that no one saw as an opportunity give in and made sure we flipped tough seat in washington's third congressional districts. and supported in amazing incoming member of congress. so susan delbene is a right leader at the right time with the right demeanor, powerful intellect and powerful skill set. and the right experience to lead democrats to victory in 2024 is my honor to yield the next chair of the democratic congressional campaign committee. susan dell. thank you leader ejects. sitting at the call you later. i am honored to be here with all of you and others from her senior leadership team. it is truly my honor to be

appointed as the next chair of the teachable e. leader jeffries and i came to congress together, which seems like a long time ago now. it's been an honor to call your friend and colleague for many, many years. seven a judiciary committee picnics all this is able to watch our website c-span.org. we take you live to the senate which is working to build to keep the government funded through september of next year. votes out of limits and final passage are possible late into the evening seat legislation to the house before friday night deadline. senators also considering executive nominations including agnes schaefer to be assistant secretary of the army.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 68. the nays are 26. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is

considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be 3450edly -- immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. schumer: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: signify quorum call:

quorum call: at the cato institute. good morning david. talking about

immigration today so let's dive right in on monday the supreme court justice john roberts moved to halt that was expired today. can you tell me what does that decision mean. when and how will the southern border open? >> guest: title 42 the most important thing to understand we need to back up to understand the content. title 42 is not an immigration policy. it is part of the public health code of the united states and what that law says is the centers of disease control can issue an order that blocks the entry of persons or things carrying potentially contagious diseases. so it's not about immigrants per se. of course the government is only applying its noncitizens and hurting without advance

authorization to travel to this country, but in theory, this law can be applied to u.s. citizens and to anyone trying to enter the united states illegally or otherwise and so, the public health nature of this law is at the center of this debate and this controversy because what the cdc and the trump administration and biden administration have said is they can use this to suspend or waive any other law to block the entry of people with supposedly contagious diseases. and as a practical matter what is happening at the border with title 42 is that they are not blocking the introduction or the entry of people they are expelling people already on u.s. soil, already in the united states and sending them back to mexico or their home countries.

so in terms of what the supreme court decision means it means at least for now this order will be in place and extended for a few more days while they considered the issue. >> host: and that came at the request of state officials into several republicans. republican state officials in several states who had been trying to keep title 42 in place. why are the states involved and what is their argument for keeping this policy? >> it's a group led by the state of texas and the main arguments are about immigration. it's about whether or not we are going to have more immigrants coming to the country and whether that is going to impose harm. it's not a question of public health and that should be what it's about. it's supposedly about the public

health necessity which has always been a farce. the centers for disease control was forced to issue this order by the trump white house and if you look at it as a practical matter about preventing contagious diseases from spreading in the united states, title 42 requires people be arrested and brought into custody and transported in many cases where flying immigrants from one part of the united states to another so the whole public health rationale for the order makes no sense but the states are arguing it must be held and continued because the biden administration didn't follow a thorough enough process for resending that order. >> host: we are talking with david from the cato institute on the immigration policy. we want to hear your questions or comments on title 42.

start calling now. republicans, your line is 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000 and independents, call 202-748-8002. we will get to your calls and just a moment. we have been hearing a lot about the influx of migrants going on now even with title 42 in place. the state of texas is concerned if title 42 is lifted it will get even worse. can you talk about this influx and where are these migrants coming from, why has it increased so much in recent months particularly after president biden took office? >> guest: it should apply to everyone who crosses the border, but there's practical limitations on the ability of the government to actually

enforce title 42 against every person who crosses the border. mexico only takes certain people back and so on the whole over the course of the biden and trump administrations where this order has been in effect it's mainly focused on mexico and the northern triangle countries. el salvador, guatemala and honduras. the nationals from those countries who cross the border are very likely to be returned to mexico or to their home country. other nationalities very unlikely to be sent back to mexico or their home countries and that is because mexico has a policy against accepting them back. the countries such as cuba and venezuela and nicaragua implemented or we have about 100 per month you think about that

that's maybe three or four a day so there's not enough flights to fly all the people across the border back home so the biden administration made the decision we are going to use title 42 primarily against these nationalities in conjunction with mexico and target in particular single adults crossing the border trying to evade detection by border patrol and those nationalities and individuals are the most likely ones to be returned. the other ones are getting the processed from asylum already which makes the argument that it's going to greatly increase the number of asylum-seekers a little shaky ground because we already have the regime in which they are eligible to apply for asylum and in fact many told the associated press they believed this deadline of december 201st was about ending asylum not the

house opening asylum. so a big change in u.s. policy creates this confusion south of the border and so that's part of what we are seeing is people getting here thinking we need to get in ahead of this deadline. we don't know what's going to happen so we better make sure we get here because we know the asylum is being processed for these countries right now. >> host: that's quite interesting. i want to open the phone lines. the numbers, republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. and if you live any border stated there is a special line just for you. the 2-027-488-2003, for those border state residents. let's go now to some calls right now. this is irene in houston texas, again in that a border state.

but you're also republican. what is your question or comment this morning? >> caller: yes. very good. good morning. got through just fine. i am confused. what are the current laws enacted by congress regarding immigration, then what is the connection, why is the executive branch, biden and his handlers by the way not elected, the invasion of immigrants happen at the border? this is about congress and immigration, pages and pages of it but anyway be vitiated. ,

mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. during this break in the action this evening, i rise today to recognize not one, but two members of my staff who are going to be leaving us this month. larry winly is retiring from my staff as a true public servant for my home state of delaware and the people of our country. larry was raced in seaford, delaware, the home of the first nylon plant in the world, built by dupeon, 4,000 employees -- by dupont, 4,000 employees, a town going through a rebirth. we're proud of that. larry was one of three sons. his father, bill winly, worked for dupont and earned something like 25 patents during his teenure there for that company. one of those three sons is larry, who was raised to work

hard, spend summers working on poultry farms that are common this that part of our state. that hard work would later drive him and his 41-year career in public service. larry's career started as a young man in college at the university of delaware. he and i were introduced in 1982 by jim souls, legendary political science professor who we both greatly admired. who would later run for the united states house of representatives for our at-large seat. i had been delaware state treasurer, came out of the navy, moved from california to delaware at the end of the vietnam war. i got an mba and went to work and got elected state treasurer at 29. six years later, i was running for congress. we have one seat in the house of representatives. i needed a right-hand man who could not just keep up the pace of the campaign, but actually get behind my plymouth horizon

and drive it all over the state, to be my driver and my body man in a campaign for u.s. house of representatives. when jim souls, professor of political science who had run unsuccessfully for congress in 1972, i think, he asked, when i was state treasurer running for the congress, said to one of his students, larry, how would you like to be tom carper's driver? larry was pretty excited about that. he said, who be honest, i don't know who tom carper is. jim explained that i was the state treasurer running for delaware's at-large seat. lo and behold, larry said yes. he dropped out of school for a while. he helped me get my campaign into high gear. we were fortunate to win.

larry went from driving with me around the state to traveling all over the world, representing the first state as he worked to attract trade and business opportunities for delaware. larry had a few different roles over the course of his career. one of his most impactful has to be his work on economic development. early in his career, larry worked for the state of delaware's economic development office, where he helped create the delaware strategic fund and the community redevelopment fund, providing millions for nonprofit public service organizations and economic revitalization. he also helped create something called the brownfield initiative to redevelop contaminated sites and help businesses reduce, recycle, and reuse waste. after serving ten years in the house of representatives i ran for governor of delaware, and

larry rejoined my team to help me craft my economic development platform, the carper growth agenda. we focused on attracting smaller companies and helping existing companies to grow. that was in the 1990's, and we had a strong focus on attracting technology companies. when i was elected, larry helped lead the delaware economic development office as policy director and director of planning. in 1996, beginning of my second year as governor, he was appointed assistant secretary of state and director of the corporations for delaware. that's a very big job. half the fortune 500 are incorporated in delaware. half the fortune 500, half the new york stock exchange are incorporated in the state of delaware. the division of corporations helps to service all those corporations. the person who ran that office was larry windley. that office provides about a third of the state's revenue.

the reason delaware doesn't have a sales tax is because of all the revenues that come through the department, delaware state department that larry ran for a number of years. his jobs included running a division that raised something like a half billion dollars a year for our state, and today raises a whole lot more. in 2004, he left state government to become delaware state director for u.s. senator joe lieberman. during joe's presidential campaign. then in 2006 i was lucky enough he rejoined my team to work on special projects. by this time i'd been elected to the u.s. senate and served here as i do today. over the last 17 years, he has not only helped be my eyes and ears in delaware, but he's also mentored the next generation of men and women who want to follow in his footsteps and to move delaware in the right direction. he's going to be leaving -- we have something called

carpertown. i don't know who came up with the word carpertown. people who have worked with me in the navy and when i was state treasurer and now the u.s. senate, i think there are thousands of phonings that fall in that category. larry is maybe the charter member of carpertown. there's a great song by the eagles called hotel california and has the lyrics you can check out but you can never leave. that's pretty much how carpertown works. larry will be checking out but will never really leave. he will be joining the university of delaware and we look forward to continuing to work with him. thanks to him, delaware is a better place to live. it's a better place to work and to do business. i just want to convey -- his parents are deceased but i knew them well. i thanked them many times, especially his mom, for bringing him into the world and his mom and dad for raising him and sharing him with the people of our state. and he now has a son of his own, michael, and michael's wife

lindsey along with his daughter tara, her us bafnedz glen and brand new -- husband glen and a brand new grandson. his name is cayden. i'm reminded of a great line from the detroit tigers baseball player, kirk gibson. when he was ready to retire from the tigers, he called a press conference. and -- sometimes people are ready to retire at the beginning of a season, sometimes retire at the end of the season and don't want to do it anymore. kirk retired in the middle of the season and held a press conference in the dugout at tiger stadium. and the reporters all gathered around him. and he told the press, he said he had been traded back to his family. traded back to his family. and in a sense larry has been traded back to his family but we know he's going to continue to do a lot of good work for the people, not just for the

university of delaware but for the people of our state. we're grateful for that. the second person i know -- i don't have much time remaining. i just want to also recognize the service of christoph who serves at our senior counsel on the environment and public works committee. christoph is retiring at the end of the year as well to become the executive director of the center for the inland bays in delaware, a wonderful nonprofit organization that's committed to preserving our natural beauty and natural resources, including our inland bays in the southern part of our state. i call him tophe and known him ever since we hired him. he is the second person i hired to work for me in the u.s. house of representatives. i got to know him on -- i had gotten on the banking committee. my committee which was fisheries that included oashing on geography, a lot of interest for

an ocean state like delaware. we needed somebody to handle that portfolio. we found a fellow who is a sea grant fellow and who was interested in serving in congress and his name was christoph toulou, the second person i hired to help me in the u.s. house of representatives. and i ended up serving there for ten years. christoph would become not just my legislative adviser for a portfolio of issues, environmental issues and others but he also ended up as a short while as my legislative director within the office and later on when i was the subcommittee chair of the economic stabilization subcommittee, he was the director of that subcommittee for me in the house of representatives and did a great job in each one of those categories. i don't have time tonight to go through some of the things we're especially proud of that we worked on together but there's a lot of them and i'll provide these for the record. all in all, though, he served in my house of representatives office for a decade. i frankly don't know what i

would have done without him. after serving the house for ten years, i had a chance to run for governor. i did and was lucky to win and became governor of delaware, served not one four-year term but two four-year terms. i was looking around for somebody to serve on my cabinet as governor. we needed somebody to be our cabinet secretary. i asked christophe if he would do the job and he agreed to do so. his wife lived in d.c. she had a good job and was not anxious to give that up. and for the next four years, he continued -- his wife continued to live in washington. wee come home on the weekends to her and to their home here in the district of columbia but the rest of the time he would be in delaware working as a cabinet secretary which really needed the leadership.

he provided just extraordinary leadership. we had a history in delaware of the department that has jurisdiction over natural resources and environmental control and the delaware development office which is tasked with creating jobs and attracting businesses to our state. and those two departments had a history of bad blood and not working together and not being collegial and at the end of the day, christophe who had come to delaware every monday morning and go to work and leave on friday afternoon, friday night to come back to d.c., he and the fellow who was in charge of the delaware economic development office ended up finding a house together and rooming in the same house in dover. the fellow who was running economic development, his wife -- his name is bob cory, a great guy. his wife carol worked for hershey, the candy company, food company in hershey, pennsylvania. and they had a house there.

she continued to live there and work there and he would go home on friday evenings and come back to work in delaware on mondays. but anyway, the two departments had for years a hard time getting along, the department of natural resources and the delaware division of economic development. when you put the leaders of those two agencies in the same house as roommates during the week and amazing things happen. the two departments learned how to work together and to be collaborative and figure out how do we strengthen and improve our environment, our water, our air, and how do we do it and do it at the same time and create jobs and economic opportunity. during the eight years i was privileged to be governor, i'm told more jobs were created in those eight years than any eight-year period in the state of delaware. part of it is because of the partnership that i just described between christophetulou, the secretary of the department of natural resources and environmental and

bob, two roommates that found common ground, helped their departments find common ground and we ended up with a better place to live and a lot better jobs as it turns out. but i think i probably talked long enough and i want to say christophe, after he left me as -- he bailed on me, but he went to work at a number of important jobs. one as the director of the district of columbia's department of environment in washington, d.c., like being a cabinet secretary in a state and he did that for washington, d.c. for a number of years and he followed that service with a extent as a senior adviser on the chesapeake bay to u.s. environmental protection agency director gina mcare a thy. and when i became the ranking member of the environmental and public works committee here in the senate after 2016 elections, christophe came back and joined us and helped us at epw from the

very beginning, has a strong unwavering commitment to environmental protection of our nation and our planet. he and his wife debbie are lovely people that i've been privileged to know for almost four decades. and i will be fortunate to be able to see him regularly during my visits to sussex county, one of the three counties of our state where he will be working to protect the special bay -- chesapeake bay resources of our state. these are two very decent human beings. they -- i don't think they have a mean bone in their body. they're smart as whips and they love the state of delaware, love this planet that we work on. they love helping people. and they have made our state and i think our country a better place in which to live. and as i mentioned, they've been members of carpertown for quite a while and since they can check out but they can't live, they're going to remain that for us.

we'll be able to stay in close touch with him. as they get ready to set sail, we're going to leave the light on for them and provide a warm welcome whenever they come back. and with that, mr. president, i thank you for the time tonight and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

and honor and privilege to stand before you today to formally introduce a our spectacular new d triple c chair. let me say when you think about the context that we are in right now politically, having come off historic over performance in this most recent midterm election, we are on behalf of the american people to take back the house of representatives in 2024 following only five seats short. why did we perform in a historic fashion in what was expected to

be perhaps a white belt for house democrats in the midterm election? in fact our colleagues on the other side of the aisle consistently predicted and suggested we might lose north of 60 seats as was the case in the midterm election in president obama's first term. why did democrats historically over perform? first we have extraordinary candidates both front-line members and incoming candidates who will be members of congress on january 3rd. second, we had a vision for the future. house democrats fight for lower costs, better paying jobs into safer communities. house democrats consistently

will let people over politics. third, we had a tremendous track record of accomplishments to back up and validate our vision for the future and to make life better for everyday americans. from the very beginning of the current term, democrats have been delivering and getting things done and the american people recognize that. the american rescue plan, money and pockets, kids back in school, saving the economy from a deep recession if not worse. the infrastructure investment and jobs act creating millions of good paying jobs, fixing crumbling bridges, roads, airports, sewer and water systems mass transit system and ensuring high-speed internet access in every community. gun safety legislation. for the first time in 30 years that will save lives.

the science act bringing domestic manufacturing jobs back home to the united states of america and investing in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and education so that the american people have the skills to succeed in the 21st century economy and of course inflation reduction act. striking a decisive and historic blow against the climate crisis setting off on a sustainable trajectory forward, lowering energy costs, lowering healthcare costs and driving down the high price of lifesaving prescription drugs for millions of americans. a vision for the future. lower cost, better paying jobs, safer communities for the people over politics and a track record that backed it up. and of course the final piece of our historic over performance

related to the contrast that we successfully articulated to the american people democrats deliver for everyday americans versus extreme republicans. democrats believe in reproductive freedom and a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive health care decisions. republicans are extreme on abortion care and want to oppose the nationwide ban criminalizing abortion care for tens of millions throughout the country. democrats believe in social security and medicare. republicans are extreme on social security and medicare, want to blow it up, detonate it in five years and perhaps even default on our debt so they can destroy social security, medicare and hold people

hostage. extreme republicans and of course democrats believe in democracy in this incredible project in america that's been with us more than 245 years, the greatest democracy in the history of the world versus republicans, many of whom apparently don't believe in democracy anymore. a clear contrast between democrats who deliver and extreme republicans. so we are optimistic as we move forward ready to work together to find common ground to solve problems for everyday americans in whatever way possible. we are prepared to seize the majority in 2024 and confident in our ability to do that because of an amazing incoming

dcc chair. susan was a successful red to blue candidate. she held the seat as a front-line candidate even in a tough year for democrats in 2014. based on her ability, the service that she provided to her constituents back in washington she put that seat out of reach. her own personal experiences qualify her at the highest level to be the ccc chair at this particular point in time. she also wants she put that seat out of reach was a leader. as a front-line chair successful in 2018 when we won the

majority. front-line chair and finance chair subsequent to that as we held the majority. so she's incredibly well qualified for this job. and her political insight and wisdom which has manifested itself throughout her journey in congress was also's sharp when she spotted our ability any district in washington that no one saw as an opportunity and then dove in and made sure and supported an amazing incumbent member of congress.

it to the next chair of the democratic campaign committee, susan. >> thank you, leader elect soon get to call you later. i'm honored to be here with all of you and others from the senior leadership team today and it's my honor to be appointed as the next chair of the d ccc. we came to congress together which seems like a long time ago now and it's been an honor to call you a friend and colleague for many years. we served on the judiciary committee when we both came early on and i truly appreciate your support and look forward to earning the full support of the democratic caucus as well.

that then it's time to get to work. i'm excited to take on this role and understand that it's a challenging and difficult role and also incredibly important because it's about electing more democrats to the house, but it's also about delivering for american families and delivering for our economy and communities. since i first ran for congress i always have run as a work horse, not a show horse. that is really who i am. when i first won my seed was after the previous round of redistricting in the 2012 cycle. the washington redistricting commission of one of the cochairs redistricting commission was our former republican senator who served on the commission and he talked about the first district which i represent now is the most evenly divided district in the country.

that's how it was set up. i call it the gumball district. it's a place where there would be an opportunity but there were going to be many differing points of view. i was a red to blue candidate and later a front-line candidate and i know what it's like to compete in a hard to distract. my district has been a very diverse district and pretty much every way a senator: madam president. if i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the junior senator from washington is recognized. without objection. ms. cantwell: when you watch watch u.s. athletes compete in the u.s. olympics, the paralympics, it probably does not cross your mind men and women who play thet same sport may not get the same travel accommodations for a full

medical care, or still be waiting to be reimbursed for their expenses that they had out-of-pocket. in fact for women athletes they may not be sure if you're even going to get a fair shake at all t the top of their game, stepping up and demanding their worth, over and over, for women to be taken seriously in sports. i'm talking about the women of the u.s. hockey in 2017 and the u.s. women's national soccer team in 2019, and many other athletes. it's been 50 years since title 9 carved out a place for women and girls in sports, but still women athletes frequently get less. that's why we needed the bipartisan equal pay for team usa act to build on the promise of title 9 for women competing at the international level. i'm happy to say that this senate bill, s. 233 that already previously passed the senate, just passed the house tonight,

350-59. i'm happy because we need to make sure that there is equal pay for team usa, and to make sure that u.s. national teams under the u.s. olympic committee comply with this act. it ensures that athletes in the same sport will receive equal pay, benefits, and medical care, travel, and reimbursement expenses, regardless of gender. it applies to the u.s. olympic, paralympic compe, and the national governing bodies of the us opc's and basically any athlete competing for team smawmplet on a world stage. it will make sure they get and receive equal againsation to their -- compensation to their fellow mail athletes. i want to thank senator capito for cosponsoring this and helping to advocate for it for the last year and a half, and

continuing to fight to make sure we got this implement food law. this law requires a detailed report from the u.s. opc and national governing bodies, like u.s. soccer, u.s. squash and volleyball to be sent to congress each year so we can help make sure these women athletes get equal pay. we want to get to the root of any issues in the future that hold anyone back, from making sure that this law is implemented. i also want to thank heroes like megan rapino and alex morgan who brought that case against u.s. soccer. u.s. women's soccer led the charge after winning the world cup and making it clear that women athletes deserve equal pay. it took a lot of hard work to make sure this bill got into law, and i also want to thank my colleagues from the committee who helped pass this legislation and senators klobuchar, lummis who also joined senator capito and i in advocating for this legislation. so, while i wish tonight there

were solutions to the inequities that exist in professional leagues, like the wnba and the national women's soccer league, there is still a huge, important step. this a huge important step towards the economic empowerment of women athletes. i also want to mention the hard work of my staff, lucy cox from the commerce committee, and many others on senator klobuchar's staff and the commerce committee who helped get this legislation over the goal line. this is a strong message to female athletes, not just in the state of washington but across the united states -- you deserve and you now will have equal pay, and this is a win for team usa. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. and i i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the senate working this week to keep the government funded through september of next year for the legislation also requires recovery assistance for states dealing with one natural disasters.

security humanitarian aid for ukraine pretenders were helping to pass the bill later this evening to get it to the house before friday's midnight deadline but is been reported there is disagreement on how to proceed with amendments for specifically one from senator mike lee that deals with title title 42 pandemic emma a silent roaster of their notebooks tonight, majority leader chuck schumer says he will set up a vote on friday to limit debate and advance the spending package without a car the support of 60 senators and only be getting legislation passed hours before current government funding is set to expire but right now waiting for someone to come to the floor to speak. you are watching the senate live on cspan2.

mrs. capito: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, madam president. i ask permission to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. capito: thank you, madam president. this is an exciting evening for senator cantwell and i. she just recently spoke very movingly about something that just passed overwhelmingly in the u.s. house, and that's the bipartisan equal pay for equal team usa act. we call it equal pay for equal play. i want to thank her for her leadership. she has been spectacular and dedication that she has shown for this legislation.

i really think this is such a great, not just message but a vision for the future of where we see and how we respect our women athletes as we respect our male athletes. in addition, i'd like to thank senator cantwell, senators lummis and cloan for their partnership -- and klobuchar for their partnership. i thank our house colleagues who advocated for this bill on the house side and spoke eloquently this evening. very briefly, i think what we saw, this dominating success of the united states women's soccer team really shed the light on this issue of equal pay. i think a lot of us just assumed if you're playing team usa, male or female, of course you get equal pay. but that hasn't been the pay it's been over the years. whether it's pay, salary, accommodations, training, all these things.

there's been great inequitiing here. our women's national soccer team is one of the most successful competing today. they have won four world cups, four olympic gold medals, and they are currently ranked number one in the world. they are continuing to be trailblazers. u.s. soccer signed a new collective bargaining agreement this year to close the gender wage gap and achieve true equal pay. senator cantwell and i were on the field with team usa here in washington as they defeated the nigerian team, and we had a ceremonial signing on the field, and it was a wonderful evening. for me, it was very uplifting because i had my 12-year-old granddaughter and her best friend with her, both soccer players, and as the stadium would erupt to equal pay for equal play, i would look over and there they were just yelling

their lungs out, equal pay for equal play! i'm really happy today i can take a christmas present home to both of them. this is an historic moment we must use to build off of. the bill will require the u.s. olympic and paralympic committees and national governing bodies to provide all athletes who represent the united states in global, amateur athletic competitions, regardless of gender, equal compensation and benefits. as a woman sports fan myself, but also i say former athlete, but i still like to do lots of sports, a mother and grandmother of female athletes, i recognize that for far too long women sports have been second best to men's sports. equal pay and benefits should be the standard for all national teams. in closing, this is a simple bill that fixes a major problem. i'll say it again, equal pay for equal play. it's a combination of a true bipartisan effort. i look forward to the president signing this bill into law.

on behalf of my west virginia girls and girls everywhere. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the president of ukraine. >> president zelenskyy, i'm honored to welcome you back to the white house. we've spent a lot of time on the telephone as well as on video. it is good to see you in person again. we have been enclosed and frequent communications out this conflict. from the very beginning but is particularly meaningful to talk with one another in person, look each other in the eye because leadership in this terrible crisis has inspired the ukrainian people as you have done mr. president and the american people in the entire world. aside president putin has

escalated his attacks, brutal attacks. to make life is hard as possible for not only innocent ukrainian but children, young children. it's outrageous what he is doing. now as you have heard as we head into the new year it's important the american people and for the world to hear directly from you, mr. president on ukrainians fights and they continue to stand together through 2023. this also falls in the 300 day mark of russia was a brutal invasion of ukraine. 300 days since pollutant launched an unprovoked unjustified all out assault on the free people of ukraine. 300 days ukrainian people showing russia in the world their steel backbone, their love of country and unbreakable determination to choose their

own path. to the ukrainian people, i say to them all you have been demonstrated, you have shown your strong stand against aggression in the face of the imperial appetites of autocrats who wrongfully believe you might, you might, they might be able to but not able to do it. thus far they've stood alone. but you haven't stood alone. you have had significant help. we never stand alone you will never stand alone. when ukraine's freedom is threatened the american people come like generations americans before us did not hesitate. the support from all across this country, americans with every walk of life democrats and republicans alike had the resources to rebound and resounding united way to provide

unequivocal and unbending support for ukraine. because we understand in our bones that ukraine's a fight is part of something much bigger. the american people know that if we stand by in the face of such a blatant attacks on the liberty and democracy and the core principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity the world would certainly face less consequences for it is a said when putin rolled his tanks into ukraine in february american people are prepared to have a stand up to bullies. stand up to freedom. that is who we are as americans. that is exactly what we have done for even before the invasion began and putin threatened ukraine we help make sure ukraine will be prepared to defend itself or even before they cross into ukraine. ammunition and so much more.

we have not done alone. the united's rallied allies and partners around the world to stand strong and unprecedented and i emphasize unprecedented sanctions and export controls on russia. make it harder for the kremlin to wages brutal war. nearly 2000 tanks and other armored vehicles, more than 800 artillery systems. more than 2 million rounds of ammunition in more than 50 advance multiple rocket launching systems. antiship and air defense systems all to strengthen ukraine. together we provided billions of dollars in direct budgetary support to make the ukrainian government could keep providing basics fundamental services to people like healthcare,

education, emergency personnel. this includes another $2 billion in direct budget support from the american people the world bank earlier this week. we were righted humanitarian assistance to provide the million of ukrainians have been forced to flee their homes because of pollutants inhumane brutal war. communities across europe have open their hearts and their homes to help ukrainians in need. the united states has been proud to welcome more than 221,000 ukrainian seeking refuge since march of 2022. it's part of our program. and today usaid is committing more than $374 billion of the humanitarian assistance plan. this provides food to 1.5 ukrainian people as well as access to healthcare, safe

drinking water helps saint warm in the winter to more than 2.5 million ukrainians. the united states and our allies and partners around the world have delivered a broad range of assistance at historic speed and it has been critical to bolster ukraine success. ukraine has won the battle has won the battle of keer saunders has one that battle, ukraine is a five russian expectations at every single turn. in president zelenskyy you have made it clear he is open to pursuing him let me put it this way he is not open you are open to pursuing peace. we also know pollutant has no intention, no intention of stopping this cruel war pretty nicely just committed to ensuring the brave ukrainian

people can continue to defend the country against russian aggressions as long as it takes. i want to thank the members of congress for their broad bipartisan support ukraine. i look forward to saying the omnibus bill soon. which includes $45 billion, $45 billion in additional funding for ukraine. we also signed into law which includes authorities to make it easier for the department of defense to procure critical munitions for ukraine and other key materials to strengthen our national security. today i'm announcing the next of our security assistance to ukraine. $1.85 billion package security assistance includes both direct transfers of equipment ukraine needs as well as contracts that supply ammunition ukraine will

need in the months ahead with artillery, its tanks and its rocket launchers. in addition to these new capabilities the package will include a patriot missile battery which will train ukrainian forces the ongoing effort to help bolster ukraine's air defense. this could take some time to complete the necessary training and being of the critical assets ukraine is a defend itself against russian aggression. altogether today's new security assistance humanitarian funding two-point to billion dollars in leadership support with ukrainian people we should be about what russia is doing. it is purposefully attacking ukraine's during the coldest darkest part of the year.

russia is using winter as a weapon freezing people, starving people, cutting them off from one another. it is the latest example of the outrageous atrocities the russian forces are committing against innocent ukraine civilians, children and their families. the united states is working together with their allies and partners to provide criminal help for ukraine; consumer affairs the power transmission systems and strengthen the stability of ukraine's grid in the face of russia's targeted attacks. were also working to hold russia accountable including effort in congress that will make it easier to seek justice for russia's war crimes in ukraine. let me close with this. tonight is the fourth night of hanukkah. a time when jewish people around the world, president zelenskyy and many other families among them honor the timeless miracle of a small band of warriors

fighting for their value and their freedom against the much larger photo and how they endured and how they overcame. how the flame of faith with only enough oil for one day burned brightly for eight days. the story of survival and resilience reminds us on the coldest days of the year that lights will always prevail over darkness and hope drives away despair. without the human spirit is unconquerable as long as there are good people willing to do what is right. this year's brought so much needless suffering and loss of ukrainian people. i want you to know, president zelenskyy, i want you to know all the people in ukraine need to know as well. there with you every step of the way and we will stay with you. we will stay with you for as long as it takes. what you are doing, what you

have achieved it matters not just to ukraine but the entire world. and together i have no doubt we will keep the flame of liberty burning bright so the light will prevail over the darkness. thank you for being here mr. president, we are going to stand with you. >> thank you. dear mr. president. once again, mr. president, president biden, audience, and journalists, ladies and gentlemen. i came here to the united states to thank the people of america i am thankful for all of this visit to the united states became a historic one and the

american leadership in the last 30 days of this award we have started a new phase of our interrelation with the united states. with allies with the contents. and i felt today during all of my meetings and during our talks once again i like to thank mr. president, president biden for his candid support and what is important with the understanding of ukraine and the support i am grateful to president biden for his personal efforts, that unites partners. when all countries of the world

take some position and are focusing on cooperation and mutual this is very useful for all of the countries, for ukraine, for the united states. i want to thank the congress for bipartisan bicameral supports. i am looking forward to good meetings with the members of the congress and their support. this is the visit i am here today to meet with congress. the main issue during today's talks is to strengthen ukraine. next year our movement forward to fight for our freedom and independence. i have good news returning home, president biden announced a new package of defense supports about 2 billion u.s. dollars in the strongest element of this package is the patriot system

that will strengthen our air defense significantly. this is a very important step to create secure airspace for ukraine. that is the only way we would be able to deprive the terrorists country and their terrorist attack to strike our energy sector, our people in our infrastructure. we had a very good negotiation and talk about our strategic step in what we expected next year end what we are preparing. this is very important for all ukrainians. i am hopeful part once again, thank you, mr. president for 45 billion. this is a big assistance. i hope congress will approve this financial assistance for our country. this is almost a 45 billion part

thank you very much for the support. every dollar of this investment for the united states is going to be strengthening of global security. i know the global leadership will be strong and will play an important role in global scope. the united states will help us defend our values and independence. regardless of changes in the congress, i believe there will be a bipartisan and bicameral supports. i know everybody works for this. and of course during all of my meetings today we discussed the issues against terror of russia. the destruction of our energy. we need to survive the winter but we need to protect our people. and we need to be very specific in this area. this is a key humanitarian issue

for us right now. this is the survival issue. we are discussing sanctions and pressure on the terrace country of russia. russia needs to be held accountable for everything it does against us, against our people, europe and the free world. when it is very important we have peace in for that we offer very specific steps what america can do to help us. we propose global formula for peace summit. i am thankful for our american counterparts that they understand how important it is to continue and stay to work on integrity of the country and international rule of law. we will also meet as soon as our

defense capabilities will be strengthened and that next few months. do not want to discuss it in details right now. i believe you understand why. i am very grateful to president biden. thank you for your attention to all of these issues, glories to ukraine. >> will take questions in four different reporters. we are going to start alex. >> thank you, mr. president. 2022 you presided over a bipartisan international coalition to support ukraine. how will you keep that coalition from frank in 2023? and president zelenskyy welcome to washington on this beautiful winter day. what is your message to the american people? >> i am not at all worried about holding the alliance.

i assume this is simultaneous? okay. i have never seen nader or the eu more united about anything at all. and i see no sign of there being any change. we all know it is at stake here. we are european partners, all the more so. they fully understand it. we have never seen a major invasion of european country since world war ii. they see no signs they're going to do anything to change it unless we resist and help the ukrainians resist. we all know what is at stake for the very idea of sovereignty, the un charter, putin thought he would weaken nato and straight he strengthened nato. i want said to him he wanted to

see, you know, europe ended up being divided. and instead what did he do? he produced a more united europe with sweden and finland. i don't think they'll be ending in the vesting of support. as a receptor nato allies, the debt as the secretary of defense secretary of state we get continued support rate not only their butt from around the world from japan and many other countries as well. so i feel very good about the solidarity of support for ukraine. >> thank you for your question. thank you very much. i would say some things which are important to me. and i think we have the same values in the same understanding. my message, i wish you peace.

i think that is the main thing and you understand it's around the world in your country. when somebody like these terrorists from russia come to your houses. and i wish you to see your children alive. in i wish you to see your children and to see their children. i-pronoui-pronou n think that is the main thing that i can or issue. and of course to be together with us jointly. because we need to fight for our common victory against this tyranny. that is real life. and we will win. and i really once to win together. thanks so much. >> not once i am sure.

[laughter] collection account manager people press person? thank you. president zelenskyy, president biden have a question for both of you. but first ukraine i want to thank the united states for supporting my country. my family is in ukraine and i understand they would not be alive today if america does not support my country politically and militarily so i thank you for this. my question, we enter a new phase of this war how the work and come to an end and what is next a new counter or peace talks? could you share your vision what is the fair way to end this war and how you understand this war for peace?

thank you. ask your guy. [laughter] [laughter] oh yes icp. >> although i like him very much. [laughter] >> you started this question. >> i am sorry. sometimes i switch to my native language. you have started by stating your family is in kyiv without the assistance of the united states. the u.s. leadership and assistance is strong and again i would like to remind you your family will be in danger without the armed forces of ukraine

which is very importance. that concerns or questions per se, what would you like to hear? just peace? i don't know. i do not know it just peace is. it's a very philosophical description. if there is just war? i don't know. for all of the just peace is different. for me as a president, just peace is no compromises to the sovereignty freedom and territorial integrity of my country. the payback for all the damages inflicted by russian aggression. i am reminded i'm talking about children. but as a father i would like to

emphasize to you know how many parents lost their sons and daughters on the front lines? so what is just peace for them? money is nothing. and no compensations or reparations are of no consequence. they live by revenge. i think there is tremendous tragedy. the longer the war lasts, the longer this aggression lasts there will be more parents who live for the sake of vengeance, for revenge. and i know a lot of people like that. there can't be any just peace in the war that was imposed by these, i do not know how to describe that because we are in

the white house and i cannot find the proper language. so these in humans i would say. >> let me respond. i think we share the exact same vision. and that a free, independent, prosperous and secure ukraine is the vision. we both won this war to end. we wanted to end. as i have said it could end today of putin had any dignity at all and did the right thing and just said pullouts. but that is not going to happen. it's not going to happen now so what comes next? we talked about today were going to help ukraine to succeed on the battlefield. it can succeed on the battlefield with our help in the help of our european allies and others. so the if and when president zelenskyy is ready to talk to the russians, he will be able to succeed as well because you will have one on the battlefield.

and i don't think we should underestimate the impact of this war is having on russia and the losses they are suffering. you saw just i think two days ago putin saying this is much tougher than he thought. he thought he could break it nato pretty thought he could break the west are pretty thought he could break the alliance. he thought he would be welcomed by the ukrainian people the russian speaking part he was wrong, wrong, and wrong. he continues to be wrong. the sooner he makes it clear he cannot possibly win this war, that is the time we have to put this present in the position should be able to decide how he wants to win. my turn, ha? >> yes. >> phil madeley of cnn. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. president let's start with

you. your advisors talk about how critically important you view face-to-face interaction for them one after spending two plus hour face-to-face with president zelenskyy, what you learned or what you took from the meeting the you could not happen perhaps learn or glean in the phone calls and videoconferences? in a somewhat tied to that was there discussion about the u.s. assessment rush that would not take escalatory action now the patriots are being sense and it will be delivered? wixom answer the first part of your question. you know i get kidded for saying all politics are personal. it's all about looking someone in the eye and i mean it sincerely. i don't think there is any, any, any substitute for sitting down face-to-face with a friend or a foe and looking them in the eye. that is exactly what's happening in this moment. we have done that more than once were going to continue to do that. as winter is sitting in an putin

is increasingly going after civilian targets and women, children, orphanages, this guy is a well -- but he's going to fail. he has already failed because he now knows there's no way he's ever going to occupy all of ukraine. there is no way in which he's going to be accepted by the ukrainian people. and so he has failed in the past and it's very important for him and everyone else to see president zelenskyy and i are united to countries together. to make sure he cannot succeed. and i think i may be mistaken, but i know i judged every leader by what they say to me, their consistency and looking me in the eye. this guy with his very soul is who he says he is. it is clear who he is. he is willing to give his life for his country and all the folks who came with him today.

it is important for him to know we are going to do everything in our power put everything in our power to see that he succeeds. was a second part of your question? was i just asked if you discuss how the u.s. calculated escalatory effective sending in the patriot battery customer because i did not discuss at all the president. it is a defensive system it's a defensive weapons system for it is not it is defensive. and it is easy -- we would love to not have them use it to stop the attacks. >> the president zelenskyy again welcome. as mentioned earlier you wanted to make this trip. why now? and also can you tell me what you think the message you are sending to president putin is given the fact 24 hours ago you were on the ground in the front lines with artillery echoing

behind you and now you find yourself in the white house standing next to the president. >> thank you very much for your question. as to what is the message for putin. i am standing here in the united states with president biden on the same podium because i respect him as a person, as a president, as a human being for his position. and for me this is a historic moment. i can send messages for president biden. for example if it is not serious what's going to happen after patriots? after that we will send another signal to president biden that we would like to get more

patriots. [laughter] we are in the or i am sorry i am really sorry that is my appreciation. [laughter] text as to president putin, in 2019 we had normandie meeting in 2019 and became the president of ukraine and at that time we were sending maximum messages to president putin telling him there should not be a full-scale invasion to start aggression to renew our territory integrity to find diplomatic solutions. god for bed we should not have a full-scale war. at that time he said it won't happen. he was lying. so what kind of message can i send him after he destroyed our

life, is destroying our life. he can even go further. some of the soviet union state before this but he might want invade those territories too. i believe there is something more about his inadequate approach to the war. why we need to send him a message, he needs to be interested in getting attention from the world because he is not the subject of civilized people. he should be interested in trying to save something of his culture and history of his country. so that is his problem now. >> this'll be the last question. when the full-scale's invasion started you said ukraine cannot receive patcher as you said it

might to be an unnecessary escalation. now it's happening, right now to date is happening. and now ukraine desperately needs more capabilities including long-range missiles. maybe i sound naïve it would make a long story short and give ukraine all capabilities it needs and liberate all territories sooner rather than later. thank you. >> 's answer is yes. [laughter] [laughter] >> i agree. [laughter] >> let me be straightforward with you here. look, the fact is before russia invaded we had dedicated in an

enormous amount of security systems to ukraine. and we have given ukraine what they needed when they needed to defend themselves. since the invasion that has resulted in more than $20 billion in terms of security assistance. just today i proved another $1.8 billion in additional assistance to ukraine for it to succeed on the battlefield. we are focused on working with allies and partners to generate capability in four key areas. air defense as we know today the patriot is the best of that. secondly is we are looking to do more. we provided hundreds of advance artillery systems and dozens of countries. thirdly, we work with partners to get ukraine tanks and other armored vehicles. and fourthly we announced today another 200,000 hours of additional ammunition.

he say why don't we give ukraine everything there is to give? for two reasons. one, there is an entire alliance and it's critical to stay with ukraine. the idea we would give ukraine material that is a fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up nato and breaking of the european union and the rest of the world. we are going to give ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself. to be able to succeed in succeed in the battlefield. the other piece of this is you may recall one of the reasons why i have spent i won't have the calculation but i have spent several hundred hours of face-to-face with our european allies in the heads of states of those countries making the case as to why it was overwhelming their interests they continue to support ukraine. they understand it fully but they are not looking to go to war with russia.

they're not looking for a third world war. i think it can all be avoided by making sure ukraine can succeed in the battlefield. anyway there's more to say but i've already said too much. thank you. >> thank you all very, very much. we appreciate your time and attention. and as i said, mr. president you do not have to worry. we are staying with ukraine as long as ukraine is there. thank you all. >> ladies and gentlemen please remain in your seat until the official delegations have departed, thank you. [background noises] [background noises]

quorum call:

with the institute he serves as the resident a 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 it to people? >> guest: it is a terrific organization it's a public policy organization unlike anything else i've seen in my two decades working in washington, d.c. it is a think tank that's a very creative place and is looking for real solutions to problems that we currently confirmed today. >> host: one of the things in your background to get a little clarification working with various members can you give an encapsulation of who you worked for and what you did? >> guest: i worked in the senate for a number of years and a variety of senators from jeff

sessions to patrick toomey who gave his farewell address last week in the united states senate and mike lee i was the director of the committee 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 the work is taking a look at the effects of congress you wrote a piece taking a look at the lame-duck congress and you call it a threat to democracy. can you talk about what a spirie spirit of this thought? >> guest: in the lead up to and after the election there's been a lot of talk about deniers and discussions about the threats to america's democracy and it's always helpful for people regardless of what they believe to be concerned about their government, to be concerned about their 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 the standard practice today is to wait until after they cast

their ballot to make all of the important decisions. this isn't like congress ran out of time. congress intentionally waited until after so that it could make decisions senator: i ask us consent that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on commerce, science, and transportation be discharged from further consideration of s. 48146 and the senate -- 4814 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 4814, a bill to establish a demonstration program for the active remediation of orbital debris and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent that the hickenlooper substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered

read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

serves as the resident senior fellow here to talk about of the 117th congress. thanks for joining us today.

>> guest: thanks for having me. >> host: a little bit about the institute how do you best describe it to people? >> guest: it is a terrific organization that is a public policy organization unlike anything else i've ever seen in my nearly two decades working in washington, d.c. it's a think tank that thinks outside the box, a very creative place looking for real solutions to real problems we currently confront today. >> guest: >> host: to get a little clarification, you worked in the senate working with various members. can you give an encapsulation of who you worked for and what you did? >> guest: i worked in the senate for a number of years for a variety of senators from jeff sessions to patrick toomey who gave his farewell address last week in the united states senate and mike lee i was the director of the steering committee 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 now

is taking a look at the affects of congress. you call it a threat to democracy. can you talk about what spurs this on? >> guest: in the lead up to and after there's been a lot of talk about the election deniers and discussion about the threats to america's democracy and it's always helpful regardless when they believed to be concerned about the political process they want to make it a better however they may see fit but with regard to the lame-duck it was concerning to me because here we have a congress the standard practice is to wait until after americans vote, to wait until after they cast their ballots to make the decisions. this is sent by congress ran out of time. congress intentionally waited until after so that it could make decisions either with members that are retiring and not seeking to come back who can

no longer be held accountable or members who will be on the ballot two years from now during a busy holiday season when americans will have a hard time remembering what took place and i think that is by definition a threat to democracy because it undermines the ability to hold the elected officials accountable for the decisions they make on their behalf. >> host: if they were voted out of office they are still technically in off the clock what's wrong with the making the decisions? >> guest: the amendment ratified in 1933 sought to address this before the lame-duck session could last up until march of the upcoming year in march 2023. the amendment tried to end by requiring the new session in january, january 3rd of the year following. there was some time a couple of

weeks for congress to address emergencies in case something arose and that's how they use the lame-duck sessions early on however the problem is members are intentionally waiting until after the people vote to make decisions. they are not doing it because they ran out of time or they had other pressing things to do. they are doing it intentionally because it is easier to pass a controversial bill in the dead of night with no one looking when you have the holidays 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 talking and giving a great assessment of the highs and lows of the congress. if you want to ask questions you can call, republicans 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000 independent 202-748-8002.

you can text 8003 talking about the amendment and states that determine the president and vice president on the 20th day of january and which some terms would have ended. it goes on to bear. you talked about waiting in the lame-duck congress is where we are up against a deadline for funding friday and there is debate on this omnibus package. would you cite that as an example waiting especially for this congress to take on something that big? >> guest: absolutely. congress released a $1.7 billion omnibus spending package that's a lot of money. there is a lot of stuff in the bill i doubt many people if anyone has had a chance to read it and they've waited now until the last possible minute. they have had a whole year to complete work. technically they are supposed to have this done by the end of september but again, congress

doesn't lead to the deadline because it is trying and running out of time it is because it is and trying to meet its deadline. it waits, the members themselves into they are all good people doing what they think is best but this is the way that they've kind of decided to do business and when you have a $1.7 billion builders thousands of pages released in the dead of night and they are going to vote on it and get it out of congress and to the president's desk in a mad rush to get home for the holidays. it's hard to identify who the pivotal players are in this debate and hard to identify what's in the bill. it's hard to hold people accountable for the decisions they make and hard to influence the process if you so choose if you don't like what's in the bill or you want something else in the bill so here we see the system of representative government literally breaking down in front of us and it's so

routine that no one seems to care much. >> host: some republicans have made the case we are going to take the gavel to the house next year. let's wait to make the decisions. is that a sound argument? >> guest: if you took over the house of representatives and you're going to have more leverage in the new congress, it makes no sense for you to go along with a big omnibus now when you could pass another continuing resolution to delay it into the new congress and after all, congress loves passing the continuing resolutions when it thinks it's going to have an easier time doing something in the future the lame-duck is a great example but i don't think the republican leader anticipated speaker of the next congress and house of representatives he's not doing this from a concern of representative democracy. kevin mccarthy in the past has supported these before and supported other big

legislations, landmark so we have to look at his effort and calls 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 it's happened in the past. but it doesn't speak to the problem that the lame-duck currently represents. >> host: there needs the call to return to the regular order when it comes to the budget bills. why do you think that has been unable to have been? >> guest: it's important to point out the regular order is simply one way they pass where you going have committee hearings and they debate things and members have a chance to weigh in on it and then ultimately congress passes a bill. there are lots of different ways for a bill to become a law. we should look at what level of

engagement are they able to participate in that process if they so choose, sometimes rank-and-file lawmakers want to go along with passing something as quickly as possible and if there's something pressing that they need to address or if there is a widespread agreement on something and they simply don't see all this extra time and extra stuff that the problem right now that we don't see regular orders the parties are divided internally and this contradicts the understanding of polarization and politics. the two parties are divided internally. they don't like showcasing on the house and senate floors and so they like to keep things bottled up. the rank-and-file members to control the process, to negotiate these agreements behind closed doors and to put them on the floor in such a way they feel jammed and are presented with a fate to complete even though they may not want to and they can speak out of both sides of their mouth and i think that's why we don't see a lot of regular order of

these days especially in the senate. the house has a little bit easier time controlling the process of the senate does not. it's a lot harder to keep members from offering within the democratic party divisions on the republican party. >> host: if you want to ask about how congress works and what you think about how congress works, 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats and independent, 202-748-8002. james of the wall are instituted joining. lisa in minnesota you are on 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

that and the opportunity to even meet with senators according to republicans at the time and later. the majority of the american people said they did not want her appointed or anyone appointed until after the presidential election was ongoing and how does he respond to that? >> guest: you are correct to be concerned about the state of the confirmation process. i would encourage you section two gives the president and senate the joint responsibility to nominate and appoint and ultimately confirm and appoint supreme court justices. the senate has its own independent role in the process and decides whoever is in control how they want to use that role and that power and the senate is within its right to not hold hearings or votes on nominees and other senators can push back on that.

you mentioned garland, those on the judiciary committee decided not to hold a hearing under the nomination to be a supreme court justice. democrats could have forced votes on that. they could have forced republicans to take a stand into the court of public opinion the people would have the chance to weigh in a little bit more aggressively but they chose not to and i think that highlights a big source of dysfunction in the senate today not just in the confirmation process which is that both lawmakers on the left and right, democrats and republicans seem to be more interested in using the senate as a kind of sounding board so they can go out and make statements that appeal as opposed to rolling up their sleeves, putting their feet on the ground and assaying 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. instead we see a drive-by vote and lots of talking points and other things but very little action in the senate today and that speaks to a dysfunction. >> host: roberta, hello. >> caller: to begin with, i'm active trying to make a difference in things and i sit here and have watched people in congress not want to take your phone calls. they tell you i'm not in your district i don't want to hear which means you can call one 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 and we have inflation for two years. we have some serious issues of how we have checked into the

social security money because of the inflation for two years. like last year i got $107 and usually i would get a $22 or $13 were things like that. that's a huge problem for the future yet no one talks about it and everyone says they care. thank you for listening. >> host: thank you for calling from california. >> guest: that really underscores the concerns i see with the lame-duck. at the end of the day americans need to understand they are not ruled by the people they choose every two years. ultimately in this country the people themselves are ultimately they choose people to go and act on their behalf. at the politics is inactivity we participate. the government is an activity we participate. we don't just go into a voting booth and come out. there's lots of great examples of people who chose even when

the congress wouldn't listen and society wouldn't listen he engaged in acts of civil disobedience if you think of the suffrage movement in the seven decades of struggle that is ongoing in many respects for the ratification of the amendment and you think about the civil rights movement, the montgomery bus boycott december 1955 and december 1956 that's 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 do well. when it doesn't it's incumbent on all americans conservatives and liberals, democrats, republicans and everyone in between to do the things that we have seen in american history, the kind of nonviolent direct action and the kind of writing and depleting and making your case for your neighbors and family and friends to ensure that your government is taking your concerns to heart and ultimately acting in a way that

you see fit. >> host: the caller had given her grade. how would you grade 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 find a way to legislate the new environment. they are struggling to find a way to tackle the issues that are of utmost concern to the american people. if you think about the decision that is a great example, there was one vote to codify roe v wade ahead of the decision after it was leaked. democrats had one vote. they dropped it as quickly as they could and moved on and haven't tried again. if we recall back to an earlier era in 2003, 2004 and 2005 when the senate or the congress was a

little bit more productive there was a nominee who was nominated for the dc circuit court by george w. bush. republicans wanted to confirm him and pushed seven votes over a very long period of time. they kept coming back and kept the senate in when it otherwise would not have been. then we look at the effort to codify presumably democrats are unified on abortion. i think that is the common view and they had one vote and lost it. we see this time and time again with democrats and republicans on a whole host of issues and we wonder why nothing happens. compromise doesn't just happen, it emerges out of a struggle when the people try to debate and when different things and have to compromise along the way. >> host: next year we will see the house being ruled by the

republican party. kevin mccarthy will become the house speaker but he's facing issues with that and is still having to deal with a senate ruled by democrats what do you think about this idea and what it does for the quality on capitol hill? >> it will change the discourse a little bit. i don't think the outcomes are going to be any different. you would have a hard time distinguishing the 117th congress from the 118th congress but i do think it is a step in the right direction to the extent we need more conflict, disagreement and fighting within the house and the senate and between the house and senate and we need rank and file lawmakers to push and take power back from their leaders and to ultimately try to achieve their goals and when they do so they can take note and reward or punish them as they see fit. >> host: a guest on the

republican line. hello. >> caller: good morning how is everybody doing today. in my opinion, we don't have congress, we ain't got no military men. i think we are already [inaudible] and i tell you what i don't have any respect for the people of the united states right now as far as running the country. it's gone to the dogs and they are going to have to do something to show the people what is going on in the united states. and i really appreciate it. thank you have a good day. >> host: what do you think about public perception as far as how it impacts what people do. >> guest: kenneth makes a good point with regards to congress if you think about it in institutions it exists as long as we use it for the purpose

which it was created. congress is a crucible of conflict and the place we go to disagree, debate and argue. and when we no longer use it for that purpose, when we no longer use it to achieve those outcomes and achieve our goals for all intensive purposes, it's gone. it doesn't exist. that doesn't mean it can't come back tomorrow and start to be lawmakers again and use congress as a great, fabulous crucible of conflict. but until then, congress is not doing what it was ultimately do as an institution. >> host: you've written a couple of books on this idea of the liberation. is that a long walk in congress or do you still think that it's possible? >> guest: there will always be decisions made behind closed doors. i think the key difference is the degree to which the rank-and-file lawmakers are able to participate in the process. they are doing it to themselves. it's not like there is a shadow figure off on stage left forcing

everybody to do something. if you want to know why congress is broken, it's because the members broke it and i think that is a reflection on us. we think of the liberation and compromise when we are thinking really about consensus and we don't like disagreement and we think that disagreement is a bad thing but it will somehow prevent us from compromising. but that's not how it works. before you compromise you have to first disagree, have a difference of opinion. if we had a consensus we wouldn't need congress after also i think if we want deliberation and to see more compromise and bipartisanship, we have to embrace the outliers, the liberals and conservatives and the idea of political conflict and disagreement and see them as good things because after all that is how we got things like the civil rights act of 64. that's how we got the voting rights act of 65 and how we did all the things the congress did in the 60s and 70s when it had this productive period in

the history. >> host: charts and bills that were passed were public laws that were enacted if you go back to 89 or 90 in the congress it was like 408 bills when you get to the 116th congress it is 233. the numbers go up and down from then but as far as passing walls is at the number you look at or the quality of the law that you look at? >> guest: it's easy to do both. there's a number that are not a very consequential or that may be broad widespread support if you think about any kind of minor piece of legislation but overall i think that they do matter. what's more important is what has congress done they passed a gun-control bill earlier this year but it's like the civil rights act of 57. not many people remember that.

it wasn't the civil rights act of 54. it was the lowest common denominator. it didn't really change things much and if you look at guns and abortion, healthcare, education and a whole host of issues at the top of the american's agenda right now, congress isn't passing legislation to deal with that and so congress can pass billy capasso thousand but if it isn't at adjudicating the concerns of the american people in a way that we can see and in a way that we can hold the lawmakers accountable, then there's thousands that don't really mean much in the end. >> host: lawrence in new york on the democrats line. >> caller: i wanted to know that biden is doing his job. too many people have complaints about him. he's doing his job 24 hours. that is the number one job at the highest point of state and office. >> host: okay that is lawrence

in new york. because of the senate career will do you think of the relations with congress especially with the experience he has in congress? >> guest: biden is the quintessential legislator i worked in the senate when he was there and had great relationships with members but i do want to underscore a point that was made that is often lost. people in the executive branch and they are doing a very difficult job we may not like what they do all the time and the comments can get critical sometimes and perhaps unfortunately nasty at times but it's important that we recognize that these are all americans doing what they think is best and stepping into the arena and their own unique way and i may

disagree with how they are doing it but it's important to keep that in mind. >> host: in new york state, go ahead. >> caller: there was all this talk about there was going to be this big red wave and republicans didn't do as well as they were saying. they were trying to blame that they had bad candidates. it's because the republican party no longer stands for anything. what have they done to prove to the american people that they deserve to take power? for instance they should be trying to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and nobody is talking about it. you require 60 votes to pass legislation out of the senate but yet have ten, 12, 15 republicans who vote along with

the democrats. for instance mr. mcconnell should turn around and tell president biden i am not going to work with you on any major legislation until you secure the border. republicans can do that. unfortunately republicans complain but 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 changes its tactics and actually 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. thank you. >> host: that's peter in new york city. >> guest: you've raised a great point here the party is not unified. mitch mcconnell doesn't say that on immigration because he doesn't agree with a large part of his party on immigration.

in 2007 they supported comprehensive immigration reform and jeff sessions and david vitter, tom coburn had the effort to defeat the bill and mitch mcconnell was visibly upset and frustrated you can look it up on the c-span video library and see it after the vote is called and you can see he has his own policies to try to unify the party that doesn't agree on things like immigration and one other point that you raised up the election i would encourage all of the viewers to resist the urge to have a one-size-fits-all explanation for something the fact is they did poorly. we don't have just one republican party or democratic

party. we have 50 republican parties and all the different states. and if the republican party is very different than to say 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: since you talk about the senate in your experience, what did you think about the recent decision by kiersten to become an independent? >> guest: it's not going to change what happened outside of the senate. she will continue to caucus with the democratic party. bernie sanders was and typically democrat but he identifies. things won't change in less she decided to no longer caucus with the party. at the end of the day i don't think her becoming an independent is going to change how it operates in any way. >> host: what do you think about the influence that they have with senator joe mansion as

well. depending on how much they agree with their fellow democrats on the issue? >> guest: this influence given by the senators into the leadership. when i worked in the senate you quickly realize how hard and difficult it is for one senator to do anything when people don't want to listen to you. the fact of the matter is when the senate continues to operate by unanimous consent and that is basically the senate saying we don't want to use our rules on the books we want to create new rules by unanimous consent. they are in essence asking for permission to do something and they shouldn't be surprised when they say no but if they don't want them to say no, there's plenty of rules on the books in the senate for them to go around and forcing them to vote one way or another on the floor. they may lose some of those votes and win some of the votes. we have seen them play hardball

with regard to the house and pelosi really forced the progressives to go along with the highway bill and other legislation. she called their bluff. they could have done the same. it may not have been successful but he may have been so we have to see what makes them powerful is how the senate is currently run and managed. it's not anything in the senate rules. >> host: the house speaker nancy pelosi will become now just a member of congress along with others. how much influence do you think she will have on the democratic side of the house? >> guest: i think she is a towering figure in congressional history and with this particular congress. she's an extraordinary leader. i don't agree with everything she's done from a policy perspective. i worked for republican members during her tenure and up but to sit sides of things but her skill has been incredible and if you look at harry reid in

similar ways with of the affordable care act in particular it wasn't a democratic majority or any special interest or ultimately president obama it was their skills as leaders and i think it does show and republicans should take note and say this is what effective leadership looks like and we want to skilled leaders so we can also achieve those goals. >> host: pennsylvania democrats line. john, hello. >> caller: i have a question for you. i know you are blaming the lame-duck session and you don't agree with making decisions in lame-duck sessions, but i don't agree that corporations are people. i don't believe in citizens

united i think we need politicians and the american people need to be clear who is funding. you can't even identify who is getting what most of the time. what is your opinion and you have the supreme court making decisions, so what's your cure for these problems that some are generated by the court and islam are generated by the parties attacking the process. >> host: okay, got the point. thanks. >> guest: that is the problem with of the lame-duck we all have different views and concerns but ultimately we all have a right to see the representatives that adjudicate and we should be able to call on them to do so and to see who

makes decisions and what people ultimately decided we should be able to hold the elected representatives accountable for those decisions. there's nothing wrong or bad about this. it's inherent in american government but the problem is that increasingly among the american people and among the representatives in congress, we've come to the point where if you don't agree with what i ultimately think is right, then i'm going to do everything i can to make sure you don't have a right to participate in the process, that you aren't able to read adjudicate your concerns and that i'm not able to vote on what you think is best because you may win and i don't think that is appropriate. that is what leads to all of us making the decisions in the lame-duck period after the american people vote. >> host: with the overstreet institute he serves as the senior fellow to talk about the 107th congress and issues related to that. bill in maryland on the

independent line. >> caller: good morning thanks for taking my call. i will confess i tuned in late but your guest caught my attention. as a voter who is independent but i usually vote republican i live in the deep blue state of maryland. i look at what's going on and i want to get your thoughts because the big issue in my mind is a fiscal conservative i'm watching this country sink and you've got the entitlement programs with social security and medicare which haven't been addressed since tip o'neill and ronald reagan addressed it and it seems to me the politicians in this country are making decisions based on their self-interest and career politicians and what we need

with citizen legislators who are not going to be voting in their own self-interest colluding with the opposition that you said should be a crucible of conflict but instead all i see a group of people that collude with each other that can continue their careers as politicians. they all come out of there as millionaires, so i just want to get your thoughts about this. >> host: thank you, bill. >> guest: we shouldn't be surprised that it's hard to change the status quo. it's always going to be hard because after all that's why it is the status quo, the interest of the people and parties that support it. it can be done but for that to happen the american people have to feel empowered. you see a lot of apathy and frustration and powerlessness.

that is concerning because until that change in congress there won't be change. when we look at the 1960s the status quo on things like civil rights was extraordinarily powerful in the senate in the 1950s but in 1958 you had a number of democratic liberal senators who were not going to continue to do business as usual because the constituents pushed them and said we are not going to tolerate you pushing business as usual and we are going to give somebody else and you had more and more joined them and they disrupted things. they kept doing things they went around committees and regular order. we said we want to participate in this debate and see action on things like civil rights and that's how you ultimately got the civil rights act of 64 and voting rights act of 65, the clean water act amendment, clean air, host of other things the

congress. simply because the american people demanded that the representatives go to washington and ed adjudicate concerns on their behalf. >> host: what did you think about the january 6 committee in its final hearing yesterday into the criminal recommendations they made? >> guest: i think we should applaud congress any time it tries to exercise its power of oversight. we haven't seen a lot of oversight out of congress in recent decades 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 who don't like what it's doing to resist it by resisting it inside congress and pushing back. with the substance of the committee i think it's important the viewers remember we had an unprecedented impeachment of a former president who wasn't in office and during the trial when

people justified even though they were a private citizen we are told it's because that is the only way to hold this person accountable. now we have a january 6 committee recommending criminal charges to the justice department and i think that really underscores that there are other ways to punish citizens that you actually can't and shouldn't be impeaching citizens because that's not in the constitution. there's another interesting thing if we look at the impeachment trial and juxtapose it to the committee hearing. one reason why democrats and some republicans alike wanted to convict the former president at that impeachment trial as they wanted to ensure that you couldn't run again. it gives the senate the ability to say that you can't run again and they didn't prevail on that vote but ultimately if you look at the january 6 committee effort, it could be seen in a way to convict and the court of the public opinions that he cannot run again and again i think that it's important that we distinguish the political and

legal implications and try to evaluate them both independently. >> host: do you think it would have been a different result than say the original republicans the house speaker or house minority leader wanted on the committee, would that have made a difference? >> it just depends if making a difference is finding a smoking gun or evidence the they found we haven't released or we don't know about yet, maybe more conflict does lead to that. it would have led to a better understanding of what happens because it would have been disagreement any time you have disagreement at an official proceeding what happens is it raises issues and invites people into the process. it gives them something to watch and a sense of kind of engagement and it helps to bring out information that we otherwise begin to see but it's important any representatives participating on the republican side not just go along with whatever the democrats wanted to do after all with the adversarial criminal justice

proceeding it's because out of conflict come out of disagreement we gain a better understanding of the truth and reality in the realm and i'm not sure there was a lot of be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, we are making good progress. as a procedural safeguard i'm filing cloture, but i am hopeful, very hopeful, we will lock in an agreement shortly. so i accepted a cloture motion to the desk -- i send a cloture motion to the motion to concur in the house amendment to senate amendment number 4 to the bill with an amendment to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment numbered 4 to chawrmt 2617 to amend section 1115 of title 31 united states code and so forth and for other purposes. , with an amendment numbered

6552, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the named be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

chief counsel for the permanent subcommittee on investigations. he was the former assistant u.s. attorney for the district of massachusetts joining us now to talk about the congressional investigation of january 6th. mr. robbins, thanks for your time. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> host: can you expand on your role you served in congress particularly how congress investigates these types of things? >> i was simultaneously chief counsel for the democrats, the minority at the time. called the senate permanent subcommittee on investigations which is a great subcommittee with a significant bipartisan tradition and then at the same

time i was deputy chief counsel for the senate governmental affairs committee, the full committee which at the time was can investigating allegations that there were improprieties by the clinton and gore campaign in 1996 election. >> host: with that background in mind what did you think about the committees of january 6th to the justice department on its face as far as the specifics? >> first, the underlining volume of serious work that was done by this committee nobody regardless it seems to me with an inclination can challenge. this was a thousand witnesses nearly about a million documents. the executive summary that's being released tomorrow runs 150 pages, 762 footnotes. when you have an executive summary longer than winston churchill's six volume history of world war ii, you know you're dealing with a serious document.

with respect to the referrals there is obviously an enormous amount of evidence that supports each of the referrals. that is not however to say that to that end is the equation as far as the justice department lawyers on the receiving end of those referrals are concerned because they have a very different calculus to make. they have to assess whether or not that evidence, number one is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that will enable them to proceed with some confidence that they can persuade a jury of 12 unanimously that there has been proof beyond a reasonable doubt so much so to convict a former president which obviously has never occurred before, so while i think that the charges clearly are supported by evidence, that is very far from the end of the equation as far as justice department for the special counsel lawyers who have to review that. >> host: obstruction of the

unofficial for conspiracy to defraud the united states, conspiracy to make a false statement and inciting and giving aid to the insurrection. are you saying you can find evidence of what was presented directly to former president trump on those? >> guest: for certain but only other hand it should be noted for example with respect to the first two charges, conspiracy to impede and conspiracy to defraud which are very related, there is a federal judge who is ruling on a very narrow sliver of the evidence the committee had before judge carter in california wrote the decision finding that in his view it was likely than not that the former president had violated those criminal statutes. so yes of course there is evidence supporting each of the four and there's enough evidence of corrupt intent which is an element of that really straddles all four of these potential charges to sink the ship. we are not talking about a mountain of evidence we are

talking about a mountain range at this point. but that isn't to say that the former president would not have significant defenses in the event that those charges are brought and that's what the justice department lawyers and special counsel lawyers have to assess. there will be a lot of sleepless nights over of the justice the justicedepartment and probay have been when people ask themselves the question okay i get it, but can i persuade a jury of 12 unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt that the former president is guilty especially where there are these defenses which are related to speech and asking lawyers for advice. >> host: we've seen the committee referred others in the justice department. the justice department took some but not others. what's the deliberative process like in determining?

>> number one, and as has been said i think a lot over the last 24 to 36 hours the fact of the referral is of no consequence in other words the justice department traditionally, there've been some along the way including in my view the trump administration is an institution that prides itself on holding itself to tough standards and frankly it knows that the federal judges before whom the lawyers appear will hold them to very tough standards so what there will be is an independent review of the evidence that is sent over, the transcripts and the documents in conjunction with the evidence the justice department lawyers have already passed and of the analysis would be independent of whether or not however smart they are and some of the members are not just smart but very good lawyers but they will be an independent test

and as they say that will be charged by charge with those and other potential charges. is there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, is there a great deal of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and see, given the anticipated defenses, how likely is it that i, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt under these extraordinary circumstances a former president should be found guilty on these charges, which would send him or could send him to prison. >> host: 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats and 202-748-8002 for independent. text a 2003 if you want to ask questions of the former who served on capitol hill in the role of investigations talking about yesterday's criminal recommendations of the january 6 committee. you talked about the idea possibly charging a president.

how much does it matter that he is running for office? >> guest: i think at this point we are beyond that. in other words i take the attorney general at face value when he says that really can't be a factor and certainly the appointment of a special counsel is a strong indication that it really will not be a factor and the special counsel who has been appointed is a very experienced prosecutor. i don't think that the fact the former president is running is going to have any impact on this deliberation. the deliberation will be is this an indicted offense and clearly is there a significant quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt and how valid are the anticipated defenses? >> host: you brought up the special counsel conducting and fits investigation a major fertile coming into the justice department. is there any crossover between

the two? >> guest: i think the special counsel's office will be staffed in part substantially by the justice department prosecutors who have already been not only sifting through evidence but actually presenting evidence to a grand jury. the justice department has already done a lot of work for the handoff to the special counsel, negotiating with witnesses, presenting to the grand jury. so it's not as if the special counsel is starting from square one because it surely is not. >> host: if the justice department or the house delivers its report or evidence that is associated with that can they take the evidence that's brought in from the criminal referrals and use it in its case? >> very much so. that is the principle of value of this series that are being

turned over by the committee to the justice department. there are reams of transcripts and support testimony that can be presented to a grand jury and there are documents that can themselves be presented to a grand jury for the basis of the presentations and that by the way is why apparently the justice department has been pressing the committee to throw over the transcripts for reasons which are perplexing the committee was reluctant to do that but now the evidence is being turned over by the committee to the special counsel there are treasure trove's of evidence that can be used in concrete fashion by the special counsel. >> host: when it comes to the referrals yesterday, ultimately will it be the attorney general that makes the decision? >> guest: yes. there will be a recommendation by the special counsel, but ultimately it will be the

attorney general who makes the decision. >> host: let's start off with mike in texas on the republican line. you are on with jeff robbins. go ahead with your question or comment for the guest. >> caller: do you think there's a conversation to be had about the omission of evidence? when does the omission become part of the key point? >> if there are omissions of evidence which is exculpatory of the former president, i'm not aware of it. what one hears a lot is that the committee did not focus on issues that to someone on the other side of the aisle wanted him to focus on like deficiencies with the capital police response or the like. i guess i just don't think that most people think that the issue here is whether there was, whether they were malfunctioning walkie-talkies or enough capital

police officers on standby or big enough padlocks for the capital. i don't think that's really what the issue is. i don't think, so if there is evidence that exculpated's the president is so to say that indicates he did not have corrupt intent, then that is evidence that should be presented to the special counsel. i'm just not aware of what it is. i don't know that any of us are aware of what it is at the moment. >> host: this is from brenda in indiana pennsylvania on the democrats line. >> caller: good morning. i think one of the most important things in the january 6 committee proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is that donald trump knew he lost the election and i'm kind of disappointed that the last public hearing the other day that this wasn't the centerpiece

of that public hearing. jason miller, bill, pat, eric hirschman, bill barr, jeff rosen and donahue all parts of trump'p administration. they all testified under oath that donald trump knew he lost. he admitted it privately. very seriously and grudgingly but he admitted it privately so in my opinion, anything donald trump did after that point in time is fraudulent and it is a crime and the stop the steel fundraising he did come of this go fund me page he knew there wasn't a steel to stop so like i said i think anything he did after he privately acknowledged he lost, anything he did after that was criminal and fraudulent.

>> host: okay thank you, brenda. >> caller: >> guest: i agree that the evidence that the former president knew that he lost is overwhelming. i also think as i said the evidence of corrupt intent on the part of the former president and various, in conjunction with various steps he took whether it is the call to the georgia secretary of state were the conversations with the former vice president or other things. i think it is pretty clear when you are asking someone to find 11,800 to 70 votes, come on fellas give me a break. that is pretty stark evidence but i think it also has to be said that doesn't necessarily translate into anything close to a lay up if criminal charges are brought. let me give you an example the former president would say no doubt if he's charged i'm not entitled to this speech, i'm not entitled to ask my supporters to demonstrate or to ask lots of different lawyers for their best legal opinion. of course i'm entitled to do

that. you can't put me in jail, you shouldn't be able to put me in jail for that. that's the kind of defense that you would expect to hear if any of these particular charges are brought. by the way, that's not the sense that wouldn't be defense to the various espionage act and related charges that are apparently being contemplated but with respect to the charges that were referred out yesterday, that is the kind of defense. that is the kind of basket of defenses that you would expect to see the former president raise and they are not negligible defenses. >> host: one of the people commenting about the challenges they had if this goes forward was jonathan, you probably heard the name from george washington university. here's the both of the case he made and i want to get your response to it. there was no direct new evidence of criminal act by the former president. it's not to say his conduct wasn't reckless or reprehensible, but that isn't a

criminal act and it was basically a rehashing of what we have seen in virtually every one of these hearings and they simply attach these referrals to it so the department of justice could reject this referral entity getting nowhere. they could also take it to trial and look for a favorable jury in places like dc. the problem is i don't think these convictions on this evidence would likely be, would likely withstand the scrutiny. the biggest problem is those accounts that turn on the president's speech. that a speech in my view was protected under the existing supreme court cases like brandenberg. it would not meet the standards the supreme court to set out for the criminalization of speech. that's my view and i expect even if they were to have a conviction they would have a pretty hard time on the deal. >> host: one perspective, but

go ahead. >> guest: i disagree on some counts with what the professor said and i agree on other accounts. i disagree that this was a rehashing of old evidence. i think there was an enormous amount of new evidence nobody knew about before the hearings began in late may that includes evidence from its inside circle that he was advised that he could not and should not do what he was doing including for example the lawyers in mike pence's office who provided information and analyses that this was a bogus claim. the pressure tactics on the vice president, that is new. that isn't something we knew about and there's more. so i disagree on that. i think if there is insufficient evidence to charge, i disagree that if he were convicted the former president would charge that the evidence would be too

thin to prevail but i do agree with him that the issue of speech as i said before is a live one that is to say the former president can argue through his lawyers because he's likely to take the stand in his own defense he can argue all i was doing was urging my supporters to demonstrate. i used the phrase like fight like hell which is a phrase that of course is used all the time without people being invited. i asked lawyers from their legal opinion even controversial lawyers. i'm entitled to do that so i do think that what the professor indicates would be the defenses utilized are the defenses he would use and i don't think they are negligible as i said before. >> host: jeffrey roberts for this discussion.

let's hear from john in ohio on the republican line. >> caller: nice to talk with you all. first time caller. anybody that did broke anything or assaulted anyone on that day should be prosecuted to the fullest extent but my biggest question when did the insurrection end and what stop did? my theory as it was just done for social media and when everybody had their videos they left. was there a pitch at all the capitol hill police pushed them out and locked the doors? if there wasn't it was just an opportunity for pictures. >> guest: unless we are living in a land of optical illusions i think we saw the videotape of exactly what you say did not happen happened that is to say

there was very much a battle. once all the evidence of it with hours and hours of footage one angle or another people were hurt, some people died so if the standard is was there a pitched battle and if there was he satisfied those in insurrection. we do seem to have pretty overwhelming evidence in the form of video that that is exactly what occurred. >> host: a text from a viewer in arizona saying can you elaborate regarding potential exculpatory evidence not submitted by the january 6th committee? >> guest: actually i can't because i don't know what that exculpatory evidence is. let me give you an example. if there were an explanation of the phone call for those that find the 870,000 votes give me a break if there's some exculpatory explanation for

that, i'm not aware of what it is. if there's some explanation for sitting there for 187 minutes while people's heads are being bashed in and all of your advisers are telling you you've got to do something to stop it and you don't, i don't know what that would be so i'm not being flipped i'm just saying you would expect if there were exculpatory evidence somebody would have offered it during the course of these hearings not necessarily the hearings themselves but commentary or otherwise. i just haven't heard of that evidence. >> host: this is a viewer off of twitter they talk about the committee itself but also about there was no due process during the actual proceedings. could you elaborate on that? >> guest: i don't know what that refers to. there were people who were asked

to testify and answer questions who refused. people who were subpoenaed and offered a chance to testify about occurred some of them simply didn't show up and told the committee to jump in the league only in words that were not of the slide. to have been indicted for contempt of congress and one has been convicted and as far as due process is concerned the former president himself was subpoenaed to answer questions and declined let us say to answer questions so that's what due process is all about, the right to present your side of the story. people were given the opportunity to present their side of the story. some people declined to do that and one can draw the appropriate inference why they declined but

whether or not the former president was offered the chance to present his side of the story i think it is pretty clear he was given the chance but took it down. >> host: new jersey independent line. >> caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i want to talk about what we don't know and what we do know. why was nancy pelosi not questioned and where is all this footage that we have not seen what happened that day? you look like an honest man and i'm going to ask you a question. do you think that kennedy was ts fair when there was really no republican representation because we know adam kissinger and liz cheney are not a true republicans. now what we do know, there are many people in washington that hate donald trump. we know they didn't want him to be president in 2016.

we also know when he became president and did such a great job straightening this country out they made up their mind they would make sure he never got back in that committee.

select these decisions be. and we will win because we are united ukraine and america and

the entire free world. [cheers and applause] >> may god protect our brave troops and citizens and bless the united states of america mary christmas and have a victorious new year. [cheers and applause]

[cheers and applause]

this flag was flown over the capitol today in honor of the president's visit

>> is border communities are in a complete crisis this is not new but has progressively worsened year after year administration after administration due to the federal government repeated failures to address a broken border and immigration system as a native arizona and i have seen firsthand how these fall squarely on border states and endangering the lives of migrants. right now we are experiencing

a dangerous tipping point the combination of it and secure border and overworked and under resourced protection force and never before seen levels of illegal immigration and asylum seekers and coordinated smuggling efforts have completely ruined and already broken system. to make matters worse, title 42 the public health order stopping some migrants from entering the country may soon expire allowing thousands of migrants winter arizona, texas and other border states without proper procedure or plans or infrastructure. let me be clear this is a humanitarian insecurity nightmare already our border towns can barely keep up with the demands of the overwhelming levels of immigration and a small community of roughly 37000

people right on the arizona mexico border the fire chief recently told us three of the five ambulances are used solely to care for migrants in need leaving only two for the entire local community on any given night. the city of tucson has accepted 15 percent of total population just in migrant releases since april of this year and thus threat of street releases process every single day including today. and then taking the agents away from the important work from patrolling the border apprehending illegal crossers

and start being stopping cartel in smugglers. the consequences are clean to see even reported seeing migrants traveling along inner-city highways because border patrol was too overwhelmed to apprehend them closer to the border while the humanitarian organizations across the state and brave men and women in blue green and brown shoulder the burden of a failed system washington continues to politicize solutions politicians are retreating to their corners and instead of examining the problem for what it is not for what one party wishes it was in meaningful solutions refusing to acknowledge increased security measures while others have a singular view of what kind of security

someone to welcome to come to the border and others wants to keep everyone out and a few want to be the very agency that is tasked with enforcing immigration laws those for the asylum-seekers that our country has always pledged to help. as someone who is seen all the challenges my entire life come i know these are all false choices that's why i reject the partisan echo chamber and on a bipartisan proposal to help solve some of those real problems the border communities continue to face just as we have on a number of complex issues from gun violence to marriage equality and religious freedom focus on

the shared values and shared goals before we could tackle the issue of the backlog asylum process are undocumented residents we knew we had to focus first on securing the border a problem as big as border it starts by investing in the brave men and women who keep our border safe a robust and well-trained and well resourced border patrol, office of field operations air and marine operations force are critical to ensure the fair and humane treatments of migrants. senator tillis and i look at boosting pay and providing agents and officers to do what

they need to do. that we are committed to reassert control of our border. we understand to secure border by relying only on physical barriers as a 17th century answer into a 21st century problem. but this past october the office of field operations officers reported a 73 percent increase of fentanyl seizures compared to one year ago. and at the port of entry seizing one.5 million fentanyl pills in less than five days.

that alone cannot find a way into the country we must supplement security barriers with innovative technology solutions and boost border protection and update the policies governing our borders. for years our asylum system has represented the promise of america welcoming persecution to find freedom and safety. but today the asylum system is broken the border patrol isn't able to do their job in the border communities cannot keep up. to assure that those who seek

to serve we must acknowledge the status quo is no longer functional the immigration courts and asylum officers are backlogged with cases taking years to resolve. sending a message that america does not take this seriously and our system can be manipulated in arizona the impact is clear. small towns along our border are overwhelmed daily to care for their own residence while managing an increasing influx of hundreds of migrants every day. with the asylum system broken more migrants make the arduous and devastating journey to the border. when they arrive they risk not being able to access care and medical attention that they need. going above and beyond every

day to avoid street releases and to ensure migrants are treated fairly that the main humanitarian organization in tucson has been operating at overcapacity for a month and the regional center for border health is contracting due to the large number of migrants with the snowbird season well underway hotels are increasingly limited putting a more strain on the emergency response system so senator tillis and i understand we cannot address the border without also fixing the asylum

system. it's orderly to have asylum that is streamlined that to respect american values and then to adjudicate claims and relive those that the asylum system will no longer be manipulated. and most of us in border states no healthy cross-border trade all go hand in hand. we must achieve all three. in 2019 over $2 trillion worth of goods in handy handling over $1 billion of produce every year.

and also immigrant workers are the very ones in keeping the economy strong. and we need a robust workforce and that has a loophole in the visa system. and then to increase the competitiveness to ensure that america has the workforce and needs to power our economy i believe the future resilience also depends on the full inclusion of millions of young people known as dreamers.

millions of young people ever brought to our country through no fault of their own they have attended schools and graduated and gotten jobs and served in the military and contributed to our economy all while making our communities more vibrant and rich place to live but now casualties of the inability to solve the broken immigration system and that is why senator tillis and i said enough is enough in a bipartisan plan to be recognized as americans. our proposal is tough but it is fair. and i am certain it will make america a stronger in safer place for all of us they stand

here today disappointed as we come close to closing out the 1h congress washington is chosen yet again to retreat to the partisan corner instead of doing the hard and necessary work when it comes to the crisis at our border in arizona me will continue to shoulder the burden we've never seen the border up close and all of the diversity and challenges it can be easy to rely on the partisan talking points instead of focusing on the meaningful solutions so when we come back in january 1 of the first things i will do was senator tillis to convene a bipartisan group of senators who want to get something

done. we will see what arizonans see every single day because a crisis the spec cannot be ignored. and in arizona we cannot afford for this crisis to continue much longer over the past four years watching with those in his body and both sides to the toughest challenges through honesty and collaboration we have shown america there is so much more that unites us then divides us we have shown what is possible when you listen to one another not to debate but understand there is no challenge more difficult to bridge or more dire for us to solve than our border and immigration

crisis. i believe we can come together and honestly solve the challenge i willing to do this work i cannot be more grateful so senator tillis who is also willing to do the work into the i call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us. put down the politics. let's get this done. thank you. i yield the floor. >> thank you mr. president i want to think the fellow senator for her comment she framed the challenges we were seeking to address two persistent to the next congress. one of the things we have to do their able to achieve bipartisan consensus was to get more people to recognize

that we have a crisis at the southern border and it is the crisis where the southern border state but it affects everybody in the united states every community is affected by the crisis at the border. it is interesting if you watch the news coverage how suddenly one end of the spectrum says now it's time for congress to act 2 million illegal crossings for a total of 4 million people we dodged a ball with title 42 with that expedited removal to be

returned. so for the next couple of weeks it will come off the books and then border patrol says they will no longer have control of the border they already has said they can barely keep up but the vast majority should be responding to illegal crossings are working on the aftermath over the last 12 months and doing law enforcement if title 42 goes away the 2 million is estimated to be 3 million and can go up from there. ever since president biden has taken office keep in mind this is just an objective observation in the 12 month before president biden came into office there were half a million illegal crossings in the 12 months before and the

12 months after there were 2,000,012 months after that there were 2 million. now we have that threat of 3 million and continuing. even worse than that on the one hand you see someone risking their lives take it as a compliment they want to realize the american dream and i abide by that but what are the very reasons we are so attractive as a country to come live and prosper is because we are a nation of laws. we have order and now we have disorder at the border and even though it's a huge problem to add chilean crossings now it's even worse to have 50000 and got a ways i have been to the border several times immediately you see that the northern side of

the rio grande that point to where you can go to the process they know they will be treated respectfully given housing and food but what is concerning is that there are some 50000 per month who intentionally evade apprehension if you have a valid asylum claim or don't have a criminal record if you run the risk and being released within a few weeks the reason for that is many have criminal background records with 750 recently apprehended documented members in the country of origin. these people are coming to the country and quickly go into the communities for those who

have been relocated. and so the reason the administration if it makes an estimated $800 million over the last 12 months paying a toll if you are in a letter one —- latin american country paying between five and $7000 per person in china 35000. the cartels have set up a marketing function to go to these countries and save you pay us a fee, we will get you to the united states in spite of the fact they have passed through other safe countries they could seek asylum asset we talk about when we talk

about abusing the system our international treaties says if somebody comes to you and you have a credible fear in a country that you live relocate to the country that can grant asylum that they say we don't carry you are the cartels say we will get you in several we could apply for asylum in between and then the cartels have coach them on exactly what to say in spite of the fact that with hundreds of judges democrat and independent judges 80 percent of those claims are deemed not to be credible so the asylum system is broken it has to be fixed the border has to be secure and we need more technology and enforcement and legal ports of entry because the same cartels are sending

truckloads of fentanyl and dangerous drugs to poisoning kill americans so i in the next congress we can recognize number one hopefully the administration will recognize we have a crisis at the border and it cannot be on partisan grounds has to be into the political struck them to recognize you have to move to a point we can produce a solution otherwise americans will be placed into the people trying to cross the border will die in the hundreds and it is a moral obligation to get out of that comfort zone otherwise the death in the blood of the people is on the hands of everybody in the room. >> i went to think my

colleagues senator cinema and senator cinema for their comments on immigration number of us are coming on the floor to discuss it today it is a sad day because many people who are counting on this congress to do something understanding we have an end and make immigration system and we are paying a heavy price and many who are watching this proceeding today paying an even heavier price if we do nothing to help those who are protected by daca or the dreamers, court decisions may force some of these people to force the reality they can no longer legally work in america and subject to deportation many have spent their whole lives here in the united states they go to our schools and churches and we

see them at the high school football games they work in dairy queen all over america because they are part of america. at least they think they are but they are not and they grew up thinking that they have an awakening when the parents say we have to tell you the truth you're not here legally so they have had over 20 years since the first three match has better else perhaps we can get something done. so it looks very unlikely that we will. so we here in the comments from the senator's the bottom line truth, any reasonable,

factual discussion or debate on immigration not only deals with the dreamers and those who are here with undocumented status but also what's going on at the southern border. it is a humanitarian and security nightmare only getting worse and we're being flooded at the border from those who want to be in the united states i had an opportunity to meet some of those migrants bus to chicago a few weeks ago had to sit down to hear the stories. i recommend to all who are interested in the issue with the danger that they face and then to realize the same sentiment of my grandmothers and their sister and brother and i recall the stories. these are not people setting

up to chia political system but fighting for survival like carlos and his four -year-old daughter who spent four months coming from venezuela to our border and in addition as a college indicate on —- educated individual but as the bottom line principles is at least three or more that come to mind to have an orderly process and there has to be some system that monitors a number of people coming in and the circumstances that is number one and number two we should not allow anyone dangerous to come into this

country and third this is the hardest part we have to have an orderly and timely process that makes sense for america in lives us along the right track five different times i have called the dream act for passage and those with the majority on the floor but it takes 60 out of 100 and i cannot get the 60 vote margin five different times five or ten years ago this guy is filled with young people wearing caps and gowns to tell the story high schools and colleges to be a part of america's future and when we didn't get the 60 votes i

joined the church and there was a lot of tears shed in that moment for me and all the others. i said at the time i will not give up on you. do not give up on me. reaching out in every direction to find allies in this conversation to sit down on a bipartisan basis to fix the broken immigration system thank you to the senator from arizona to take the initiative along with senator tillis. i believe the proposal although i don't agree with that all is a starting point for the conversation and debate but the real starting point is the true stories of people who would be affected by this and as i have told you before this is the 132nd time i've taken to the floor of the senate to tell the story of the dreamer. his name is josé.

coming in at 11 sold in europe and then serving as an interpreter for his family and medical appointments and through these experiences watching people provide support his passion for healthcare groomed and in high school he enrolled in the cna course with the goal to be a doctor. at 16 when his classmates were getting drivers license that he realized he was undocumented people don't accepted university of illinois chicago the legal status meant he did not qualify for any scholarships or assistance and cannot afford to stay be on the first semester he develop that obstacle stop him and recently

earned the associate of science degree josé worked with the travel nursing agency is a traveling cna and travel to six different states working in rehab centers hospitals to provide care to citizens and when the pandemic it he was deployed to meet urgent healthcare needs it took him far from home which mean he cannot be by his grandfather's side when he passed with covid one of the many sacrifices he made to pursue his passion. today josé has earned a full scholarship at loyola university in chicago to complete the pre- medical student studies to obtain a bachelor degree me say a kind

word there are many great higher educational institutions but they have gone out of their way to showing care for people like josé that which open and competition for the first time did not give them a quota to say a certain number would be accepted be you could compete with everybody else for admission so it's the first chance ever had to apply to a medical school 25 students were accepted by loyola and here they accepted with a full scholarship to complete his premed students on the way to a bachelors degree. plans one day to open a clinic to help the people considering

the opportunity to be a contributing member of society is america better or worse to have josé living among us when we be better off if we deported him back to mexico? he did not know anything about the journey where his parents were taking him that he has done everything right volunteering to help with healthcare and risking his own life during the crisis doing the hard work many people would turn away from and now trying to finish college with a premed degree so he can become a medical professional can think of places around the state waiting for people in medical backgrounds to step up into tree american people one of the hospitals came to see me last week it's in a tough

neighborhood and they said he almost closed down one of our departments but luckily they were able the one —- able to bring in thirties filipino nurses to augment our staff. keeping a department open in the city of chicago. that story is repeated everywhere saying we need no more immigrants but we need josé and the nurses many people to make this a better nation but we have to do our work that only the undocumented situation that also border security here is a humanitarian security challenge, still with an open mind and an open heart and understand we can make this a safer nation of

immigrants to make this a better place and have fun at the border as well. that's only thing that gives us a chance to fly in the future like forward to working with the senators and i thank them for their initiative. i yield the floor. >> madame president i cannot work with you or others in the next congress. i am coming to the end of my 26 years. in a couple more weeks i will move on to the next chapter and i am excited one —- i am frustrated we cannot do a better job i have heard those speeches and like him i am fully supportive of the kids

to grow appeared to stay here we should want them to stay here in eagerly looking for ways to be sure they stay here. one demographics matter a younger society is a more healthy society in a lot of ways but also just the fairness of asking somebody not to live where they grew up or is it critical to say we can easily get beyond? that senator sinema has a lot of appeal because it didn't try to do anything but i always thought madame president and 20 plus years of looking at the same challenge

this is the best solution we could achieve i was the whip and it takes 218 people to get something done in the house a hardy secure the border with the legitimate workforce needs of the country what do you do about people who came or stayed outside the wall? in the same 218 house members are the same 60 senators that could be the best to deal with the issue of how do you secure the border products what we do about the legitimate workforce needs in the country? and when we do about people to come or stay without documents?

>> what is the best way we can wrap our arms around those who know for sure we want them here it should be the easiest problem of all these problems to solve because the alternative makes so little sense in a personal way and an economic way sitting here and caps or gallons every day doing hard things in america adding to the capacity we should want that to happen. is silent system clearly is broken can just walk up to the border and say i come seeking asylum in fear for my life living in a poor and dangerous

country is not the criteria for silent. and that's why people do go to the court have their case heard and then it works in a way if you get here and into the country we are so far behind and then you could stay. and securing the border is a definite definition of responsibilities if you cannot secure your own border no matter what country you talk about you really don't need one of the entry-level definitions of the country. it is incredibly basic and we

are not doing that frankly under the last administration i think we're doing a lot of things right when it came to securing the border a barrier where you needed a barrier or where you needed other things to monitor. being sure that people understood the likelihood to go to an asylum and making a claim on —- make a claim in court all of those things mattered trying to be sure people had the information they need even the third safe country if you're trying to get to a safe country that should be your goal that are trying to get to a country with a better economic opportunity you should probably try to come to the united states of america. and i suspect every senator when asked everybody can't come here who lives in a country that is less safe or less economically successful than ours. just can't happen.

is not possible we cannot have a border that allows everybody who has that desire to get to the border to permanently be in the country. but i thought the bill i was very interested in but we ran out of time to get to look at the asylum system and with those border guards and officials who came to say this is where the bill is perfect and be made a little better and this is how we are unanimously for it that was a good approach didn't try to do everything but enough things but in going around what could be the easiest thing of the dreamers moving on to gap border patrol and others who work or back in their real job for those who are not here for

the reason they say they are. and to know we will soon find out with the asylum claim it is not working the matter what anybody says the border clearly is not under control it's hard to solve the other problems when the border is not under control that i thought the idea to have sign offs before we move further was a good thing in the bill that i was looking forward to seeing presented and debated. it is time we shared more information and thoughts and that we found the right number of senators to solve the problem and rather than frankly not being able to find 60 senators who have been able to come up with a comprehensive solution to pass

the congress. hope we can continue to pursue the right thing for our country the right thing for our economy in the workforce the right thing for people who need the needs of the economy to come here and find jobs we need to move forward and thanks to senator cinema and senator tillis and i look forward to watching as we continue to move more genetically that's right way for americans

madame president he went to tackle the issues at the border with the immigration system. when folks have heard so far is republicans and democrats can find a lot of common ground even on this topic when i'm here today because securing the border that is a priority for me and for the state of arizona that there is the brunt of washington's failure on this issue and this is a national security issue for decades politicians have tried and failed to fix our border and immigration system we see crisis after crisis of both parties and we see attempts by congress from over

and over and over again because on this issue more than any other folks often retreat to partisan corners rather than finding common ground that we know exist that's what led the government to lead to border states when it comes to border security. and it has led to a broken immigration system that doesn't work for families doesn't work for dreamers or businesses small or large or for our country and in arizona these are not abstract issues they are theoretical questions but real problems and arizonans deserve real solutions. our state is left to deal with crisis after crisis at the

border including the one we're facing right now where record numbers of border crossings are straining law enforcement and humanitarian organizations and this is unsustainable in a change of title 42 to the 42 authority will only make these challenges worse. >> hing to do. it is my expectation that we will be able to lock in an agreement on the omnibus tomorrow morning. we are very close but we're not there yet. but i ask members to be alerted, to be here at 8:00 in the morning when we'll have the first vote. on a nomination to bring everybody here, to get final agreement and then to move forward. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive

session to consider the following nominations en bloc. calendar 774, 451, 1258, 7068, 1282, 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, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate resume legislative session.jennt objection. the question is on the nominations en bloc. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 8:00 a.m. thursday, december 22. 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 executive calendar 781, franklin parker to be assistant secretary of the navy, and that at senate vote on the confirmation of the parker nomination as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate is adjourned until

welcome everybody to the cato institute. i'm ian vasquez, vice president for international studies. here it is easy,

>> host: thank you for the call. >> guest: as you may know it is a bit ironic that there are some who claim this is a partisan committee because as many would remember, the effort that was made was to have a bicameral commission look into this and that was blocked so

headed the democrats in the house who introduced the commission had their way there would have been a 9/11 like commission split evenly among democrats and republicans. the reason we don't have that isn't because of nancy pelosi but because republicans in the senate blocked it. moreover, you may recall that in the retaliation against liz cheney and adam kissinger for even being on the committee they were centered by the republican national committee. national committee. the way the committee turned out as it did is a function of maneuvers that were made on the republican side. having said that, they are conservatives and people who voted for donald trump invest

majority of the time. i hope when people see conservatives like cheney and met romney, remember there were seven republican senator who joined in the 50 democratic senators voting to convicted donald trump the second time he was impeached on the single count of incitement insurrection so i hope people don't think this was a witchhunt or a partisan job because i don't see it that way and i don't personally think the background of the committee or its work suggested was a witchhunt. >> host: >> caller: i would like to ask your guest, jim jordan, andy

biggs and kevin mccarthy were all asked, subpoenaed to come to the january 6 committee and they chose not to do so. if i had a friend that i thought was innocent about something, i would be willing surely to go and testify that and defend him. they had the chance to do it and they wouldn't so i don't understand. they had their chance but they blew it. >> guest: that does seem like a common sense inference that they refused to show up and common sense inference from the fact the former president didn't show up. though that is important enough as the call pointed out there was an attempt to kill any

inquiry into these events and that came from supporters of the former president. what should we think about an attempt to kill an inquiry into what occurred, what should one end for about the attempt to prevent the facts from being disclosed? most people will draw an inference from that so i tend to agree with the caller on this point. >> host: as far as the work on the generally six committee taking a look at the referrals if the justice does anything with it what is the potential penalty? >> guest: you mean for the congressman who refused to show up? >> guest: >> host: the referrals made yesterday by the committee. >> guest: with respect to the criminal referrals against the former president, there are jail terms that range all the way up to 20 years in the case of

insurrection and a couple charges that carry five-year terms, one i think carries a ten year term and one a 20 year term and disqualification so if the charges are brought and they will be brought if they are brought independently and not on the basis of this referral. special counsel will make his decision to charge or not charge and on what to charge totally independently of what he's asked to do and since the committee didn't deal with the documents issue under the espionage act for the taking of the classified documents and obstruction of justice that's a separate matter as well but the penalties, the

maximum penalties if there were a charge and if the president is convicted on these charges ranges all the way up to 20 years. >> host: las vegas, republican line. >> caller: i think the january . first of all they kicked jim jordan off the committee that's like the super bowl kicking tom brady off. what about nancy pelosi's job when trump requested 10,000 national guard and the last thing i want to add when reviewing all the evidence, they forgot or purposely left out where president trump said march

peacefully. there is no incitement in peacefully. thank you so much. >> guest: on that last point the call pointed out if the former president is charge, absolutely the defense team will use the phrase peacefully. i think others have done this by video, used phrases like fight like hell and they will argue that ultimately it was a forceful speech, hot tempered maybe but not a criminal act and that is something his team will point out. there is a lot of evidence of criminal intent some would say that override the word peacefully but you are right to point that out. in terms of nancy pelosi for the

life of me i'm not sure what she tried to did wrong. she tried to a totally bipartisan commission of inquiry like the 9/11 commission and was blocked so i think the accusations against her are misplaced. >> host: if they take into consideration the toll that it would take on the nation if we prosecute a former president. >> guest: it is such a good question. i think that the attorney general will say that he can to take that into consideration. he's effectively said he won't take that into consideration by saying that he will proceed as the facts and the law dictate. having said that, of course that will find its way somehow into the thinking.

one can make the counterargument that on this evidence, given this quite joyous joyride of having the democracy crashed if you can't invite now as the expression goes, then when can you so it is such a good question. if people deny to the death of that that issue plays any role in the decision whether or not to indict but my guess also is one way or another it will find its way into that mix of calculations. >> host: this is from palms california. kevin, hello. >> caller: i was wondering if i'm not mistaken wasn't eric holder still in contempt of congress for never showing up, first. then second, like the lady said earlier, why don't they let out all the video, they are just letting out certain parts.

and what about ray epps when he was there the day before? it's out of control. thank you. >> guest: by definition remember this is 20 hours of presentation. the committee has hundreds if not thousands of hours of video probably hundreds of thousands of pages of transcript. you can't present everything. now of course the committee had a view about what occurred but the footage that we have all seen of the deliberate crashing of windows and beating of cops, smashing entryways, that isn't

evidence of capitol police saying come on and we would love to have you. would you like and hors d'oeuvre? one has to be fair about the footage that simply cannot be waived away of a pretty violent assault on the capital complete with people demanding where's nancy, and hanging a noose after the hanging of the former vice president. >> host: another viewer off of twitter. susie zander asks if there is a separation of power issue with the referral. >> guest: no. again, it's not the legislative branch, congress is not prosecuting. it's not reporting to prosecute. it's not engaging in a law enforcement function. that function resides solely with the executive branch. so no, there's not a separation of powers issue.

>> . >> i reference to the notice of the subpoenas and that is

an important point congress has the indispensable function to carry out the investigative power to recognize by the supreme court and the power although not identified in the constitution is implied power of congress if the subpoenas in investigations can be regarded then the ability to carry of the function when serve is significantly impeded so i do agree with the caller that disregarded willful disregard it is a serious problem that will be with us for a while. >> since you have been involved in congress how does the january 6 committee keep itself in check when they get in the way of investigating?

>> it is a very important question the short answer is there is no way politics does not playable on the investigations. they always do and to some degree into a considerable degree these investigations are self policing to say that it is up to the members of the committee when the members of the leadership team to have a high regard of the traditions for the norms and appropriateness and the gravity of the congressional investigation to keep things in check. for example is to be during the time during the mccarthy era they had to take the fifth amendment publicly. now it's understood you don't do that but you allow people to do so in a much more

private setting out of respect for people's reputations. the power they have to damage people's reputations to impose a cost of various kinds i happen to think this committee succeeded. >> from arkansas republican line. >>caller. >> hello? one more time. let's go to ralph washington dc independent line. >>caller: i am independent because i think both parties are full of it but what i have seen recently but really scares me quite a bit about

democracy with the twitters saying how the fbi court needed to suppress news about the hunter biden laptop to remove people who are caustic against biden. since when does the homeland security start getting involved of who will win the election? and what information is available? that is socialism or communism or fascism and that scares me a lot more than trump's big mouth and bidens see now the one —-'s analogy - - being senile. >> as far as a january 6 committee i know it's early to talk about ever what is the legacy and the imprint it will have on future similar investigations? and has performed in a

historic way. some hope that with flop producing nothing you i don't think that is it proven to be the case. i think to a lot of people surprise, americans did follow what went on. 20million watched at least one hearing but that doesn't count those who hear about in the secondary or tertiary wave you could make a case that the midterms were affected by people's appreciation that there really was a threat to democracy and that would be the nine issue. that perhaps pollsters new.

and then to be remembered as a body that produce days sweeping and hot times there will be people who decry that it will really serve as a very important historical marker for how close america came to losing democracy and by the way the fact that we are not out of the woods yet. >> go ahead. >> the entire premise of the congressional investigation authored by a hollywood producer none of this is based on fact nancy pelosi should've been the first to testify.

the doj and fbi spied on republicans and mayor rudy giuliani to suppress evidence this whole thing has been a coup from the obama administration and the deep state to continue with all of this distraction here we are putting it out they will pass another on this bill trillions of dollars of the very. >> we have to leave it there i apologize final thoughts? >> i'm not sure i see at the exact same way as the caller. frankly the speaker nancy pelosi did a tremendous job and try to have this 9/11 commission the fact that it didn't happen that way was not her fault and frankly i think she conducted herself in a way

that will land her a good place in history as well. host: the former senate minority chief counsel and former assistant district attorney of massachusetts. thank you for your time. happy holidays. >> seem to you and your callers.

[cheers and applause] thank you so much. it is too much for me all of

these for these great people thank you so much. americans, interstate and cities and communities all those who value freedom and justice even as strongly i my words of respect and gratitude resonate in each american heart. madame vice president thank you for your efforts in helping ukraine. madame speaker you bravely visited ukraine during the full-fledged war.

thank you very much. it is a great honor. [applause] we are privileged to be here and representatives of both parties you also visited ts distinguish distinguished members of both parties to visit ukraine. those of that diaspora. [applause]

and is a great honor for me to be at the u.s. congress and speak to you and all americans. and with the doom and gloom scenario, ukraine is alive. [applause] and they could me good reason to share with you that we defeated russia in the minds

of the world. [applause] we have no fear, nor should anyone in the world ukraine gain this and we should inspire. americans gain this victory and that is why you succeeded to ignite the global community to protect freedom and international law. europeans gain this victory that's why you're stronger and more independent than ever they have lost control over us. [applause]

and it will never influence our minds again. yes we have to do whatever it takes of the global south to have such victory the russians will stand a chance to be free and then defeat the kremlin. [applause] the battle continues on the battlefield not only for the territory that freedom insecurity of the ukrainians or any other nation that

russia attempts to conquer the struggle is to define for the children and grandchildren. and for americans for all. 's and hoping that the ocean or something else will provider protection. even all the way to australia the world was to interconnected and interdependent to allow someone as such a battle continues. our two nations and next year

it will be at the point when the ukrainian encourage an american resolve must guarantee the future of our common freedom. the freedom of people who stand for their values. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, americans come yesterday before coming here now in the. host: cream. and then have been talking

nonstop since may. [applause] last year 70000 people were in the city now now the land is soaked in blood the gun sound every hour and trenches that the ukrainians. [inaudible]

then to have advantage of archer the re. they have an advantage and it is true but our defense forces. [applause] we are all proud of them. and then to the front lines.

they threw everything against a similar to the tyranny which is in the battle of the bulge. just like those brave american soldiers and then to put the prudence forces down this christmas. [applause] ukraine holds its line and will never surrender. [applause]

>> so here is the front line the tyranny which has no lack of cruelty and your support is crucial but to get to the point to win on the battlefield. we have artillery. is that enough? honestly? not really. [laughter] and with the russian army to completely pull out more shannon's and cannons and shells are needed just like the battle of saratoga will change our war for

independence and freedom if you stop the russian terror against our city will leave ukrainians to defend our freedom that when russia tries to destroy them with missile attempts to find an ally in this genocidal policy era those that became a threat to the critical infrastructure that is how one terrorist found the other it is just a matter of time when they will

strike. if we do not stop them now we must do it. [applause] i believe in our alliance the american soldiers i assure you ukrainian soldiers can operate american tanks and planes themselves. [laughter] [applause]

also it is important and i would like to thank you very much for what you have provided with if you are willing to decide on your money is not charity any investment in the global security and democracy in the most responsible way. [cheers and applause] russia could stop the aggression if it wanted to but you can speed up a victory. i know it. and to prove to any aggressor

to break those international borders and raining over people there will. and that is a terrorist state russians are still poisoned there is that legal order as our joint task ukraine has already offered proposals that must be demanded for joint security ahead bless that's the president one —- present by did want —- biden supported us today.

and then to ensure that americans support remain solid, bicameral and bipartisan. thank you. [applause] and make it feel it's aggression is in your power to help bring to justice this unprovoked and criminal war. let's do it. [applause]

and then to be responsible at the world see that the united states adheres ladies and gentlemen americans, and two days we will celebrate christmas. not because it's more romantic that because there will be no electricity or heat or running water was is all the result of missile and drone attacks on her energy. but we do not complain we do not judge or compare whose

life is easier your well-being is a product of national security the result of your struggle for independence and many victories we ukrainians will also go to the war of independence and freedom with dignity and success. [applause] we will celebrate christmas for our faith in ourselves if

russian missiles attack us we will do our best to protect ourselves will protect ourselves with iranian drones and people have to go to shelters on christmas eve we will still sit down at the table and chair up each other we know everyone's wish because all of us millions of ukrainians wish the same, victory. [applause] we already build a strong ukraine. and altogether with you to put

in place. [inaudible] [laughter] this will be the basis to protect democracy in europe and for the world over. so for every american family which chair is says to other people. anything president biden in the senate and the house for your assistance that host our ukrainians thank you all from

everyone who is now at the front line for everyone who is evading victory. standing here today i recall the words that are good for this moment. that we will win through absolute victory. the ukrainian people will win. absolutely.

and with those ukrainian armed forces so much depends in the world depends on you. yesterday our heroes gave me the flag to defend ukraine and europe at the cost of their life they asked me to bring this to you to the members of the house of representatives can see millions of people