satellite, by drones, by acoustics, whatever we do, i want to know where those whales are. i don't think based upon the data i've seen that we are going to see there are many in the area where the lobster fishing takes place. but i'm willing to get the accurate answer to that. so the bill does those two things. funding for research and funding

for data collection. the third thing it does is pause the economic death sentence. it pauses the ruling that says this has to be finished in two years because that means the lobster industry, the lobster fishing, the lobster families, the lobster towns are finished within two years. we're talking about a six-year pause as time to collect the data and develop the gear. now, even the advocates, the people that are angry about what we're doing and making wild charges that this is going to immediately lead to the extinction of the whales which is just -- no basis for that, even those people can see that it's going to take six to ten years to develop these alternatives. what do they expect the people of maine to do between year two and year ten when their whole

livelihoods have gone away? so what we're doing, what we compromise was a six-year period that will give us time to develop the technology and to develop the data and we may find that there are different solutions or that the data may show no additional restrictions behind -- beyond what is already being done are necessary. madam president, i've been involved as an advocate for environmental policy all my adult life. i was the first full-time lobbyist for the maine environmental community in 1976. i helped to write the maine billboard law, the maine bottle bill, subdivision laws, i advocated -- interestingly, one of the bills i advocated for was right turn on red. why is that an environmental

bill? because if if you're not idling at a gas station, multiply that by millions of people across the country, a billing saving in -- a big saving in fossil fuel and pollution going into the atmosphere. that was, believe it or not, an environmental issue in the 1970's. when i was governor of maine, one of my proudest achievements is the fact that we put more land into conservation in maine during my eight years as governor than during the entire prior 175 years of maine combined. more land into conservation than in the prior 175 years combined, and it wasn't by accident. it was something that i felt deeply engaged in when i began as governor. in 1987, long before i was governor and in politics, i was the chair of a group that

brought the land for maine's future into being, which was the -- i think it was the second in the country to have a public bond issue for land conservation. this was an initiative that i took on as a private citizen. and so i have been involved in these issues. here's one more data point. this was my rating by the league of conservation voters last year -- 100%. so i don't -- if somebody says, you know, i don't care about the environment or whales, that isn't true. madam president, i work every day at edmund muskie's desk. my office found senator muskie's desk and it's in my office today. they found it in a storage room somewhere here. and edmund muskie is literally the father of the modern

environmental movement. the clean air act and the clean water, he brought to this body. the clean air act, by the way, passed this body unanimously. we can't agreeing on what time it is around here unanimously. edmund muskie's heritage of the invention, the creation of the environmental movement in this country is one of maine's proudest achievements that ed muskie was the guy that began that process here in this body some 50 years ago. i sit at his desk. i think about his legacy. and one of his legacies was, how do you talk about these issues? the big argument in maine when muskie was talking about protecting clean water and clean air was, payrolls versus picker roll.

do we have to choose between jobs and fish? muskie's answer was no. that's a false choice. we can protect the environment, but we can also understand economic impacts about and find ways to navigate whatever potential conflicts there may be. that's muskie's legacy. we don't have to choose between lobsters and whales. we don't have to choose between the men and women of stonington or cutler or correa or georgetown or freeport or cape elizabeth and whales. we just have to be sensible about approaching this in a way that will protect the whales but also protect the way of life of these wonderful people. that's why i'm here tonight. that's what we've done in this

bill. it is in no way a diminution of the standards of the endangered species act or the marine mammal protection act. it merely pauses that economic death sentence until we have time to know how to navigate the solution and what the real definition of the problem is. to me, madam president, that's good policy. it's what we should do here on all the complicated issues we face. it's an unbelievable honor and humbling to represent the state of maine in this body. and i'm proud of the fact that we've been able to confront this issue in a way that will enable the lobsters and the lobster fishers and the whales to exist in a -- in an ecosystem that's

protective of people as well as whales. this is the role that we have here, and i believe we've achieved it in this bill. i can't leave without thanking my colleague, senator collins, who was instrumental in working this -- the language that we're -- we'll have before us tomorrow, and my colleagues, congresswoman pingree, and congresswoman golden in the house, and all the people in these two bodies that we have worked with to achieve this important piece of legislation. madam president, this is the way we can make good policy, based upon data, science, facts, and common sense. and that's what we've achieved here today. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the junior senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, madam president. i want to take a moment to talk about history and then i will be making a unanimous consent request. 130 years ago is the first time the lumbee tribe in north carolina sought recognition. but you got to go back about 250 years. but that's not even enough. you got to go back to the colonial times to see a tribe indigenous to north carolina who has maintained a culture, maintained a language, done everything that they need to do to be acknowledged as a native american tribe. 130 years ago they sought recognition, and they were turned away. every year since then, they've come to congress to try and find recognition, and they've failed to do it. back in the 1950's, the congress at that time -- and we can talk about that; i will talk about that in future speeches -- at

once recognized the lumbee and then unrecognized the lumbee. the lumbee tribe in north carolina is a tribe that has a distinct culture. they have a distinct language. they're a tribe that i've been working with for years, since the time i was speaker of the house, helping them continue to preserve a heritage that has existed since the tribe first formed. we've been trying to get the lumbee recognized for several years. as a matter of fact, the bill that i'm going to ask unanimous consent for was sent to the senate on the suspension calendar with huge bipartisan support in the house. and it's not the first time that's happened. it's happened several times. but for some reason, when it comes to the senate, it goes to die. and i don't understand that. in fact, i'm going to spend a lot more time trying to understand it. i'm going to try and understand why the chick say, the choctaw and the chair key, the eastern

band in my home state oppose it. some say it's because of the integrity of the recognition process. i don't believe that a but i'm going to go into that discussion with them next year with open eyes and open ears. but i believe that there's something more sinister involved in their objection to the lumbee being recognized. and i promised lumbee tribe that every week of every -- or every week that i'm in the senate, we're going to cast light on what are the legitimate objections to the lumbee being recognized. it is time for them to be recognized. tonight through unanimous consent we could send a bill to the president's desk and they would right -- we would right a wrong that has existed for 130 years. i know there are objections on our side is the aisle -- side of the aisle. i think know this has been cleared by the democrats. but i have six on this side is the aisle that i'm going to have

to work on. i'll do that. but i do want people to understand that this tribe deserves respect. this is a tribe that's just down the road from fort bragg. they disproportionalitily serve in the army, in spite of the disrespect that this nation has directed their way for over a century. they have served with valor. they have served with honor. they are maintaining their heritage a i believe the time is now that they be recognized. 53 about a -- if that doesn't happen tonight, i want the lumbee people to know that i'm going to continue to fight for them in the same way that senator burr has for almost 28 years. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 522, h.r. 2758, i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. smith: madam president, i object -- mrs. hyde-smith: madam president, i object. the presiding officer: there is objection. mr. tillis:ty respect my colleague from mississippi. we do great work together. this is an area where we have to agree to disagree. but again i want the lumbee, i want the choctaw, i want the chickasaw, i want the cherokee, and i want every tribe who has objected to this, while the majority of native american tribes support it, know that we're going to have a lot of quality time together over the next two years. thank you, madam president.

find placement to i'm glad he's coming he'll talk about his deep about 10 times since 2014.

he talks about that. but particularly over the last few months and the fact that they could not do it without notice in the deep appreciation he fills in for a second i know who gives a first-hand report of what is going on. just this morning he was in eastern ukraine. this is what it looks like today. so he is going from a ravaged a battle zone pretty looks a little bit like world war one battle zone you see all the damage that has been occurring in this area. he will be able to tell us specifically what is happening on the battlefield on talk about the continued russian atrocities that are being committed in the country of ukraine. i am here for the 29th consecutive week on the floor of the sensor talk about this attack on ukraine.

a brutal illegal and totally unprovoked war on a democratic ally just want to live in peace with the neighbors including russia. in each of these previous 28 speeches i have talked about the progress that has been made. and some of the issues the ukrainian people still need to address it. particularly in regard to more technology and mart weapons system from the west and the united states. today i thought it might be useful to step back and look at how we got here and how far ukraine has come over these 300 days. let's consider with the ukrainian military has accomplish in that invasion sovereign ukrainian territory, now over eight years ago. this first picture shows ukrainian soldiers taken positions back in 2014. this was again right after the so-called revolution of dignity when ukraine decided to turn to the west united states and europe, democracy, free markets.

in the russian backed corrupt government was thrown out. russia responded by attacking ukraine taking crimea and parts. these are the ukrainian soldiers at that time. you can look at this very basic old rusted weapons, boots that do not look sturdy, helmets look like they're from the soviet era and they probably are. small antiarmor weapons that really did not have the ability to stop the russian armor for they cannot function the armor in the russian tanks and other armored vehicles. these of the shoulders soldiers tactless stopping the invasion. they can look like soldiers from the 1980s. in those days the ukrainian military underfunded. face a lot of allegations of fraud, had a lot of corruption. was shockingly small. and that was on purpose because the russian backed government did not want an effective military. so in 2014 with the help of

assortment of publishes the slowly rushes advance because the ukrainians were taking the high moral ground. they were unable to push the russian forces out of the country to take crimea and large parts which remains in russian hands. let's fast-forward out of 2022 today and see whether help has resulted in. this is a photograph of what soldiers look like on the front lines today. this is in a trench you can see modern firearms and helmets, body armor additional gear and equipment under uniforms for extended operations in the field weapons make a difference the american-made inside javelin were so effective against the russian tanks and other armored vehicles. they're an additional thing you could not see in this photograph or any photograph but it's really important and that is training. these soldiers in 2022 are far better trained than their predecessors are schooled in

western tactics are able to work independently and in certain circumstances. this is in contrast to what discipline and unwillingness for the ability to learn from their mistakes. this is the modern military that is shattered the sword of russians war machine. it was all made possible the combined efforts of the united states, american taxpayers. but also our allies across the world particularly the uk did a lot of training. our european allies did a lot of trading. also canada. we stepped up and we help to train the next generation of ukrainian military. and through that we help professionalize, arm, train ukraine military since 2014. to prefer it they did the exact contingency that now occurred early this year which is a full-scale invasion by russia. our efforts are paying off as russia's invasion has foundered

its military has been truly denigrated. feeding more proof about success you create a spinner of essence look at this map. when the invasion came in february of this year, all of this area in blue was occupied by russia. ukraine has now taken back about 55% of its own territory. liberated these areas to continue to make progress here in the region and throughout eastern, southeastern and northeastern ukraine. russia thought they had an easy battle on their hand for this on a matter days or weeks his entire map would be red. all of ukraine will be theirs. instead since vibrate they've liberated sovereign territory and of thousands and thousands and millions in fact of ukrainian citizens who have embraced these troops as liberators. ukraine fighters have strong

morale the first tight none of this would've been possible without help from this body. from the u.s. house. from the united states taxpayers to get in the tools they needed to protect their freedom. sent ukraine now billions of dollars for the military economic and humanitarian aid since the attack. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent at this time to -- at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 1271, the lynn m. tracy to be ambassador to the federation, ten minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form on the nomination, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, that if confirmed, the motion to

be reconsidered be considered made and laid upon the table and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc. calendar number 701, 1253, 1254, 1256, 1265, 1280, 1283, 12834, that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. heinrich: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if paid by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 7939 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 7939, an act to make permanent certain educational assistance benefits under the laws administered by the secretary of veterans affairs and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the moran substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3285 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3285, an act to amend gendered terms in federal law relating to the president and the president's spouse. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged and the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 1294. the presiding officer: is there objection?

the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1294, a bill to authorize the imposition of sanctions with respect to foreign persons that have engaged in significant theft of trade secrets of united states persons and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the van hollen substitute amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to and the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i know of no further debate on the bill as amended. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on passage of the bill as amended. all in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to

reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3946 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3946, a bill to reauthorize the trafficking victims protection act of 2017 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the cornyn substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 4859

and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 4859, a bill to reauthorize the project safe neighborhoods grant program authorization act of 2018 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the durbin-cornyn amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 348, s. 1324. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 348, s. 1324 had a bill to establish a civilian

cybersecurity reserve as a pilot project and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection -- mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 5961 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 5961, an act to make revisions in title 5, united states code, as necessary to keep the title current and to make technical amendments to improve the united states code. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee

is discharge and the senate will proceed. mr. heinrich: ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 5328 introduced earlier today by senator cortez masto. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 5328, a bill to amend the farm security and rural investment act of 2002, to extend terminal lakes assistance. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. heinrich: i further ask that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration

of s. 5329 introduced earlier today by senator blumenthal. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 5329, a bill to amend the bill emerson good samaritan food donation act to improve the program appeared for other purposes. -- and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. heinrich: i further ask that the bill be considered read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i had ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3949 and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3949 it a bill to reauthorize the trafficking victims protection act of 2000 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate

will proceed. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the grassley substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor and pensions be discharged from further consideration of s. 4120 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 4120, a business to maximize discovery and accelerate development and availability of promising childhood cancer treatments and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the -- the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the reed substitute

at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on energy and natural resources be discharged from further consideration of s. 3519 and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3519, a bill to amend the national trails system act to designate the butterfield overland national historic trail and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the boozman amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed,

and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 499, s. 1942. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 499, s. 1942, a bill to standardize the designation of national heritage areas and and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. heinrich: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the manchin substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. heinrich: mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

risking the safety of our communities and endangering the lives of the migrants

themselves. right now we are experiencing a dangerous tipping point. the combination of an unsecured border, and overworked and under resourced border patrol and protection force, and never before seen levels of illegal immigration, asylum seekers coordinated smuggling efforts have completely ruined and already broken system. to make matters worse, title 42 the public health order that stops some migrants from entering our country may soon expire allowing thousands of migrants to enter arizona, texas, of the border states that the proper procedure, plans, or infrastructure in place. let me be clear, this is a humanitarian and security nightmare. already our border towns can barely keep up with the demand from the overwhelming levels of immigration. a small community of roughly

37000 people right on the arizona mexico border, the fire chief recently told us that three of his five ambulance are used solely to care for migrants in need. leaving only two ambulances for the entire local community on any given night. the city of tucson's art excepted over 15% of its total population just in migrant releases since april of this year. and in yuma, the threat of street releases persist every single day. including today. with thousands of migrants coming to our border and seeking asylum our overwhelmed border patrol agents are now additionally taxed with a processing asylum-seekers. taken the agents away from the important work of patrolling the border, apprehending illegal crossers and stopping cartel, drug, and smugglers.

the consequences are plain to see. the mayor even recently reported seeing migrants traveling along inner city highways because a border patrol was too overwhelmed to apprehend them closer to the border. while towns like humanitarian organizations across our state and our brave women and men in blue, green and brown, shoulder the burden of a failed system. washington continues to politicize solutions. our politicians are retreating to their partisan corners instead of examining the problem for what it is. not what one party or the other party wishes it was. and focusing on finding meaningful solution. some refuse to acknowledge the need for increased security measures at all while others have a singular view of what kind of security is sufficient.

some want to welcome all who come to the border into our country while others want to keep everyone out. and if you want to defund the very agencies who are tasked with enforcing our immigration laws or underfund the very humanitarian organizations that provide vital services and care for the asylum-seekers our country has always pledged to help. as someone who has seen all the challenges that are border, my entire life, i know these are all false choices. that is why i rejected the partisan echo chamber and partnered with my good friend senator thom tillis on a bipartisan proposal to help solve some of the real problems our border communities and immigration system continue to face. just as we have on a number of complex issues, from gun violence to marriage equality in

religious freedom, we focused on our shared values and shared goals. before we can tackle the issue of a backlog asylum process, employment leases or the status of undocumented residents, we knew we had to focus first on securing the border. a problem as big as our broken border has smart comprehensive solution. that solution starts by investing in the brave men and women who keep our borders safe it. how robust a well-trained in resourced border patrol, office of field operations and air and marine operations force are critical to secure the border, to keep our communities safe and ensure the fair and humane treatment of migrants. center tele tonight focused on boosting the pay, increasing sizes in providing our agents and officers the equipment and technology they need to do their

job safely and efficiently. beyond supporting our men and women in blue, green, brown, we are committed to reasserting control of our border. senator tillotson i understand that to secure our border we need physical barriers where they make sense. but relying only on physical barriers is a 17th century answer to a 21st century problem. the fact is, the majority of illegal drugs sees coming into our country arrived through our ports of entry. this past october, our office of field operations officers reported late 73% increase and fentanyl seizures compared with just one year ago. in just two weeks ago, the office of field operations officers at the port of entry seized over 1.5 million fentanyl pills in less than five days.

a wall alone cannot stop these drugs from finding a way into our country killing our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones. we must supplement security barriers with innovative technology solutions. we must boost our border protection and patrol forces and we must update the policies governing our border to meet the moment. for years, our asylum system has represented the promise of america, welcoming those fleeing persecution to find freedom and safety. today though, our asylum system is broken. our border patrol is not able to do their jobs catch dangerous criminals are. and our border communities cannot keep up. in order to uphold the promise of protection and freedom and ensure our asylum system works for those who seek to serve we must acknowledge the status quo

is no longer functional. our immigration courts and asylum officers remain completely backlogged with the simple cases taking years to resolve. sending a message that america does not take this process seriously. and that our system can be manipulated. in arizona and the impact is clear. small towns along our border are overwhelmed daily, struggling to care for their own residence while managing an increase influx of hundreds of migrants every day. with our asylum system broken, more migrants made the arduous and office often and devastating journey to our border. when arrived they risk not being able to access to care and medical attention they need. now arizona humanitarian organizations do incredible

work. they go above and beyond every date to street releases and make sure migrants are treated fairly. they can only do so much. for example the main humanitarian organization in tucson has been operating overcapacity for over a month. over 600 asylum-seekers a day. is now contracting buses due to the large number of migrants coming to that small city. what well underway hotels are increasingly limited. placing even more strain on ems already overwhelms public health and emergency response system.

manipulated. the crisis at the border represents an immediate threat. those of us from border states no and we have seen up close that strong border security, healthy cross-border trade and a fair immigration system go hand in hand. we can do and we must achieve all three. in 2019, over $2 trillion worth of goods were traded through the ports of entry and at the port handles over a billion dollars of produce every year. the goods and services treated

between arizona and mexico power drops across the state and often immigrant workers are the very ones fueling the cross-border trade into keeping this sector of the economy strong. to ensure they continue to grow and to ensure the nations economy continues to thrive for generations to come, we need a robust workforce. and that's why our bipartisan proposal fixes a wasteful loophole in the current system. for years hundreds of thousands have gone to waste. by writing this wrong we will increase the country's competitiveness and ensure america has the workforce that needs to power the economy and compete on the world stage. i believe the future resilience of the country also depends on young people often known as dreamers and in america we don't punish children for the actions

of their parents and millions have been brought to our country through no fault of their own. these kids have grown up in our neighborhoods, attend our schools, graduated, gotten jobs. they've served in the military. they've contributed to the economies all while making the community's more vibrant and rich places to live. but now they are stuck in limbo. casualties of washington's inability to solve the broken immigration system and that's by senator tillis and i have said enough is enough. we call on our colleagues to join us in a bipartisan plan to give these young people a chance to be recognized as americans. our proposal was tough but its fair and would make america a safer place for all of us.

i stand here today disappointed as we come close to closing of the 117th congress that washington has chosen yet again to retreat to its partisan corners instead of doing the hard and necessary work of finding the lasting solutions when it comes to the crisis at the border and in arizona, we will continue to shoulder the burden. part of the problem is many in washington never taken the time to see it up close. to rely on the focus points instead of the realistic solutions. that's why when we come back to congress in january, one of the first things i will do with senator tillis is convening a bipartisan group of senators who are willing and able to commit to getting something done. we are going to bring them to the border.

we are going to see what arizonans see every single day because the crisis this a big should not and cannot be ignored. and in arizona we cannot afford for this crisis to continue much longer. over the past four years, i've been privileged to work with colleagues in this body on both sides of the aisle to solve some of the country's toughest challenges. we have shown america there is so much more that unites us than divides us. we've shown america what is possible when we listen to one another not to respond best to understand. there is no challenge more retractable, more difficult to bridge, and more dire for us to solve van our border and

immigration crisis and i believe we can come together and honestly solve this challenge. i am willing to do this work and i couldn't be more grateful for partners like senator tillis who is also willing to do this work and today i call on my colleagues on both sides of the dial to join us. put down the politics let's get this done. thank you and i will yield the floor. >> the senator from north carolina. >> i first want to thank my colleague senator cinema for her comments. i think she's framed a lot of the challenges we were seeking to address that are going to persist into the next congress now. i think one of the things we have to do if we are able to achieve bipartisan consensus in the next congress is to get more people to recognize just as senator cinema stated in the

first few lines of comments before me we have a crisis at the southern border and it's a crisis where the border states, the southern border states bear the brunt of it but it affects everybody in the united states. every city being affected by the crisis at the border. i think this administration has to recognize it's interesting if you watch the news coverage how suddenly one end of the spectrum says now it is time for congress to act. the crisis at the border, 2 million illegal crossings in each of the last 12 month period for a total of 4 million people illegally crossing the border. we dodged a bullet this week when title 42 which is a policy that allows expedited removal for a certain group of those crossing the border illegally to

be returned. but tomorrow or next week or in the next couple of weeks that policy is going to come off the books. then border patrol says that they will no longer have control over the border. they already have said that they can barely keep up. the vast majority of people are border patrol agency and should be responding to the illegal crossings are working in the aftermath of 2 million people coming across the border over the last 12 months. they are providing housing, transportation. they are not actually doing law enforcement. it is estimated to be 3 million over the next 12 months and it could go up from there. ever since president biden has taken office we have to keep in mind that this is just an object of observation in the 12 months before president biden came into office there were about a half a million illegal crossings in the 12 months before and the 12

months after, there were 2 million and of the 12 months after that, there were 2 million and now we have the threat of 3 million and continuing. what's even worse than that, on the one hand when you see somebody risking their life to come into this country you have to kind of take it as a complement. they want to realize the american dream and i admire that but one of the reasons we are so attractive as a country to come and prosper is because we are a nation of lives. we have order, now we have disorder at the border. and even though it's a huge problem to add 2 million it's worse to have 15,000 got a ways. i've been at the border several times. the vast majority of the people that crossed the border immediately you literally see the northern side of the rio

grande and arrow that points you to where to go to be processed. they know they are going to be treated respectfully. they will be given housing and food and go through the process. what is concerning is that there are some 50,000 per month to intentionally evade apprehension. why on earth if you have the title claim or you don't have a criminal record would you run the risk of evading the border patrol than getting in line being processed and being released within a few weeks? the reason for that as many of them have criminal background records. 750 recently apprehended who were documented members in their country of origin. these are people that are coming to this country quickly going to the communities they are most liked and making those communities less safe for the

people who are legally present are people that have been relocated over the past couple of years with the flood of the border. you also have to understand the reason the administration has to recognize this is a crisis is the cardinals made an estimated $800 million over the last 12 months paying a toll to come to this country. if you are in a latin american country or south american country the pay on average is between five to $7,000 per person. if you're from china you are paying about $35,000. these cartels have set up a marketing function they go to these countries and say if you pay us the fee we will get you to the united states. in spite of the fact they may have passed through other safe countries that they can seek asylum. that's what we talk about when we talk about abusing the asylum system. the international treaties say that if somebody comes to you and you have a credible fear for

your life or your families life, then the country that you live, relocate to a country that can grant you asylum and go through the process. but what the cartels are saying we don't care where you are in the world literally and we will get you to the united states and you will pass through several countries where you could have applied for asylum in between. then when you get here, the cartels have coached them on exactly what to say to make you think you have a credible claim in spite of the fact that with hundreds of judges, democrats democratjudges, republican judg, independent judges, 80% of those asylum claims are deemed not to be credible. so the asylum system is broken. it has to be fixed. it's one of the foundations of any kind of framework that i can support. the border has to be secure and we need more technology and enforcement at the legal ports of entry because the cartels making 800 million a year

spending that money to then send truckloads of fentanyl and dangerous drugs poisoning and killing americans. so our hope in the next congress we can recognize number one hopefully the administration will recognize we do have a crisis at the border and it can't be solved on partisan grounds. we have to have a conversation both ends of the political spectrum need to recognize that you've got to move to the point where we can produce a solution. otherwise americans are going to be poisoned to death, people trying to cross the border are going to die in the hundreds and it is a moral obligation that we have to get out of our political comfort zone and get something done. otherwise the blood of the people who die as a result of inaction are on the hands of everybody in this room. thank you, mr. president

quorum call:

with the institute he serves as a resident senior fellow here to talk about the 117th congress. thanks for joining us today. >> guest: thanks for having me. a little bit about the institute how do you best describe people?

>> guest: a terrific organization and public policy organization unlike anything else i've seen in my two decades working in washington, d.c. it is a think tank outside of the box, a very creative place looking for real solutions to real problems that we currently confront. >> host: one of the things in your background to get a little clarification you worked in the senate working with various members. can you give an encapsulation? >> guest: i worked for a variety senators to pat toomey who gave his address i was the executive director and worked for a number of senate conservatives in that capacity and it was an honor to work in that fabulous institution. >> host: part of your work is taking a look at the effects of congress and you wrote a piece taking a look at the lame-duck congress. you call it a threat to

democracy. can you talk to us about what spurred this? >> guest: in the lead up to and after the election there's been a lot of talk about to deny years and a discussion about the threats to america's democracy and i think it is helpful for people, regardless of what they believe to be concerned about their government and political process, they want to make it better however they may see fit. but with regard to the lame-duck it was very concerning to me because here we have a congress and the standard practices to wait until after the americans vote, to wait until after they cast their ballot to make all of the important decisions. this isn't my congress ran out of time. congress intentionally waited until after the election so that it could make decisions with members retiring and not seeking to come back in january who can no longer be held accountable or members who will be on the ballot two years from now but that's two years from now during a busy holiday season when

americans have a hard time remembering what took place over the weeks of december following that. and i think that is by definition a threat to democracy because it undermines the voter's ability to hold their elected officials accountable for the decisions they make on their behalf. >> host: if they were voted out of office they are still technically in office. what is wrong with them making these decisions? >> guest: they still have time and the term. ratified in 23 they sought to address this before the lame-duck session because until march of the upcoming year this is march, 2023 the amendment tried to end the lame-duck sessions by requiring congress to get a new session in january. january 3rd of the year following the election. there was time a couple of weeks before and that the january date for congress to address the emergencies in case something arose and how that is how they used the lame-duck sessions

early on however i think the problem is that members are purposely intentionally waiting until after the people vote to make decisions and not just because it is an emergency. they are not doing it because they ran out of time or they had other things to do. they are doing it intentionally because it is easier to pass the big controversial bills and the in thedead of night with no one looking when you have the holidays bearing down upon you and you are no longer worried about people going to the polls and a couple of days to cast ballots. >> host: our guest until 8:45 giving a great sense of the highs and lows of the 117 congress you want to ask questions call republicans, 202-748-8001, democrats 202-748-8000, independent, 202-748-8002. you can text if you want to (202)748-8003. talking about the 20th amendment, states that determine

the president and vice president on the 20th day of january the senators and representatives at noon and with such terms would have ended such as this. it goes on to bear. you talked about waiting especially in the lame-duck congress where the deadline for funding on friday there is the debate on this package. would you cite that as an example of currently waiting especially for the congress to take something on that big? >> 1.7 billion of our omnibus spending package that is a lot of money and it's a lot of money there's a lot of stuff in the bill i doubt many people if anybody has had a chance to read it and they've waited now until the last possible minute. they have had a whole year to wade. they are supposed to have this done by the end of september but again congress doesn't meet its deadline because it is trying and it is running out of time. it is not trying to meet the deadline.

it waits. they are all good people doing what they think is best but this is the way that they have kind of decided to do business over the last 28 years or so. when it is thousands of pages long that is released in the dead of night and they are going to vote on it and get it out of congress to the president's desk before the weeks and to get home for the holidays, it is very hard to identify who the pivotal players are. it's hard to identify what is in that ability and it's hard to hold people accountable for the decisions they make and it's hard to influence the process if you so choose if you don't like what is and that a bill or you want something else in the bill so here we see the system of representative government of literally breaking down in front of us and what is remarkable and striking is that it is so routine that both democrats and republicans do it and no one seems to care much. >> some republicans including kevin mccarthy and others made the case we are going to take

the gavel to the house next year. is that a sound argument? >> the common sense perspective it absolutely is if you take over the house of representatives, you will have more leverage in the congress then you have in the majority. it makes no sense for you to go along with the omnibus now when you could simply pass another continuing resolution to delay it into the new congress enoughd after all congress lives continuing the resolutions when it's going to have an easier time doing something in the future of the lame-duck as an example. the speaker of the next congress isn't doing this from the principled concern of the representative democracy. kevin mccarthy in the past supported the omnibus spending packages in the lame-duck before. he supported other big marquis legislation in the lame-duck before. so i think that we have to look at his effort in the coals to delay this as simply an effort

to get a better deal in the new congress and again there's nothing wrong with that and that's happened in the past it makes sense but it doesn't speak to the problem with the representative government the lame-duck currently represents. >> many legislators on the program have said the call to the regular order so to speak when it comes to passing these budget bills why do you think that has been unable to have an? >> i think it's important to point out that the regular order is just simply one way that builds the path they take on the way to becoming law where you go and have committee hearings and they debate things that go to the floor and members have the chance to weigh in on it and then ultimately congress passes the bill. there are lots of different ways for the bill to become law. i think what we should look at is what level of engagement. sometimes the rank-and-file lawmakers want to go along with

passing something as quickly as possible if there's an emergency and they need to address or if there is a widespread agreement on something that they simply don't need on this extra time at all these extra steps but i think that the problem right now the reason we don't see the regular orders the two parties are divided internally in the common understanding of polarization in american politics the two parties are divided internally and they don't like showcasing those on the house in the senate floor so they like to keep things bottled up. they and power their lawmakers and leaders to control the process to negotiate these agreements behind closed doors into put them on the floor in such a way they feel jammed into the are presented where they have to go along with it even though they may not want to and they can speak out of both sides of their mouth and i think that is why we don't see a lot of regular order in the united states senate. the house has an easier time controlling the legislative process but the senate does not.

it's a lot harder to keep the members from offering amendments that may reveal divisions in the party and the divisions in the republican party. >> host: if you want to ask how congress works and what you think about how congress works it is 74 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8002 for the independence. we will hear first from lisa in minnesota on the democrats line your own with our guest. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question is with respect to amy coney barrett after the voting had already started the senate confirmed her she had a party before justice ginsburg was even buried but they denied an opportunity to even meet with senators and he would have garnered the 50 plus votes according to republicans at the time and later yet of the

majority of the american people said that they did not want her appointed or anyone appointed until after the presidential election was ongoing and how did he respond to that? >> i think that you are absolutely correct to be concerned about the state of the process. i would encourage you though article two, section two gives the president and the senate the joint ability, the joint responsibility to nominate and appoint and ultimately confirm and appoint the supreme court justices. the senate has its own independent role in the process and gets to decide whoever is in control, democrats or republicans how they want to use that role and that power. the senate is within its right to not hold hearings or allow votes on nominees and other senators get to push back on that. you mentioned marietta garland. republicans on the committee decided not to hold a hearing on

the nomination to be the supreme court justice. the democrats could have forced votes on that. they could have forced republicans to take a stand in the court of the opinion and that people would have had a chance to weigh in but they choose not to end that highlights the dysfunction in the senate today not just with the confirmation process which is that lawmakers on the right and left, democrats and republicans seem to be more interested in using the senate as a sounding board so they can go out and make statements that appeal to the people and make a forward leaning address as opposed to rolling up their sleeves and looking themselves in the mirror and saying i'm going to do everything i can to prevail to get my nominee confirmed, to get my bill passed and a vote on my amendment. we don't see that anymore. we see the drive-by vote and lots of talking points but very

little action that speaks to the dysfunction. >> on the republican line this is roberta. hello. >> i'm an active person as far as trying to make a difference and as i sit here and watch people in congress they tell you you're not in my district i don't want to hear which means you can call the congressional office. if they don't take what you have to say with any meaning at all it never goes anywhere and that is the truth. it never goes anywhere. so we sit here and everybody says how much they care. we have inflation for two years. we have some serious issues of how we've chipped into the social security amount of money because of the inflation for two years. last year i got $107 and usually

i would get $22 or $13 were things like that. that's a huge problem for the future and yet no one talks about it but everyone says they care. thank you for listening. >> host: thank you for calling. >> caller: >> guest: that underscores the concerns with the lame-duck. the americans need to understand they are not ruled by the people they choose every two years in an election. we have a lot of things that happened between but ultimately in this country end of this nation it is that people themselves who are ultimately suffering. they choose people to go and act on their behalf. politics is inactivity that we participate. the self-governance is an activity we participate. we don't just go into the voting booth and do nothing for the next few years. there's lots of great examples of people who chose even when society wouldn't listen to them they engaged in acts of civil

disobedience andof the struggleg in many respects to get the ratification of the 19th amendment. if you think about doctor king and the civil rights movement and the montgomery bus boycott december of 1955 and december of 1956. that is a long time. and it takes effort and you cannot just pick up the phone and call someone and ask them to do something and then expect everything to go well. sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't and they comment on the conservatives and liberals, the markets, republicans and everybody in between to do the things that we have seen in american history as a kind of nonviolent direct action, the kind of writing and pleading at making the case for the colleagues and neighborhoods and families to ultimately ensure that your government is taking your concerns too hard and ultimately acting in a way that you see fit. >> host: the caller had given her grade. how would you grade at the 117th and what highlights or low

lights would you take from that? >> guest: right now i am not too encouraged by the congress and that isn't a change from the past years. if we look overall, congress is continuing to struggle to find a way to legislate. struggling to find a way to tackle the issues that are utmost concern to the american people. if you think about the decision that's a great example there was one vote to codify roe v wade after the decision was leaked. democrats had one vote and they failed to get 60 votes on it. they dropped it as quickly as they could and moved on. if we recall back to the earlier era in 2003, 2004 and 2005 when the congress was a little bit more productive if you remember there was a nominee named miguel estrada nominated for the dc

circuit court by george w. bush. when the senate would otherwise not be in they try it and then we looked at the decision and effort to codify. democrats are unified on abortion. they say they are. it's a common view yet they had one vote. they lost it and they couldn't be ordered to go back again. we see this time again with democrats and republicans on a whole host of issues and we wonder why nothing happens and i think that's why. compromise doesn't just happen. it emerges out of a struggle where people try to debate to different things and they ultimately have to compromise along the way. >> next year we will see the house being ruled by the republican party.

the senate that is ruled by democrats what do you think about this idea of the government and what it does for the quality of just leaving on capitol hill? >> i think in 100 years if you look back you will have a hard time distinguishing the congress but i do think it's a step in the right direction. we need more good political conflict within the house and senate and rank-and-file lawmakers to put power back from the leaders and ultimately to try to achieve their goal lead when they do so the constituents can take note and a reward or punish them as they see fit in the next election. >> host: the gas to joining us, let's hear from kenneth in kentucky on the republican line. go ahead. >> caller: good morning.

>> go ahead. >> caller: we don't have a congress were military men. i think we are already and i will tell you i don't have any respect for the people in the united states right now as far as running the country. it's going to the dogs and they will have to do something to show the people what's going on in the united states. i appreciated. thank you and have a good day. >> host: what do you think about the public perception as far as how it impacts? >> kenneth makes a good point if you think about an institution only exists as long as we use it for the purpose it was created. congress is the place where we go to find, disagree, debate and

argue. when we no longer use it for the purpose to achieve the outcomes and to achieve our goals for all intents and purposes it's gone. it doesn't mean it can't come back tomorrow with the lawmakers start to be lawmakers again and he was congress as a great fabulous crucible of conflict but until then congress is into doing what it was designed to do. >> host: you've written a couple books on this idea. is that lost in congress or is it still possible? >> there will always be decisions made behind closed doors. i think the key difference is the degree to which the rank-and-file lawmakers were able to participate in the process and they are doing it to themselves. it's not like there's a shadow figure forcing everybody to do something. if you want to know my congress is broken it's because it's members broke it and that is the reflection on us we think of the

compromise when we are thinking about consensus and we don't like to the disagreement. that it would somehow prevent us from compromising. but that doesn't how it works. you have to first have a difference of opinion. if we had a consensus on things if we want to deliberation and want to see more compromising to more bipartisanship, we have to embrace the outliers and see them as good things because that is how we got things like the civil rights act of 1964 and that's how we did all the things the congress did when it had its most legislative productive period. >> there were charts of bills that passed that were enacted if

you go back ten the first congress that was like 408 substance of bills. when you get to the 116th congress it is 233. the numbers go up and down from there. but as far as passing laws, the number you look at or is it the quality of law? >> a little bit of both. there is a number of balls that are not very consequential as it may be they have broad widespread support. you think about any kind of minor piece of legislation but overall the numbers do matter. what's more important is what has congress done to pass the bill earlier this year, but the bill was kind of like a civil rights act of 1957. not many people remember that act. it was in the active 64. it was the lowest common denominator. it hasn't really changed things much and i think if you look at guns and abortion and

immigration, healthcare, education, they are at the top of the american agenda right now. congress isn't passing legislation to deal with that so congress can pass the public law but if it isn't at adjudicating the concerns of the american people in a way that we can see and we can hold our lawmakers accountable, then there's thousands that don't mean much in the end. >> host: lawrence from new york on the democrats line. >> caller: yes. my name is lawrence and i wanted to know biden is doing his job. >> host: mr. biden formerly because of the senate what do you think of the relations with congress especially the

experience he has in congress? >> guest: he is a quintessential legislature . i worked when he was there and had a great relationship with members on the republicans and democrats alike but i do want to underscore the point that was made which i think is often lost that the members of congress and executive branch we may not like what they do all the time and our comments can get pretty critical and perhaps unfortunately nasty at times but it's important that we recognize that these are all americans doing what they think is best stepping into the arena and their own unique way and i think that they are all good people and they are really trying. i may disagree with what they are doing or how they are going about doing it but ultimately i think that it's important to keep that perspective in mind. >> host: peter on the republican line.

also in new york state. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i agree with everything you said. it was a big talk about how there was going to be this big red wave and republicans didn't do as well as they were saying, but they were trying to blame and said they had a bad candidates. it's the because the republican party no longer stands. what have they done to prove and for instance they should be trying to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. nobody even is talking about it. if you require 60 votes to pass legislation out of the senate but yet a whole bunch, ten, 12, 15 republicans who vote along with the democrats for instance

to say i am not going to work with you on any legislation until you secure the border. republicans can do that. unfortunately when it comes time for them to act they don't act and that's why they are doing so poorly. unless the republican party partychanges its tactics and acy shows the people that they mean business they are going to stay in the minority. i believe mitch mcconnell wants to be in the minority. that's my opinion. >> guest: i think what's important, and you've raised a great point, mitch mcconnell doesn't callout president biden and say that because he doesn't agree with a large part of his party certainly in the country on immigration. in 2007 he is a part of the comprehensive reform and gym

sessions, jim demint, tom coburn led the effort to support that that was supported by george w. bush and mitch mcconnell was vividly upset and frustrated you can look it up on the c-span video library antecedent after the call. he has his own policies and his challenge is to try to unify the party that doesn't agree on things like immigration and one other point that you've raised about the election and the candidates i would encourage all of the viewers to resist the urge to have a one-size-fits-all explanation. the fact is they did great in some places and poorly and others. i think ultimately we have to recognize that we don't have just one republican party or democratic party but we have 50 republican parties and all the different states and 50 democratic parties. the republican party now it is

very different than oregon or maine and until we recognize and see that nuance and diversity i don't think we are going to understand it and we will continue to be perplexed. >> host: what did you think about the recent decision by the decision to become an independent? >> that has a lot to do with being outside. it's not going to change what happens after all senator cinema is going to continue to caucus with the democratic party. bernie sanders isn't a democrat. things won't really change unless it is decided to no longer caucus with the party. then we might see some differences but at the end of the day i don't think it's going to change how the senate operates. what did you think about the influence they have about influencing policy depending how much they agree with their fellow democrats on the issue?

>> this influence is by the senators into the leadership. you very quickly realize how hard and difficult it is for one senator to do anything when people don't want to listen to you. the effect of the matter unless they continue to operate by unanimous consent and that is the senate saying we don't want to use the rules we have on the books we want to create new rules by unanimous consent. if they go and in essence they are asking for permission to do something and they shouldn't be surprised when they say no but if they don't want them to object or say no, there's plenty of rules on the books in the senate for them to go around and force them to ultimately devote one way or another on the floor and they may lose some of those and win the some of those and we've seen the leaders play hardball and we've seen it with regards to the house she really forced the progressives over there to go along with the highway ability and other

legislation. she called their bluff. they could have done the same. he may not have been successful but he may have been so we have to see what makes these powerful and how the senate is currently run and managed by the two leaders it's not anything in the senate rules. >> host: the house speaker nancy pelosi will become a member of congress along with the others. how much influence do you think she will have over the workings on the democratic side of the new house? >> guest: a towering figure in congressional history and this particular congress. she's an extraordinary leader. i don't agree with everything she's done from the policy perspective and i work with republican members of congress during her tenure and often times we are on opposite sides of things but her skill as a leader has been incredible and if you look at harry reid in similar ways with the affordable care act in particular, those are why they became law.

it wasn't any special interest would ultimately president obama it was their civilian leaders and it does show they should take note and look and say this is what good effective leadership looks like and we want the skilled leaders so we can also achieve those goals. >> host: democratic line pennsylvania go ahead. >> caller: hello. i've got a question for you i know you are blaming the lame-duck session and you don't agree with making the decisions in the lame-duck sessions but i don't agree that corporations are people. i just don't believe in the citizens united. i think we need politicians and of the american people have to be clear with who's funding it.

that's what drives the decisions in congress and you can't even identify who's getting what most of the time. what is your opinion, and you've got the supreme court making decisions that are more political in my lifetime recently. so, what is your cure for the problems that some are generated by the court and some are generated by the parties attacking the process, so -- >> guest: that is the big problem. we all have different views and concerns but ultimately we all have the right to see how the representatives at adjudicated and we should be able to call on them to do so and to be able to see who makes the decisions and what people ultimately decide and hold our representatives accountable for those.

there is nothing wrong or bad about that. the problem is that increasingly among the american people and among the representatives in congress we have now come to the point if you don't agree with what i think is right then i'm going to do everything i can to make sure you don't have a right to participate and you are not able to better adjudicate your concerns and i'm not able to vote on what you think is best. i don't think that is appropriate and that thinking is what leads to these decisions in congress and the lame-duck period after the american people vote. >> host: james by the way with the institute who serves as the resident senior fellow to talk about the 117th congress and issues related to that. this bill and maryland independent line. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i will confess i tuned in late about your guest caught my

attention. as a voter who is an independent but i usually vote republican, i live in the deep blue state of maryland. i just look at what's going on and i see the party and i want to get your thoughts on the party because the big issue which in my mind is a fiscal conservative, i am watching this country sink in debt and you've got the entitlement programs that haven't been addressed since tip o'neill and ronald reagan and it seems to me the politicians in this country are taking a decisions based on their self-interest and career politicians and what we need. we need to citizen legislators who are not going to be voting in their own self-interest

colluding with the opposition which as you said should be a crucible of conflict and instead i see a group of people that collude with each other that could continue their career as politicians and get rich and they all come out as millionaires and so i just want to get your thoughts about the labor union point. >> we shouldn't be surprised it's hard to change the status quo. it's always going to be hard because after all that is why it is the status quo. the interest, the parties, the people. but it can be done but not for that to happen. i think the american people have to feel empowered and right now you feel a lot of apathy and frustration but it's the kind of powerlessness and the population. and that is very concerning because ultimately until that changes, congress isn't going to change. if you look at the 50s and

60s quickly, the status quo on issues like civil rights was extraordinarily powerful in the senate in the 1950s but in 1958 you had democratic liberal senators come in who were not going to continue to do business as usual. the constituents pushed them and said we are not going to tolerate the business as usual in dc and if you don't do something we are going to get somebody else and they disrupted things and started forcing votes and lost those votes but you have to lose until you can win and they kept winning things going around regular order they said we want to debate. we want to participate and see action on things like civil rights and that's how ultimately you got the civil rights act of 64 and at the voting rights act of 65 and amendments in the clean air act and a whole host of other things the congress did regulating the airlines in the 1970s and a whole host of things because the american people demanded that the representatives go to washington

and at adjudicated the concerns on their behalf. >> host: what did you think about the january 6 committee in light of not only the final hearing yesterday about the criminal recommendations they make? >> guest: any time it tries to exercise the power we have a lot of oversight in congress in recent decades and that is both among democrats and republicans, so it's a good thing when congress decides it wants to do something that is a good thing in my book. it's incumbent upon people to try to resist it but the way you do that is by resisting it in congress and pushing back with regards to the substance of the committee i think it's important that the viewers remember we had an unprecedented impeachment of the former president who wasn't in office on trial and during that trial when people justified why it was important to convict even though they were private citizens, it is told it was the only way to hold people accountable, now we have the

january 6 committee recommending the formal criminal charges to the justice department and i think that underscores the fact that there are other ways to punish citizens. you can't and shouldn't be impeaching citizens because that's not in the constitution. i think there's another interesting thing if we look at the impeachment trial and juxtapose it to the hearing, one reason why democrats and some republicans wanted to convict other former presidents in the trial as they wanted to ensure that you couldn't run again. the constitution gives the ability to say that if an official you can't run again and they didn't prevail on that vote but ultimately i think if you look at the january 6 committee effort here they could be seen in a way that convicts so he cannot run again and again i think it's important that we distinguish the political and the end of the legal implications and try to evaluate them. >> host: do you think it would have been a different result say

the original republicans that the house speaker or the house minority leader wanted on the committee would it have made a difference? >> if making a difference as finding evidence that may be they found about haven't released that we don't know about yet but it would have led to a better understanding of what happens because there would have been disagreement any time you have disagreement in an official proceeding like that it invites people into the process and gives people something to watch and a sense of kind of engagement and it helps to bring out information that we otherwise wouldn't see but it's important that any representatives that are participating and not just go along with whatever the democrats wanted to do after all that's not why we have the proceeding but because out of conflict and disagreement we get a better understanding of the truth, the reality and the realm

and i'm not sure there was a lot of support on the democratic side or the supporters for that meeting. >> host: let's hear from paul in texas only independent line. the last call. >> caller: i want to thank c-span for all they do. my question i'm just tuning in but your thoughts on citizens united, the supreme court case that's allowed a flood of money coming in from corporate? >> you and i may disagree on that but the important thing is where do we disagree. it's an institution and the government under the constitution that ed adjudicates the disputes. it doesn't make policies or set of law or get to stay with the constitution means with regard to congress and of the president. after all if that were the case

we wouldn't have the separation of powers we would be ruled by line individuals that wear robes to work. the supreme court is an institution that is vital, but as long as we continue to look to the supreme court to be the final orbiter on the most controversial decision in american politics, then we will continue to be disgruntled and an orchestrated because they take those issues out of politics and we can add adjudicate them because after all the supreme court has spoken and the only way to get around that is a new supreme court and that undermines the supreme court to make it a week institution and harder to do the job that it ultimately has to do. >> host: the website for the guest organization, james wallner the resident senior fellow here to talk about congress. thank you for talking to us. happy holidays.

>> guest: thanks for having me.

mr. schumer: good evening.

are we in a quorum call? i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the executive session to consider the following nomination, calendar 1235, gene rodriguez of california to be assistant secretary of energy, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, the senate reseoul -- resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of energy. gene rodry guess of california to be an assistant secretary, electricity delivery and energy reliability. the presiding officer: question occurs on the nomination. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the republican leader -- determined

by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar 780, ago necessary shaver to be assistant secretary of the army. there be ten minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form on the nomination. upon the use or yielding back of time irk, the senate vote on the nomination, with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, a that the the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar 781, franklin r. parker to be an assistant secretary of navy, there be ten minutes of debate on the nomination, that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the senate vote on the nomination, with no intervening action or debate, that if confirmed, the motion to

reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. so sorded. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, december 21. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar 1271, lynn tracy to be ambassador to the russian federation. further, that at 11:30, the senate vote on confirmation of the tracy nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order.

the presiding officer: the trillion dollars spending package bill includes ada to ukraine and for natural disasters as well as $858 billion in defense funding the senate returns watch live coverage on c-span2. next we take you to the booktv programming which will be showcasing all this week. you can also watch online any time at booktv.org. click on the box to fix. ukrainian president is expected to visit washington, d.c. wednesday. his visit to the u.s. capitol was dependent on security. this will be the president's first official foreign visit outside of ukraine following the

russian invasion back in february. while plans for the trip in washington haven't been detailed, sources suggest he will meet with president biden at the white house. president zelenskyy is expected to meet with lawmakers on capitol hill. speaker nancy pelosi urged lawmakers to be present for what she is calling a very special focus on democracy on wednesday night.