about forecasting and getting ahead of the timing we see in coming months here in the spring and summer of this year. >> feeling that can go and help us understand why the administration has not changed course and what makes that situation go on in western ukraine. to say we've been very consist that we want to see a two state solution and this is possible

and could be viable and takes both sides to be willing to commit to that and we don't want to see either side with unilateral action of a two-state solution. >> behind the scenes and been able to see -- >> you're behind her. >> thank you. [inaudible] the negotiations behind the scenes -- >> behind the scenes at the podium.al >> yeah. >> the sessionings have been very robust with the european allies and partners for many weeks and certainly today that the president had with the counter parts in the uk, france, germany and italy. it was again very productive and very candid and all these

leereds are rightfully -- leaders are rightly focused on doing what they can to help ukraine and the future. ... today, and we look forward to working closely with spain going forward. enter james, mt. back. james, in the back. >> i'm sorry. >> oh, okay. >> wait, wait, wait, you don't have a question, james? are you kidding me? [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> i'm going to frame that -- holy mackerel. >> -- to your own loquacity in the briefing room. >> loquacity, is -- [inaudible] eloquence? >> i have a question. >> go ahead. >> yes. how russia will respond.

but if moscow, should a major escalation and decides to strike nato either poland or the baltics, does the nato, do you have enough troops in the region right now to respond? and -- from day one, not five months ahead. and the second question would be many of those who called for sending leopards and abrams to ukraine argue that russia right now is too weakened to, militarily too weakened to respond conventionally in a significant way. how confident are you in this assessment that russia is so weak that -- or maybe you have a different assessment, but many people hi that the russia is too week -- think that russia is too weak to respond in a significant

way to the move that was just announced about tanks. >> leapt me take the second -- let me take the second one first. there's no question that russia's military is weaker hand today that was than it was 11 months ago when you talk about their resources and the casualties that they have the sunk into this unprovoked war of hairs and -- their as and literally thousands of missiles and rockets and now drones that they have launched into -yard line -- ukrainian territory. they have burned through a lot of inventory, and they have suffered a lot of casualties killed and wounded. so there's no question that their military is weak weaker for putin's folly here. that said, you don't have to look very far, just the news coverage, to see that the russian military and their thugs are still pretty lethal.

because ukrainians continue to die every day. so i think if you were to ask a ukrainian here how weak is russia, i don't think that they would tell you that a there's not still fight left will, and that's why we're so focused on making sure ukraine can continue to defend itself and to have the capabilities to fight back and to succeed on the battlefield. on your first question, all i can tell you is we have seen absolutely no indication that mr. putin has designs on striking nato territory. and president biden has said since the very beginning of this conflict that we take our article v commitments to nato the seriously. article v, of course, is the notion that the an attack on one is an attack on all. and we take that seriously. in fact, we take it so seriously that president biden ordered an additional 20,000 american troops alone onto the european continent, and they sill are

there. now, we'll be rotate thing them in and out -- rotating them in and out, but the net number of 100,000 american troops on the european continent if has stayed the same and will for the foreseeable future. make no mistake, the security environment in europe has changed. not is changing, will change, it has changed because of what mr. putin did. and the united states made clear to our nato allies particularly on the eastern flank how seriously we take our responsibility to those the article v commitments. and mr. putin needs to understand that. >> -- because many of hose countries -- those countries sent its own tanks, missile systems to ukraine. >> well, we're sending missile systems, and now we're sending tanks to ukraine as well. every nation is making these decisions as best they can to support ukraine, but they also still have sovereign responsibilities to their citizens to defend their countries. and so they're all making that calculus, as are we. i can tell you that from our

perspective, i can't speak for every nato ally, we are confident that we have the capability, the energy, the talent, the manpower, the resources to meet our article v commitments to our nato allies. [inaudible conversations] >> got two questions about china. first, we were told yesterday that the the u.s. has been communicating with china about the implications of helping russia. can you tell us what response was to u.s. communication? and if china continues to provide economic support including by selling nonlethal military aid to russia, what did you want to -- stronger measures than have been communicated? >> i'm certainly not going to detail diplomatic conversations. we've been very clear publicly and we certainly have been clear in private settings with chinese leaders that we don't believe that now is the time for

business as usual with russia and that we want to see every nation sign is up to the strict -- without objection. mr. lankford: madam president, i've been on this floor many times, to speak to this body about the issue of immigration on our southwest border. it is an issue, it has been an issue for the past couple of years, and unfortunately it continues to get worse. as i talk to people in oklahoma, they're very open to immigration. they just want legal immigration. and they want our system set up in such a way to incentivize legal immigration. but that's not what's happening right now. seven of us two weeks ago, in a bipartisan codel, went to the southwest border. we spent a couple days there, in the el paso area, then to yuma, arizona, to visit with the folks on the line, in the communities, to talk to those individuals taking care of human needs, to say what's going on on the

ground? what do we need to know? i've been to the border many times, so i've had the opportunity to hear some of the other reports, but it's always interesting to get the perspective of what's happening right now, because as they say along the border, if you've been to one spot on the border, you've been to one spot on the border, because it's different in each area what they're facing. let me give you one story from this. when we visited with the sheriff and city manager and mayor of a small town in arizona named yuma, arizona, yuma is right on the border, it's an a.g. community. if you've -- it's aning a community. if you've eaten a salad in the last year, you've eaten something from yuma. yuma, three years ago, in that area, had 8,100 people illegally cross, go that year. for that one small town, they were trying to manage 8,100 people crossing three years ago. this past year, yuma, arizona,

had 310,000 people illegally cross through the area. so in three years, they went from 8,000 people illegally crossing to 310,000 people illegally crossing, in a year. they're overwhelmed. may i remind you, the mayor of new york is worried about an additional 40,000 to 50,000 people in new york city, and having a difficult time absorbing that. yuma, arizona, is trying to figure out how to absorb 310,000 people coming through their community. the issues are complicated, and they're difficult, but they're not unachievable. it's an issue of how are we going to enforce the law. now, i will tell you, i met with the border patrol many times over the years. one of things they talk about, they get a break each december, because typically, because of christmas, quite frankly, not as many people cross illegally during the christmas time.

they stay home with families. so december is usually a down month or illegal crossings, and it is year after year after year, until this year. this year, there was a record number of people illegally crossing in december. instead of going down, it actually went up. a quarter million people illegally crossed our southwest border in one month. that was last month, in december. a quarter million people. this is a growing issue that requires attention, and it's not just the people issue, it's also all the other complications that come with it, because the border patrol is very clear. while we're managing this massive number of people coming from all over the world, across that border, we can't go interdict drugs, we can't go interdict other things because we don't have the manpower to be able to do both. again, last month, drug seizures

in the united states increased 17.5% in one month, it went up. this is an issue that requires real focus. and my concern is the numbers are so large, and it is so out of control, that people are just saying it's too big, i'm not going to deal with it. but the chaos along our border is continuing. now, the administration has made some bold statements of late. this he said we're going to dramatically increase the number of people that have expedited removal attached to them. now, that sounds really severe, expedited removal, except when we ran the numbers to look at it, how many people are actually removed that get expedited removal? the number came back 7%. expedited removal doesn't actually mean removal.

it's just a title that's being placed on individuals. so nothing is really changing there. as i mentioned before, these are not just individuals from central america or from mexico. these are individuals coming from all over the world. when our bipartisan codel was on the border a few weeks ago, we watched two individuals that had just been picked up by mounted patrol as they were running across the border, but they were not running faster than the mounted patrol caught up with them, and they were able to arrest them. those two individuals were chinese nationals, making their way across the border illegally at night, running from the border patrol. people from all over the world are coming because there's an invitation to illegally cross the border. people are coming right now, because it is actually easier to get a job in america if you're living in another country and want to work in america, it is easier to get a job in america

if you illegally cross. that's not just me saying that. that's the data saying that. if you're outside the united states and you apply for a work visa and want to come in, in a legal, normal process, to be able to go through, currently it is 6 1/2 months to get that work visa. six and a half months. if you illegally cross our border, and you're labeled with parole, which is the mass number of people are labeled with parole when they illegally cross, you get a work permit within three to four weeks. you could legally do this and wait six and a half months, or illegally do this and you get it in three to four weeks. literally, this administration is incentivizing illegal activity with how they're setting up the work permits. listen, there are a lot of things this congress needs to do

to deal with illegal immigration, i've stated it over and again. the asylum laws need to change. we've got to do a real fix this is the issue, and it's been multiple administrations have said this is the problem. in fact, this administration just in the last month has floated the idea of changing the regulation on how they actually handle asylum, and i have affirmed them for that. that has got to change the way it's being implemented. it also needs to change in law, in the way we handle it here. there's also the legal process of actually enforcing our laws on the southern border that will make a significant difference not incentivizing individuals to be able to illegally cross our border. there are things the administration can do, and they're not doing currently. there are things that this body needs to do, that we've not taken up. 250,000 people illegally crossed

our southern border last month. when are we going to act on this problem? it needs to be now. with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mrs. hyde-smith: madam president, i started the year joining our new colleague on a recent tour of the deo border in texas. we traveled to the border to gain more firsthand knowledge of the ongoing mass migration of illegal immigrants into our nation. to hear from border patrol agents about how they're handling this crisis and to perhaps more powerfully hear from young women and girls who are victims of president biden's carelessness border and immigration policies. we learned more about how states are taking action to protect their citizens and their borders when the administration won't. few states are affected more than texas which instituted operation lone star in march of

2021 to counter illegal immigration and drug trafficking. we looked on as a family led by a coyote crossed the rio grande in dangerously cold waters and witnessed the family struggle to help their grandmother wade through rushing waters to enter our nation illegally. she made it safely across but sadly that is not always the case for many people, including children who have drowned making the same trek under misguided belief that our borders are open. we visited a massive migrant processing center where illegal immigrants are taken upon arrival. an astonishing fact about this processing center is that it costs u.s. taxpayers $16 million a month to operate, and that's just one of five on the southern border. let me say that again. it's costing american taxpayers $16 million per month to process

illegal immigrants at just one of these five centers. what was especially gut-wrenching to me was hearing directly from human trafficking victims. we heard from one young lady who was trafficked from the age of 12 to the age of 16. she told a story i will never forget, and there are thousands of stories just like hers. yes, we learned about the true severity of the crisis. we learned how border patrol agents simply cannot carry out their jobs. we learned how states are forced to use resources on border security and migrants, resources meant for u.s. citizens. we learned how ranchers and u.s. property owners are being overwhelmed and in constant fear of being robbed and assaulted by smugglers. we learned how all of this

affects our entire nation, not just the unbelievable price tag but in the ?enlses of human trafficking -- incidences of human trafficking across the country and tens of thousands of overdose deaths linked to fentanyl smuggled across our border. and heartbreakingly, we learned of the wickedness of the cartels. they are thriving thanks to president biden's empathetic attitude -- apathetic attitude toward his own country's border. this should not be a political debate. people and children are dying in an attempt to enter our country illegally. drug cartels are taking control of not just the border towns on the mexican side of the border but on the american side, too. human trafficking is now a $13 billion industry. how did we get here? why do they come?

well, because our president basically invited them. immediately after president biden was sworn in, he started dismantleling vital policies like remain in mexico and restarted catch and release, halted construction on the border and essentially set up a big neon sign on the southwest border that read vacant. the rest is history. 4.5 million border apprehensions with an estimated 1.5 million undetected got-aways, a staggering increase in the number of women and children who are being subject to assault and domestic violence, fentanyl flowing into our comiewn advertise and sky rock -- communities and skyrocketing debts, i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go and listen to border patrol agents, hear the stories of the cartels' victim. see for yourself the heartbreaking scenarios the

greatest country in the world is allowing to unfold. i learned much from my visit to the border but perhaps the worst thing i learned is this. the biden administration is not lacking any resources or authority to address this crisis. no, it can support our border patrol and border states. it can secure our border. it can save children from dying and drowning in the rio grande or 14-year-old girls from being sold. but it won't either through incompetence or worse, by design. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: thank you, madam president. i want to thank my friend and colleague from mississippi. i'm down here on the floor to also talk about the crisis at the border.

the humanitarian crisis, the homeland security crisis, and a crisis that is resulting in cartels making $800 million a year in human trafficking. mr. tillis: i joined a bipartisan delegation two weeks ago. we visited the border. it was a very productive -- is was one of the first bipartisan delegations in quite some time. the reason it was important is if you go down there with a partisan delegation and you're only going to actually talk about one side of the issue. if you go down there with a bipartisan delegation, you can talk about what do we need to do on a bipartisan basis to solve the crisis at the border. i want to start where senator hyde-smith finished. the humanitarian crisis. i'm one of the members who has been trying to negotiate a bipartisan immigration reform bill that has asylum reform in it. i had a lot of my staff ask me

why would you do that? you know it's going to be unpopular. you're going to get criticized from the left for going too far, get criticized from the right about any discussion about immigration reform. i've been down to the border several times. i told my staff it's hard for me to forget border security telling me that they just transported an 11-year-old girl who had been repeatedly raped so much so she screamed so long, she couldn't even speak anymore before she crossed the border. i told them i can't forget going down the rio grande river and sees a corpse taken out of the river. it wasn't staged because it's happening repeatedly every year. when you hear about people being bussed across the border, 53 of them dying through suffocation and heat exposure on american soil, i can't forget that. that's a humanitarian crisis that's got to be solved. then i go to the border last week and i started the rio

grande sector and then i went over to the yuma sector. at night at the rio grande sector, we saw two chinese nationals who had been apprehended. chinese nationals pay on an average about $35,000 to cross the border. in many cases they don't have the money to do it. they have somebody invest in them. and then they become indentured servants in the united states to pay off that debt. you have people paying $5,000, $6,000, $10,000 that have an expectation from the cartel that they've got a debt to be repaid. that may be an honest job that they could get or that could be an illegal activity that helps the cartels. now we go over to the yuma sector. the yuma sector is in western arizona. there's a section, a border there that hasn't been completed. it's about seven miles wide. but the most important part of that seven miles is about a

12-foot gate. three years ago 8,000 people crossed through that gate. two years ago 200,000 people crossed through that same 12-foot gate. and over the last 12 months, 300,000 people have. 5,000 of them were russian nationals. another 5,000 were chinese nationals. look, i understand why people want to get out of russia. and i understand why people want to get out of china. what i don't understand is why on earth in transit to that border, that dangerous crossing that you're paying tens of thousands of dollars to a cartel, a transnational criminal organization, why on earth wouldn't you stop in a nation that is safe, the first safe country that you can get to out of the country that you're trying to flee from. that's how international asylum treaties work. you get out of the dangerous country. you go to a country that has

international agreements on asylum. you claim asylum. and then you may even want to seek asylum in the united states. we had reports in the yuma sector of people who are flying in to mexicali, flying in. not making the trek as many people think, the caravan is coming from central america through mexico. flying into mexicali with suitcases and bags and taking a cab to the border, making sure their toll is paid, and then crossing the border. there's no way on earth that people coming from any of these nations could not have sought asylum closer to home and then give us a chance for orderly entry. in total it's estimated that the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels, are being paid almost $800 million a year. now, what are they doing with that? if you go down to the border, particularly if you go down

there around midnight, they play the same play every night seven days a week, 365 days a year. they will take innocent people who are going to come across the border and they tell them once you get across the border, present yourself to a border patrol agent, and you will be processed, which is exactly what happened. so under the biden administration you're likely to be released within a few days or not more than about a week. the disturbing trend is the one that senator hyde-smith talked about, the disturbing number of people who are evading border patrol. why on earth would you not opt to go into a facility that's heated in the winter and cooled in the summer and spend a week of being fed three times a day to have access to facilities, to have changing tables for babies, to have play areas while their he being detained and processed, why on earth would you avoid all of that and take the dangerous

step of evading detection? unless at least for some of them there's a nefarious purpose. and then they're moving into communities where we've already seen -- in north carolina, an illegal immigrant murdered a young lady just a couple of years ago. we have seen this crime and it tracks back almost invariably to the people who are the so-called got-aways. now i want to go to the yuma sector and talk about the 300,000. border patrol -- i'm wearing a -- it's a blue -- back the blue flag but as you all know, if it's border patrol they wear green uniforms. so i say back law enforcement. right now border patrol only has less than half of the people who are sworn to protect the border doing those jobs. they're in processing facilities. they're driving buses. they're providing support for day care literally. i am not exaggerating. so that means that we have half

as many people protecting a border that has wide open spaces that are not -- there are no structures whatsoever. come across, walk through the rio gran and -- rio grande and most cases you can. you don't have to swim. when those 300,000 people get there -- this is the most amazing thing about this country -- they're going through the 12-foot gate. if the border patrol goes through, the rest of the border is open for the got-aways. our country is so extraordinary that they say i know that it's only about a ten-minute ride from that 12-foot gate to the processing facility, but they won't transport a child unless they have a car seat for him. if somebody has disabilities, they have to make special accommodations. imagine 300,000, 300,000 people coming across the border in a 12-month period, what border patrol has to do so conform to our laws and treat these people humanely and safely. they need time, time can only

come when congress recognizes that we have to secure the border. we have to fill the gaps. we have to insist that if you want to come to this country, present yourself at a legal port of entry, present a request for asylum, and you will be processed. we need to send a message if you want to come to the united states, thank you for the compliment that you're willing to risk your life to come to the united states but respect our laws and don't pay cartels $800 million a year so that they can create a conduit for fentanyl and other drugs that are poisoning almost a hundred thousand americans a year. now let's talk about immigration reform. i think that one of the ways that we can provide a future flow, a downward pressure on future flow is to simply say to people who want to respect our laws and apply for citizenship, for work visas or other forms of being in this kung -- in this country legally, we need to fix

the immigration laws on the books that we have to do that. if we do that i'm not going to have to worry about the memories of that little girl or worry about the corpses we're picking up. i believe we'll have few people dying from fentanyl because less of it will come here for a couple of reasons. we will have -- we will bankrupt the cartels. we need people in congress to recognize that a bipartisan solution is possible. we have a crisis at the border that needs to be solved. and we have to have an administration that spends more than four hours and two years in two years at the border recognizing it is on them it help us fix it.

ing. >> those fingers, your tax dollars went to the national science foundation to hire a guy to put metal gloves on to snap

his fingers to see if you can snap your fingers in metal gloves. $700,000 to see if kids are better -- [inaudible] with pets. i could go on. >> i also want to point out in business, we're the board of directors, okay? you don't go to the manager and say this is specifically where you're going to cut. you go to them and say cut your budget 10%, and then you have those managers do it. so you're going to rely on those people in the agencies to do it best way, so we've got to start with some of these agencies. >> do you expect the house republicans to pass -- [inaudible] if later this year, and do you think -- [inaudible] discretionary spending cuts a alone or -- [inaudible] >> obviously, you know, i was -- my words were distorted by saying we codo the need -- if

we're going to get ourself ourselves out of this debt hole, we're going to have to look at everything every year. you can't just wall off 70% of the budget and say we're not going to look at it. that is what is driving us into this crisis right now. but in terms of whether the house can do things, that'll be up to the house. i'm here today to support their efforts and do everything we can to encourage people who never voted for an appropriation bill or the debt ceiling say if we're going to get the best deal possible, you've got to be willing to vote for these things. i'm willing to do it here in the senate. >> senator -- [inaudible] who in the house are you -- [inaudible] >> we're talking to conservatives in the house. >> but are these -- [inaudible] >> the conservatives in the house. >> we all have relationships in our state too. finish. >> senator johnson, it seems like republican leaders are

trying to back tran rack -- backtrack on -- [inaudible] is that something that's acceptable to you? [inaudible] >> listen, i think you have to to look at all spending. i'm, i'm making the pointsst a step by step process. first of all, you have to understand how much we're spending. people don't even understand that. that's what i was pointing out -- [inaudible] how much we spend annually. nobody knew. so you have to familiarize yourself with the numbers. we're the board of directors, and so many of the members of board have no idea what we spend, they just vote for these omnibus spending bills without ever reading hem. that's complete dysfunction, that has to change. [inaudible conversations] >> speaking of the numbers, because someone asked about raising revenues. i put, through a privileged motion and rand's done it often, a balanced budget over 10 years, in my case. and the biggest data set that we

collected was thatover 50 years, regardless of the tax rate, our revenues stay about 18-18.5 of the gdp. check it out. when you have a high rate, you're going to generate a lower economic activity. if you got a lower rate, it was just proven. i almost had the cbo admitting that pre-covid the tax cuts that were done in 2017 were paying for themselves, plus we had an economic growth of 2.5-3%. so the whole idea that you can raise revenues to do it, that's not going to work. fifty years of data the shows that those hang in that narrow range. so that means that you're going to have the to do it growing the economy, which was mentioned earlier. that's one easier way to do it. and then holding your expenditures into that historical band of revenues that we raise proven over 50 years. >> senator johnson? i have one on a different topic.

as vice chair -- [inaudible] what's your reaction to -- [inaudible] >> we just came from a secure briefing on that. the question i had is how are they going to change the dynamics on field. so i certainly want to support the people of ukraine, but at some point in time we're going to have to start recognizing watt reality on the ground is. -- can what the reality on the ground is. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> some disbelief saying that the, writ large, the system's broken when it comes to handling classified documents. does the president and the administration agree with that assessment, and does the president as commander in chief feel it's his responsibility to do something about it? >> look, i know my colleague was just asked this question, and i do want to be very careful. this is an ongoing legal matter here -- >> i'm not -- [inaudible conversations] >> it's actually -- i hear you. >> is here we have a nurple of current and formers who have now acknowledged, yes, they found classified documents in their possession in places that are not secure. nation's secrets. >>, no i hear the question.

>> i'd like you to address this. >> no, i hear the question, and we're talking about the system s&p. you're asking how do we move forward, you're asking what does the president think, and i'm telling you because there is really -- i have to be really careful because this is a legal matter that is happening currently. and for me to comment on anything that's related to ongoing investigations, that is not something that i can do from here. >> the president has said he was going to talk to us about in the soon. he did make brief comments last week, but does he have any if plans to answer the questions that we've been posing or perhaps hold a press conference concern. >> understand -- >> [inaudible] >> totally understand the question. i don't have anything to preview right at this time on any opportunities for the president to address this. but as you all know, and i know questions were shouted earlier, there's many opportunities that you all have with him where he takes your, takes all of your questions, and he has over

the -- >> [inaudible] >> no, i understand -- >> even shouted. >> no, he's answered, actually, when he was in california, he took quite a few questions. when he was in mexico coe city, he was asked and he took the a question. the day after that he took a question. so i'm just saying that it's not that he hasn't addressed this at all. he has, i just don't have anything to preview on, you know, a potential press conference or anything like that and an understood the that you all will have to a hear from him directly. but, again, he has been asked the question a couple of times, and he's answered it, and is you all have heard from him on that that. >> -- the reports that president biden -- [inaudible] vice chair brainard as the next head of -- [inaudible] is there any timeline for that? >> look, i'll say this, don't have any personnel announcements to make, you know? president was, would love to see and wants to see brian deese stay as long as he can in the administration. i just -- and he has been here, as you all know, he's been many

times to this podium, but he's been at the white house for more than two plus years and has been an integral part of the president's economic policy of building an economy from the bottom up, middle out. i just don't have any personnel announcements to make at i'm. thanks, everybody. [inaudible conversations]

>> waiting for a senator to come to the floor to speak. off the floor lawmakers are working on committee assignments for the 118th congress, votes are needed for a final approval. house lawmakers are work on several bills including one commending anti-iranian government protesters and a measure to create a task force to review how pilots receive flight path data and other information. you can see live coverage of house on c-span, of course the senate's on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible] it's actually noon. thanks for being here. yesterday marked 11 months since russia's brutal full-scale invasion of ukraine, # 1 months in which the ukrainian people have showed putin and the world the full force of their courage and in.com nibble determination to live free. through every single step of this horrific war, the american people have been strong and unwavering in their support, and democrats and republicans many congress is have to do together -- have stood together. the united states has worked in lockaccept with our allies and partners to make sure the ukrainian people are in the strong possible position to de. fend their nation, hair families and against the brutal, truly brutal aggression of russia.

we haven't seen the likes of this in a long time. the united states and europe are fully united. this morning i had a long conversation with our nato allies. german chancellor schultz, french president macron, prime minister -- and the italian prime minister, my loney, to continue our close coordination and full support of ukraine because you all know, i've been saying this for a long time, the expectation on part of russia is that a we're going to break up, we're not going to stay united. butter if pulley, totally -- fully, totally, thoroughly united. preparing for additional counteroffensives, to liberate their land they need to be able to counter russia's evolving tactics and strategy on the battle i'llfield mt. very near term -- battlefield. they need to improve their ability to maneuver in opener the the rain, and they need an

en-- open terrain. secretary of state and the secretary the of the military behind me are, they've been deeply, deeply involved in this whole effort. armored capability, as general austin will tell you with -- it's been critical. and that's why the united states has committed hundreds of armored fighting vehicles to date including more than 500 as part of the assistance package we announced last friday. and today, today i'm announcing that the united states will be serving 31 abram tanks to ukraine, the i give meant of one ukrainian battalion. secretary austin has recommended step because it'll enhance their capacity to achieve strategic objectives. antibiotic raments tanks are -- abrams tanks are the most

effective tanks in the world. so we're also giving ukraine the parts and equipment necessary to effectively sustain these tanks on battlefield. we'll begin to train ukrainian troops on these issues of sustainment, logistics and maintenance as soon as possible. delivering these tanks to the field is going to take time, time that we'll see and we'll use to make sure the ukrainians are fully prepared to integrate the abrams tanks. we're also closely coordinating this announcement with our allies. the american contribution will be joined by an additional announcement including that will be, will be ready and available and more easily integrated for use on the battlefield in the coming weeks and months from other countries. i'm grateful to chancellor schultz for providing german leopard ii tanks and will lead an effort to organize the european contribution of two tank battalions for ukraine. i want to thank the chancellor for his leadership and his the steadfast if commitment to our

collective efforts to support ukraine. germany has really stepped up. the chancellor's been a strong, strong voice for unity the, a close friend and for the level of effort we're going to continue. supporting ukraine's ability to defend its sovereignty is a world wide commitment. not just -- it's a worldwide commitment. last week germany, in germany, secretary austin convened a ukraine defense contact group for the eighth time. this group is made up of some 50 nations, 50 nations, each making significant contributions of their own to ukraine's integrity. each fully committed to making ukraine remain strong and independent and able to defend itself against russian threats and violence. i want to thank every member of that coalition for continuing to step up. the u.k., the united kingdom, recently announced that it's donating challenger ii tanks to ukraine with. france is contributing

amx-10s, armored fighting vehicles. in addition to the leopard tanks that germany, like the united states, is also -- germany is also serving patriot missile battery. the netherlands is donating patriot missiles and launchers. france, canada, the u.k., slovakia, norway and others have all donated critical air defense systems to help save the lives of innocent civilians who are literally the target, the target of russia's aggression. poland is sending armored vehicle haves. sweden is donating infantry fighting vehicles. italy is giving artillery. den mark and estonia are serving howitzers. lithuania ya's providing anti-aircraft guns, and fin lan recently announced its -- finland recently announced its largest package to date. you may remember i was asked what was going to happen, and i said he's going to end up with

the nato-ization of finland. something he never intended. together with our allies and partners, we've sent more than 3,000 armored vehicles, more than 8,000 artillery systems, more than 2 million rounds of artillery ammunition and more than 50 advanced multi-launch rockets. anti-shipment air defense systems. all to help counter ukraine's brutal aggression that's happening because of russia. and today's announcement builds on hard work and commitment from countries around world led by the united states of america to help ukraine defend its sovereignty and territorial the integrity. that's what this is about. helping ukraine defend and protect ukrainian land. s not an offensive threat to russia. we are -- there is no offensive threat to russia. if russian troops return to the russia, they'll be where they

belong. this war would be over today. that's what we all a want, an end to this war. in just and haasing terms. -- the lasting terms. our teams did not permit one nation, we're not going to allow one nation to steal a neighbor's territory by force. our terms preserve ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and honor the u.n. charter. that's the terms we're working under. and, you know, these are the terms we all signed up for, and 143 nations voted for in the united nations general assembly last october. so the united states is standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies and partners. we're going to continue to do all we can to support ukraine. putin expected europe and the united states to weaken our resolve. he expected our support for ukraine to crumble with time. he was wrong. he was wrong. pleasure -- he was wrong from the beginning and he continues to be wrong. we are united. america's united and so is the

world. we approach the one-year mark as we do of the russian full-scale invasion in ukraine, we remain united and determined as ever many our conviction and our cause. these tanks are further evidence of our unduring, unflighting commitment to ukraine and the confidence in the skill of ukrainian forces. as i told president zelenskyy when he was here -- today's his birthday, by the way -- in december, we're with you for as long as it takes. ukrainians are fighting an age-old battle against aggression and domination. it's a battle americans have fought proudly time and again, and it's a battle we're going to make sure the -yard line -- ukrainians are well equippedded to fight as well. this is about freedom. freedom for ukraine, freedom everywhere. it's about the kind of world we want to live many, the world we want to leave to our children. and may god protect the brave ukrainian defenders of their country and keep the flame of liberty burning as brightly as

it can. >> mr. president, why are you making this decision now? did germany portion you to change your mind -- force you to change your mind on sending tanks? >> germany didn't force me to change my mind. we wanted to make sure we were all together. >> mr. president, any response to the pence disclosures of classified documents? >> sir, are the searches of your homes completed? >> mr. president -- [inaudible] as your next chief of staff who? [inaudible] >> good morning. i'm congressman adam schiff, and we want to briefly address the speaker's decision to remove mre intelligence committee as well as his continued threat to call a vote to reremove i'll hand to mar from the -- ilhan omar from the foreign affairs committee. i'm i'm joined by my colleagues. leapt me just begin, if i can, to make a few observations about

decision on the intelligence committee and then the hand it off to my colleagues. decision by kevin mcif car think -- mccarthy to bow to the demands of most extreme elements of his conference and use the intelligence committee as kind of political play thing doesn't show the strength of his speakership. indeed,s it shows the weakness of his speakership that he is so beholden to the most extreme elements of his conference. and it bodes, i think, poorly for how he'll conduct the remainder of his speakership for however long or short that may last. but more to the point, by erogating to himself about who on the democratic side of the aisle who should sit on the intelligence committee, he will cause the intelligence agencies, i think, to distrust this action and in combination with the por mission of this so-called select

committee on the weaponization of the federal government which ostensibly will have access to classified information, it will only, i think, breed distrust within the intelligence community as to what it can the share and what it can feel confident about sharing with the congress. that will impact policymakers in terms of the information that we have to make decisions about how to protect our martial security. so this is, i think, not an unexpected but, noneless, destructive move by kevin mccarthy this a will bode well n the future for the kind of decisions that he has to make to placate the marjorie taylor greens, the paul gosars and, of course, his boss down at mar-a-lago, the disgraced former president. with that, let me turn it over to my colleague, eric swalwell, who i've had the pleasure of serving with on the intelligence committee for a great many years, one of our finest members and one of our most vigorous

overseers. and, indeed, part of mccarthy's motivation here is not just revenge, retaliation and appeasing the radical elements of his conference, it's also an effort to impair the ability of democrats to push back against abuses of the majority, and eric swalwell has been such an effective advocate on the committee, i think the, part and parcel of the motivation as well. mr. swalwell. >> thank you, chairman schiff. the old -- the new mccarthy looks a hot like the old mccarthy. the old mccarthy abused political power to punish and demean and smear his political opponents. and the new mccarthy in washington today is doing the same. and throughout this journey of vengeance, three of us have chosen to stick together. because this isn't about my

individual -- any individual committee assignment, this is about an institution where the speaker of this house is abusing his father to go after his -- power to go after his political opponents and pick hem off the field. and that's why we've chosen every step of the way to stick together. in my case, it's purely political vengeance. speaker mccarthy is choosing to do something that speaker boehner, speaker ryan and speaker pelosi did not do, which is with access to the same information, with the claims that speaker mccarthyed had made about me, speaker boehner, speaker ryan and speaker pelosi kept me on the committee. chairman nuñes, with access to the same information to which mr. mccarthy is making claims about me, e never made a peep, allowed me to stay on committee. the claims that mr. mccarthy has made about me, this that i could never get a security clearance, mr. schiff was also briefed on and supported me staying on the committee because the fbi said three times all i

did was two things. i helped them over and over, and i was never suspected of wrongdoingment pleasure "the washington post" -- wrongdoing. the washington post in response to mr. mccarthy's claims gave him four pinocchios which is a whopper, the highest amount they can give for one of the biggest lies that you could tell about somebody else. so this is purely about political vengeance. cost is not only removing us from the committee, the on intelligence committee the cost is not only breaking, shattering the most precious glass ware in the cabinet, the costs are the death threats that ms. omar, myself and mr. schiff keep getting because mr. mccarthy continues to aim and project these smears against us. even though we have said publicly these smears are bringing death threats. he continues to do it, which makes us believe that there's an intent behind it. but we will not be quiet, we're not going away. i think he'll regret giving all three of us more time on our

hands. but at the end of the day, our mission now is to restore the credibility and integrity of this institution of which the speaker has so gravely, so gravely smashed and destroyed. i'll turn it over to my colleague, ms. omar, a member of the foreign affairs committee, the first if member of that that committee to be born many africa who could serve on a subcommittee and lead a subcommittee on the democratic side in a historic way because of her history and her bond to that country. .. the diversity of our voices and our openness of civil discourse. that's why whatever our

disagreement might be as members of congress, policy difference alone has not and must not be cause for eliminating someone from serving on the committee. in modern american history, the punishment of stripping the member of congress of their committee assignment has to be reserved for only the most gracious wrongdoing. those convicted or indicted on corruption, those who have engaged in bribery, sexual misconduct, encouraged violence or other charges. i've served on the house foreign affairs committee and house education committee for the past two terms, committees i have the experience and expertise in read as a child who survived war,

lived in refugee camps, i would never imagine i would one day have the opportunity to serve on a subcommittee on africa, global health and global human rights. i do not have to believe one day i would not serve just the first african american, overseas this. kevin mccarthy's purely partisan move from our committee is not only a political stunt but also a blow to the integrity of our democratic institution and threat to our national security. we are thankful to leader and house democrat and courageous republicans standing with us. mccarthy once in the integrity of the house and its committees, we will always stand up to these efforts.

i am grateful for the confidence of my constituents and colleagues have shown me to serve on these committees and i look forward to continuing that work of building a more peaceful world. >> we are happy to respond to some question. the president will speak at noon so we will try to be out before the. [inaudible] >> if you say mr. mccarthy justifications keep shifting the cardinal sin seems to be the impeachment of mar-a-lago,

withholding hundreds of millions of dollars from ukraine, the nation even then at war with russia to extort the country helping donald trump's reelection campaign. this proved those facts and that the first bipartisan vote in the senate in history to remove a president. kevin mccarthy called a hoax. it was not a hoax but he will do the former resident sitting. this is something former president wants but the former president or kevin mccarthy believes this is going to stop any of us from fighting to protect our democracy, they will find out the opposite is true and will only intensify our commitment to doing so. i want to mention respect, i sat in on the briefing and when

kevin mccarthy misrepresented and does a disservice to the american people, it is shameful. he's served honorably on our committee so i don't want to accuse him of any wrongdoing, this is an unfair smear on mr. mccarthy but that's what we are seeing. >> i have addressed it, i apologize. it's been two and a half terms ago and i think it's important to remember it's not the accusations mccarthy is making against us that is pushing for a removal from these committees. it's about revenge, accusing the

former president, all three of us have been in the back of the previous disgraced president. republicans have been gunning for our seats and obviously know how effectively been in a pulling the constitution and defending our democracy and standing up to extremists and will continue to do that work regardless. >> republicans have come out -- [inaudible] i wonder if you have had private conversations -- [inaudible]

>> if you remember last term when we moved members of the committee, there was a precise reason for that, inciting violence. you remember the speech with an image of a rifle being held to my head and the heads of the colleagues, we seen the video representative made of killing alexandria ocasio-cortez, speaker pelosi and president biden, many republicans stood up and defended those members and their ability to continue to serve on committees even after they threaten the lives of the colleagues. if those same members on the american people to believe while

they defended them, they should not defend us to continue to serve than it is going to show. i do believe when and if this comes, it will be a moment of clarity. i hope many of these republicans will have conscience and not prove their constituents in the american people how much partisan hacks ar, hypocrisy they have and show themselves to be great. >> do you believe -- right now? >> i don't. >> i'm curious to know what you think about --

[inaudible] >> i will take a quick stab at it but the hypocrisy grabs you by the throat. this is a republican speaker being human fraud, a serial fabricator about every part. he's comfortable with it, he needs george santos vote if that's the names he's going by these days. this is someone who kevin mccarthy who owes his allegiance to a party leader and mar-a-lago who dies with white nationalists and anti-semitism. he's putting people on committees who speak at white national supremacist, it grabs

you by the throat but hypocrisy is probably the least of khakis sense. the most significant impact is he's continuing this destructive trend set by his party leader, degrading congress and this new committee is establishing is going to bring greater discredit on the congress and that's our paramount concern in a bitter bargain to get the gavel and speakership slowly undermining part of the work of the institution is not in the best interest of the country which is expected to work to make sure that we confront inflation and economic challenges we have and create an economy that works for

everyone and should be our focus, not the lowest common denominator. >> you are seeing the fulfillment of kevin mccarthy's correct, marjorie taylor green, someone who declared that this is 1776, who shared on the interaction, somebody as we honor the police officers injured that day, she goes to jail to make sure insurrectionist are taking care of, first ever to care about the condition of the jail. she's going on the home and security the day george santos yesterday admits to the federal election commission he defrauded them statement, $500,000 of his own money into the campaign and admits he lied to the federal agents the ranking member of the

intel committee pulled off the committee it's just too rich that the three of us are about to lose this bargain also enables paul grocer who depicted himself killing colleague goes on to the committee, it's to which the bargain also includes $75 billion to defend troops by 75 billion the promises he made so we are caught up in it doesn't feel good at all, it doesn't feel good for the country and congress, they ran on inflation, crime, they are not taking on any of that. [inaudible] >> could you walk us through how you handled that situation?

>> i'm happy to heat up the leftovers, barack obama's first term but you don't have to take my word for it. in my predominantly asian 35% larger than any other ethnicity in my district, chinese woman volunteered for the campaign started in 2012 and fbi came to me and told me this is not who you and your team think they are and the fbi three different times in the investigation said no wrongdoing, all he did -- donald trump at the time had more classified information than anyone just like he called out my colleagues, if he could have embarrassed me, you know he would. they pointed me to the committee so i want to validate those smears kevin mccarthy is making

claims about something they had access to and speaker weiner i know was briefed on and didn't do anything or say anything it is nothing other than doing what any american i would hope would do, like this chinese individual trying to do. [inaudible]

we will over there.

started off. >> good afternoon, an honor and privilege to be here with peter schumer who said an extra night job the last several years of three into law in incredible agenda on behalf of the american people to make life better for everyday americans. what are thankful for president biden's leadership and house democrats are thankful for the tremendous leadership of chuck schumer. republicans continue to double and triple down on their extreme agenda. they are extreme when it relates to a woman's health care decision. republicans want to impose a nationwide ban. we live in social security and medicare gender publicans want

to destroy social security and medicare. we believe in democracy and many extreme maga republicans apparently don't believe in democracy anymore. they have an extreme agenda and continue and the so-called fair tax act is another example of extremists agenda publicans are trying to jam down the throats of the american people. so-called there tax act, it's unfair unconscionable and un-american. it will impose a tax hike that is dramatic on 90% the american people, working families, middle-class folks, seniors and those who aspire to be part of the middle class and the

afflicted. it will impose an age tax on older americans in this nation who, throughout their lives paid into the system through income tax and now will be double and triple tax the imposition of 30% sales tax, it would create an enormous burden on older americans in this country. third unfair tax act would detonate social security by eliminating its source of funding. this legislation is extreme and functionally the gop tax scam part two. we will expose it and under this

tremendous leadership of senate democrats leader schumer house democrats do everything we can to stop it. >> thank you and i want to thank you for being here. plan is dangerous, disastrous and would impact just about every single american family for the worse. it cannot be understated how devastating this will be too just about every family. the so tax plan is the craziest get, a doozy. hard to believe they came up with it. it would be a published the irs, no more on irs and impose 30% on everything the americans are worried about inflation and the republican party, many are saying want to increase your

price what you pay by another, the largest tax for working americans ever, ever so just cannot run a publican party has no concern for working people every single day they are simply trying to have a new plan to cut more taxes on the wealthy and impose it on average working americans. steve forbes hardly a liberal, he said it would raise the cost of the house, buying a house by $125,000. it would raise the cost of buying the car by $10000. it would raise your average grocery bill by $3500 a year and people are complaining about high prices of groceries, eggs are already too high, add

another dollar 50 for each dozen. milk is high, and always have north. 3500 on christmas but it would also mean thousands more you have to pay in insurance premiums and out-of-pocket healthcare costs and seniors who save and save and save for their retirement, we don't know if there will be more social security but those who have social security would mean they have 30% lower buying power. almost every american family would be devastated so let me say this, as long as i am majority leader, is devastating unfair, nasty and almost crazy plan is not going to happen.

it shows you how extreme they are. i've rarely seen such an extreme proposal in all my years in government. they are so out of touch with reality. do they know what average people go through? to the no the wealthy people public would work better? every american would have. i believe it could cause the next great depression if we were to impose it. thank god there are firewalls and the democrats in the house, the democratic will try to do, believe me, they are intended, it will not listen to them as?

[inaudible] >> we have always depended social security. we will always defend social security. democrats had a plan to make sure social security is solvent. this plan would kill social security. [inaudible] >> everyone thought leader mccarthy would never go along with the maga republicans as he ran for speaker and now he's so committed to them still come up with this bill before committed. i don't underestimate the power over mccarthy of these extreme maga republicans. we have to fight the plan now

before he goes anymore ahead. >> so-called tax plan would devastate working families and cut taxes on the wealthiest 1% in america, so out of touch, so unconscionable you wonder sitting in some dungeon, some laboratory, some basement cooking up extreme ideas to jam them down the throats of the american people? but that is what's happening and it's part of the house republican agenda which is why we are speaking out against it making it clear the stakes are high to the american people and we are going to work to fight to defeat, expose it and make it clear it's part of an overall extreme agenda to undermine working families and middle

class in america to elevate the wealthy, well off and well connected as part of a scheme to subsidize further the lifestyles of the rich and famous. >> if someone told you this was a real plan, you would say it never will be but the right wing maga publicans are that far out they actually believe in this. it's wild, unbelievable. the biggest lollapalooza i've ever seen around here. >> this lady. lisa. >> let's stay on this topic for one or two more. >> senator schumer, why is it important to highlight this plan? i'm sure a lot of republicans would, why is it important to highlight this now? >> it's very important.

first, make sure the plan dies, right wing maga republicans have a lot of power in the house, we saw that in the last week the second, we have to show the american people was on her side and who isn't we get a lot of rhetoric detecting american people from the other side. they are not protecting working people, they are putting -- harming working people in a way we've never seen before. >> that's exactly right and extreme maga republicans are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the american people which is why we need to expose them and their extreme plans. the fact that they suggest this would cost increased fairness, it tells you everything you need to know in terms of why leader schumer, we are thankful for him and his senate democrats and efforts in the house need to expose the extremism.

the public sentiment is everything and with it nothing can fail and without it nothing can succeed in this sentiment, discussion and debate we are making sure the american people really understand why this so-called tax fairness plan will be a disaster for them. >> again, i think it is very important for the american people to see how extreme the republican party has become. would like to have a nice mainstream public and party, who wouldn't agree with them but would get things done. rampant mainstream republican party would start with the devastation of the debt ceiling defaulting on the debt. i think it is important to show how far out they are. [inaudible] >> we will move to other subjects. [laughter]

[inaudible] >> until speaker mccarthy has a plan in the house with his republican support, going to the white house is like going with no cards in his hand. the bottom line is, the first steps since mccarthy and many republicans are playing brinkmanship, holding hostages set of doing what we don't or times the debt ceiling, three times under trump, instead playing that dangerous game of brinksmanship, it's incumbent upon them to say okay, what is your plan? we have a plan. past the debt ceiling without hostagetaking, without any

brinksmanship. what's their plan? they haven't shown it, they have an obligation on something as serious as the debt ceiling to show it. show us the plan. show the american people the plan. show your own caucus the plan and see if you have the votes to pass it. [inaudible] >> i associate myself from new york. there's a difference between association and blackmail. negotiation as leader schumer indicated, we have a plan, past the debt ceiling consistent what's been done under democratic republic president including under former president trump in a negotiation and discussion about moving forward through the normal process, that's negotiation but what they

are essentially saying on the other side of the aisle we will detonate social security, medicare, detonate veterans defense or possibly even risk of catastrophic's default for the first time in american history that will send us spiraling toward a deep recession is not a depression unless you cave in to our extreme maga republican demands. that's not negotiation. that blackmail. [inaudible] >> my communication on this issue is in the public domain and i will let it speak for itself. in terms of the intel committee during the process of formulating our entire slate and

i expect that will happen. >> have you spoken on any negotiations -- [inaudible] >> i do plan to speak with mccarthy. we have to try to get together and see what we can do in a bipartisan way. you know what i say we sit down? tell us your plan. thank you, everybody.

i am to lead off this press conference. i'll start by saying when i got here in 2011, we were 14.8

trillion dollars in debt, spinning 3.6 trillion a year, revenue of 2.3 trillion and shows $1.3 trillion deficit. right now today currently we are about 31.5 billion, we've doubled that over the course -- i don't think we are to blame but it happened while we were here and we didn't like it at all. the day after november election, i wrote a column "wall street journal" published it and what was, just trying to lay out if we got the majority here, how we could return function and fiscal sanity to congress. obviously we didn't get majority so we not in charge of this but the house does have republican majority now is pleased to see in the whole speaker ballot

there, i know it looks messy but they accomplished some good things because i think hopefully what they did get speaker mccarthy agree to is restoring function and what they mean by that? is talking about passing a budget, hopefully one that is conservative. you can't balance it, you have to increase the debt ceiling but if we do not, to use the debt ceiling the way it was intended to be used. i laid out for possibilities to suggest preventing government shutdown, the reins act, faith and credit act in one near and dear to my heart, reducing the size of federal government. just quit hiring them. then talk about -- ring up, use

the budget process to bring individual appropriation bills. massive spending bills to or three or four months into the year and it just gets past. individual appropriations, and of the particular department do greater oversight because part of the problem we have is we never look at the numbers and of got the chart, when we are going to that debate, i was asking my colleagues, you know how much we spent? honestly nobody knew but it wasn't their fault. nobody knew because we never talk about it. tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. reverting to our house days. do we find ourselves in a quorum

call? the presiding officer: we do not. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. i had the opportunity this month to make a trip down to the southern border, and this was not my first trip down to that southern border. and i will have to say that i found our border patrol more discouraged than ever before. and i looked at it and i really kind of use it as a basis for comparison every time i go down there, whether i'm in california or arizona or texas, just talking with them and hearing where they are and what they're seeing and what they're experience -- their experiences are on the border every single day. and many of them feel like that their job is an impossible task. and this trip i was in the del rio sector in texas.

and had the opportunity to also talk with the texas military that's down there on the border with the texas dps. they're down there on the border working. and there at eagle pass is where so many people are crossing, too. -- crossing into the country. and one of the things that they pointed out was they really can't stop this flow because basically the biden administration has told them they can't stop this flow. so we did a little checking into what has actually transpired since joe biden went into house. and according to the migration policy institute, which is not a conservative group by any means. it is a more liberal policy

think tank. in joe biden's first 100 days, he took 94 executive actions that undermine the job that the border patrol is trying to do on that southern border. so think about this. if you are in service to your country and the commander in chief is taking actions that make your job, the job that you've taken an oath to do, to make that job harder to do, harder to execute. your job. well, now, those that believe in open border policy, they think that taking 94 executive actions to make it easy for people to illegally enter the country, they would see that as a good thing. but those of us who are constitutionalists, those of us

who really believe in the rule of law, those of us that want our nation to have an immigration policy that honors the rule of law, we look at that and we say 94 executive actions that make a branch of this government, an agency of this government, makes it more difficult for them to do their job. now many of my colleagues across the aisle have been no help in getting this situation at the border under control. they have voted to keep sending checks basically to those that illegally enter the country. they have approved a payday, a massive payday, a lot of funding going out to many of these sanctuary cities. and in 2022, democrats voted to

expand the biden administration's catch and release policy. this is people that are apprehended boartd -- apprehended at the border and they get a plane ticket or bus ticket and are told to show up maybe two years in the future and have their asylum claim heard. what they have also done, my democratic friends across the aisle, they have voted against giving border patrol the funding that they need to control the chaos that that policy has created. so to many of us, it seems like things are backward. they're upside down. there should be agreement that we're going to honor the rule of law. there should be agreement that we're going to protect our sovereignty. there should be agreement that

our border will be closed. there should be agreement that we're going to fund the border patrol. there should be agreement that we're going to fund i.c.e. there should be agreement that we're going to fund title 42, that we're going to fund building the border wall and that we're going to fund additional screening for dangerous narcotics like fentanyl. but that has not been the case. so open border, yes. but also, according to border patrol, what we have in this country with this administration is a lawless border policy. that's right, a lawless border policy. and here is the reason for that. that is not said lightly, but

it has become the reality, madam president, because of the intentionality of this administration to leave that border open, to pass those executive actions. a president, 94 executive actions that make it more difficult for border patrol to do their job. 94. that is what you call intentional. that is what you call undermining what should be the policy and the support on the southern border for our border patrol. now if you want to look at it on a month-by-month basis, december -- let's take just the month of december. traditionally, you don't have as many people crossing in

december. but because we have seen the border open and the y'all come sign hanging out on that border, you have people coming across that border in record numbers. yuma, arizona, they said they had people from 176 different countries speaking 200 different languages coming cross that border. the month of december alone, there were 250,000, a quarter million illegal encounters. these are the ones that the border patrol was able to apprehend. they are the ones that touch u.s. soil, raise their hands, and say we claim asylum. 250,000. and over the past two years

there have been more than 4.1 million illegal border crossings. this is a record. and you have the got-aways, the known got-aways that you can see on surveillance, but you can't get to them. and as border patrol will tell you, the really bad guys, the really, really bad guys, the unknown got got-aways, they are the ones they don't see but they're slipping into the country. how do they know they're here? they find what they drop when they come across the river. they find clothes and shoes, carpet shoes. they see tracks. they see cars that come and pick these individuals up. do we have criminals coming into this country? absolutely we do.

in eagle pass, they told us the first three months of this fiscal year, fiscal 2023, madam president, they apprehended 143 convicted criminals. now these are people that have committed felonies, whether it's rape or armed robbery or manslaughter. these are people with a criminal record. last year, in 2022, they apprehended 98 terrorists. they've apprehended dozens of gang members, ms-13 gang members. and the thing that's so critical about this, these individuals don't stay in yuma or el paso or eagle pass. that is where they come cross, and they're ending up in your towns. they're ending up in wisconsin,

madam president. they're ending up in tennessee, my beloved state. and i was talking with a police chief from tennessee before i came over here. rural tennessee, the vast majority of the drugs they apprehend, they're either fentanyl or fentanyl laced. they're using narcan more than they ever thought they would need to use narcan. tbi told us last month the cartel is active in tennessee. last week i was visiting with a police chief from another city there in my state, and he said it's not only active in the state, it is active right here in our town. and he talked about some of the loss of life. so as we discuss what is happening at the border, we have to look at the humanitarian

crisis there, yes. everybody coming across that border, they have paid the cartel. now think about that. they paid $5,000, $7,000, $10,000, whatever is the going rate. they're flying into places like mexicali, mexico, and then they're coming across the border. cartels are global organizations now. they're big business. human trafficking, $13 billion a year business. it has grown if the last few years -- in the last few years from a $500 million a year business to a $13 billion a year business. all of this ends up in our communities. indeed, every town is a border town. every state a border state right now because of this lawless border policy that is taking place at our southern border. when you talk to the border

patrol, they will tell you there is a way to get this under control. was it better under the previous administration? yes. the numbers were down. they did not see as many crossings because people understood we were going to do some basic things. we were going to enforce the law. we were going to eliminate, and we did eliminate the incentives for people to come. we had remain in mexico. we ended catch and release. we had title 42. and we were doing what the border patrol has said for three decades they need -- a physical barrier. people commonly called it build the wall. and wherever a wall could be built, there was a plan to

build it. and they were working on it and having people working on that border made certain that you didn't have those border crossings. and border patrol has also said they need better surveillance because right now technology, the cartels have better technology than our border patrol. think about this. the cartels, multinational big businesses, you don't cross the border any way, shape, or form n trafficking, gangs, drug trafficking -- nobody and nothing comes across that border without the cartel getting their cut. that's what's happening. and our border patrol is saying here's what we need. there is a way to fix this. we can fix this issue.

the border patrol says, look, let us enforce the laws that are on the books. we have immigration law. let's enforce it. so you see why it's frustrating to them when you have a president and a department of homeland security, and the president is signing 94 executive actions that make it harder for them to do their job. defies common sense. eliminate the monetary incentives that are out there. the cartel feels like they've got a great business model. they get people to the border. people raise their hands, claim asylum, then the u.s. taxpayer picks up the tab, buys them a plane ticket, a bus ticket, gets them wherever they're wanting to go in the country. when was the last time the

federal government did something like that for you? wherever you want to go, we'll give you a ticket. we'll get you there. we'll provide you food, housing, shelter. so look at those economic incentives and remove those. and as i said, the remain in mexico, building the wall, those are things that the border patrol, those are the things that people that live on the border tell us need to be done. i was down here earlier this woak talking about this trip, and talked about a visit i had at a ranch. it was out in uvalde, met with people from kinney county, texas, and from uvalde and some ranchers, some farmers, some business owners.

right now, with this border policy, it is making it very difficult for them to ranch. some of them are -- they've got cattle on their ranches. the migrants come in, they cut fences, so they're bearing that cost of fences. some are farmers with water melons or lettuce or cattle and their fields are getting torn up because orchards are being run through. they're saying help us. one rancher looked at me, and he said, marsha, how long can we continue this, and what is the end game? because he has people that die and they end up on his ranch. he finds it hard to do their cattle business. we need to think carefully about

this. the border patrol has said these are steps that would stop the chaos. this would bring some law and ornd -- law and order back to the southern border, but the biden administration is going to have to say, we got this policy wrong, we have to take these steps, we need to honor the border patrol, we need to respect the people who live and work on this border and we need to make certain that we build that wall. that we secure this area. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

i want to welcome everybody. there'll be more members coming and i'm being counted so i guess i'll lead off this press conference. i'll start just by saying when i got here and senator paul got here in 2011, we were

$14.8 trillion in debt. we spent about $3.6 trillion a year and revenue about $2.3 trillion and shows a $1.3 trillion deficit. right now today we're about 31.5 trillion in debt. we doubled that over the course not being to blame. it happened while we're here and we didn't like it at all. the day after november election, i wrote a column in "the wall street journal" published it. what it was was just trying to lay out if we got the majority here. how we could return function and fiscal sanity to congress. now, obviously we didn't get the majority because i'm not in charge of this but the house does have republican majority and i was very pleased to see the whole speaker battle there, and i know it looked a little messy but they accomplished some

very good things but i think hopefully what they did get speaker mccarthy to agree to is restoring function. what do i mean by that? passing a budget and hope any one that is conservative as possible and close to balance add possible. if you can't balance it, we'll have to increase the debt ceilings. it's one that's near and dear to my heart and reducing the sides of the deficit through attrition act. you don't have to sign anybody, just quit hiring them.

bring up individual appropriations bills and the function of passing the massive spending bills, two, three, four months into a fiscal year and thousands of pages and nobody reads them and it just gets passed. individual appropriation bills will still be massive. but we'll be able to focus on the particular department. we'll be able to do greater oversight. part of the problem we have is we just never look into the numbers and it was interesting that we were going through that debate. the omnibus vote and i was asking this of course do you know how much we spent last year in the federal government? quite honestly nobody knew but it wasn't their fault. nobody news because we didn't talk about it. what i told people $6.3 trillion and a lot of people were shocked and most people were shocked and they should be shocked. we take a look at 2019 part of

the pandemic, we spent $4.4 trillion. that was all federal government spending was $4.4 trillion. pandemic not occurred and had not busted the budget with an awful lot of wasteful spending and reaction to it. growing that $4.4 trillion by the rate of inflation and population and last year spent $5.1 trillion. last year we got $4.9 trillion worth of revenue. so we need to understand these numbers, we as a congress need to look at these accounts, at these departments.

offer support and pass the bills and thacks the next step. initially we want to convey to our house colleagues we respect what they've done, they've got a big task ahead of them we want to do everything we can to support their efforts and the crucial aspect of what to do is they need to pass these things with republican votes. i would vote for increase in debt ceiling if we attached certain physical controls and we as senators who have taken that position in the past we need to

account for our colleagues in the house and also take votes that pass and we want to have the best results and you have to take those types of votes this year. we're trying to be supportive and we'll be talking and meeting with them and turn over to my colleague senator cruz. over the past two decades and >> a wildly different world so a different world and the president over the centuries and the total debt of $5 trillion.

over the next eight years and the president and we double the national debt and then the democrat came into office and over the next eight years and the national debt doubled yet again going from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. they can reflect on that but the president over the centuries and $5 trillion in debt and two presidents and one republican and over 16 years and quadrupled our national debt. over the last six years the republican president and the democrat president.

if you're fete up on inflation and the lumber and mortgages and gasoline and cars and everything you buy, it's because politicians in washington cannot stop spending money that we don't have. we're at a moment in time and we have a opportunity to stop the madness. and i believe it is incumbent on that republican majority and on republicans in the senate to use every lever point we have to stop the out of control spending that is driving inflation, that is punishing hard working americans across this country. everyone here is writing, the debt ceiling is coming up. and the debt ceiling historically has proven the most

effective lever points to force meaningful concessions. let me dis-menace with a canard, nobody standing here wants to default on the debt. let me be absolutely clear and unequivocal, the united states of america should never, ever, ever default on its debt. it whether or not the debt ceiling is raised immediately, the united states will not default on its debt. why? because revenue that comes in each month exceeds the interest payments that are owed. there is more than sufficient revenue coming in to ensure we never default on the debt and every one of us supports legislation, legislation i call the default prevention act to put that in statute and make clear the chances of a default are 0.00%. the reason the default prevention act hasn't been

passed is the democrats block it. there is one principle person in this town that is talkerring about a -- talking about a default of the debt and that's joe biden. he wants to threaten it and scare the markets and frankly he's counting on the press core to repeat his talking points. he's counting on the press core just to say, those crazy republicans want to default on the debt and that's false. if you write that in your stories, you're simply repeating partisan talking points in the white house. historically the debt ceiling has proven incredibly effective and by 2011 standing strong with the republican majority in the house forced passage of the control act and most significant

constraint in federal spending in modern times. when i arrived here in 2013, republican leadership was crowing about the great fiscal responsibility they saw because of the budget control act. then tay turned around -- they turned around and abandoned it a couple years later. back before that, grant ridman, the most significant structural restraint on spending passed because congress held up the debt ceiling and used its leverage to force those reforms. so i'm going to urge the members of the press as this fight plays out report it accurately. the rules of the republican conference provide not that we will never raise the debt ceiling and it's not my position but we'll never raise the debt ceiling and rather the rules say we'll use the debt ceiling as leverage to force real and meaningful structure reforms to fix the underlying problems.

don't have to be a total solution for everything. it has to be real and meaningful progress and i'll point out those rules that were written in the rules and alongside other senators standing up here today and that's the rules of the republican congress and we'll see lots of fireworks and democrats and joe biden's position. unreasonable and ridiculous and biden's position and i refuse to negotiate anything and that's what he's telling you. i don't care there's a republican majority and i don't care that it's bankrupting the country and it's ravaging the country and joe biden will negotiate nothing and that's default and joe biden's position and on its face it is objectively unreasonable. the reason he can take that objectively unreasonable for years is because he believes the

press will protect him. he believes that in your coverage you won't talk about how it's objectsively unreasonable for the president to say i don't care what the congress says, my answer is hell no. he's counting on you for that. that's unreasonable and irresponsible and we're here to encourage for the members of the house and members of the senate to hold the line and get serious about fixing this problem. >> president biden won't negotiate over raising the debt ceiling and i have news for him and he will negotiate and conservatives will not vote to raise the debt ceiling and majority in the house for the republican majority in the house will not raise the debt ceiling without significant budget reform and the greatest threat for the country and the threat to our national security not using the debt. one of the great things about

where we are now though is it doesn't take as much as you'd think to balance the budget. in europe over halve of the country balance their annual budget and germany and sweden having the large government and they do. they spend what comes in and we can do it in our country. if we have a $100 billion cut, which would still have a spending budget. we have a opportunity here and it could be done. but it would take compromise between both parties. you're making cuts and not as

big as they would be and it's the responsible thing to do but president biden needs to know absolutely he will negotiate and it's better to start now. >> there's a republican party around the country and here and they need to stop caving. with regard to the debt ceiling, the far left, big government crowd and wall street tell you all the time, they put out all the time you have to spend more money, run up more debt, and raise taxes. if you ever say that you need to stop, they say the world will end and we'll have plagues that even moses would flinch at. it is a complete lie and we can

balance the budget. countries do it. if we don't balance the budget, who makes money? well, the dc bureaucrats do really well and people making money off the government do well and wall street sells a whole bunch more bonds and do well and rich continue to get richer and guess what happens to american public? their marge rates group and -- mortgage rates go up and credit card interest rates go up and meat costs more and average american is paying for all this. now, i did this. i did this as governor and walked into $4 billion deficit and the same thing happened. if you don't spend more money, bar row more money -- borrow more and net officials a billion a year in 23 years and going into default on their debt. we balance the budget and we cut taxes in eight years and blaming

everybody in dc not willing to live with your means and cost of eggs and meat are going up. traveling into the future and the only politician that's had the nerve to put a budget out was from the president, biden. so he unapologetic about it shows us from this $13 trillion we're in debt taking all of it to $45 trillion in just ten years. that's way under the mark.

>> the numbers i gave you which biden is saying and unapologeticically saying and doesn't take into consideration the interest cost and the crowding out. the reason i want you to know what 1% of $30 trillion s take 4% of $30 trillion. that's the interest that's going to get priced in to the cost of carrying this debt. you do that math with what we're currently paying in interest, that's as much interest as we just spent on that monstrosity of the no, ma'am any bus bill that -- omnibus bill that went through the door at $1.7 trillion. these are numbers for future generations, the obvious thing saying what the heck is going on and who is running the show? the other thing senator cruz

said it's been equal opportunity endeavor between democrats and republicans. because the folks that have been running the place and looting the place in the sense that not with the sprinting in the basement with a credit card that you can swipe year after year. any knuckle head can do that and it's really knuckle heads have been getting us into the place we are now. it's never the numbers and the numbers always rule in the long run and the heavyweight of that burden is unescapable and painful if you don't do what senator paul talked about, exercise a little political discipline and will. quit trying to please everyone and that means defense in the message and maybe you'll get the ship turned in the right direction.

the average living expense haves gone up $1,000 a month and that's a recurring expense that has been direct, foreseeable and foreseen and the affordable of congress pushing the button over and over and over again to effectively print more money. that's what happens when you just print more money effectively do and spend trillions of dollars more than

you have and you increase the debt ceiling authorizing the issuance of new u.s. debt instruments. >> things might have been different and a lot easier to stop additional harm from happening than to undo proves

harm. this has gone on far too long and it's disappointing to us that a lot of members of our own parties have been unwilling to do and there's a will the of realities we have to face and one of them is this. the overall number is simply too big. we're going to devastate not only important middle claman countdowns of this country even further if we don't stop this but we're also simultaneously impair the federal government's ability to fund everything from social security and medicare to defense and in between in not changing course. one of the reasons why in the conference of the last year or two and that policy statement is

there and we echo our conference position and we explain what it is that we do. the increase in the debt ceiling is by company and federal spending and the amount as the debt ceiling increase. or meaningful spending. so, look, it's got to be different. it has to be because the consequences >> talking about dealing and spending and how would you go about that and what would make you feel comfortable in voting for raises for the debt ceiling and is that spending package and distant

spending package and look like. >> it's special measures and that will go on for monarchies potentially for the conservatives in the house and republicans lead to this effort and we influence what they're asking for the debt ceiling and we have the budget and they agreed to in the past and we can't really predict when those come but before today in order for us and hopefully our republican colleagues increase the debt ceiling and twice we need to attach to it fiscal controls or other spending cuts and that's what we're willing to lay out here today and we're

took and condition sulphur and e house. >> at what point would you -- senator paul you eluded to it and have the budget program and the republicans are saying these are the programs we think should be caught and how much they should be cut. >> we can't really say that and i'm personally more concerned about the structural changes with preventing government act and full faith and credit and that's the new piece of legislation and senator scott is reintroducing that with the pat toomy bill and senator cruz was correct and it's a scare tactic. more than enough revenue to face social security benefits, medicare benefits and each time the debt services debt and a lot more spending.

there's no reason why raising the debt celling can't have spending caps or limitation on spending with the same bill. >> one thing on that. >> recently did you hear the news that the pentagon did an audit of the assets and probably didn't hit the radar and they've got $3.5 trillion in assets between equipment and material. they didn't audit and can find only 39% of them. imagine that. the point is getting structure in place and think about caps and, yes, it'll have to come

people act like it's the end of the world and easy to do and back when businesses went through the downturn in '08 and '09 and made larger cuts than that to survive. if they didn't, they had competition and all the other things they had to contend with. here the money is given to us. it's not that complicated if you have the political will to do it. then it's going to have to come from all the places that are busting the budget across the spectrum. >> if you're looking at business, the best way to balance your budget is grow your revenues. i'm a business guy and i always try to direct my revenues and then tvs easy to balance your budget and make a profit.

if we don't grow the economy, we can't get out of the problem. you have to grow your economy, which grows your revenues and your revenues grow exponentially and if you can grow your economy. but there's not even a thought process up here with how to grow the economy. >> one of the biggest things from democrats is republicans want to cut social security and medicare. is that something you support? system of articulation that's a total lie -- that's a total lie. we've been hearing that -- campaigning i heard that through three campaigns and never said that at all. we to want save social security and the way we do it is primarily what senator scott was talking about. number one solution is economic growth, which is why we cut taxes in 2017 moving into 2018.

going from 4.4 trillion in spending over 6 trillion in kind of laying that as a baseline is grossly irresponsible and i've got to agree with senator braun and scott, in business that happens all the time. you cut your budget 10% and people do it. private sector can do it, why should the government be immune in >> those who cut medicare are a democrat. they cut $280 billion out of medicare and they want to say republicans want to cut medicare? none of us support that.

oosystem of articulation a number of proposals in took and going down the process step by step and pass the budget and contemplate the types of cuts and senator paul has those and there's a number of ways and we need to first get the structural process in place. >> that's a false argument and don't point it out. on my report that we put out every year and this year was $482 billion worth ovwaste.

examples, they're small but add up to $482 billion. the national foundation spent $118,000 studying whether thanos who's a marvel comic evil overlord and snaps fingers and lightning comes out and your tax dollars went to the foundation to hire a guy that put metal gloves onto snap his fingers to see if you can snap your fingers in metal gloves. $700,000 to see if kids are better coped with pets. you cut your budget 10% ask rely on people in the agencies to do it the best way and have to start some of the agencies.

it's driving the debt crisis right now. in terms of the house can do things, that's up to the house. i'm here today to support their efforts and.org we can and if we're going to get the best deal possible, you've got to be willing to vote for these things and i'm willing to do here in the senate. >> senator.

who are you talking to? >> conservatives in the house. >> are these some of the folks that got concessions from mccarthy through validation? >> the conservatives in the house. we all have them with the idea of cutting funding for military, some saying it's not only the table and not something they're going to ever do. is that something that's acceptable to you? all these seem to be on board with the fact that it needs to be on the table. >> listen, you have to look at all spending. i'm making the point and step by step process and understand how much we're spending. people don't even understand that. that's what i was pointing out and asking that question prior to the omnibus vote. nobody knew. you have to familiarize yourself with the numbers. the board of directors and so many members of the board have no idea we spend and they vote

for the omnibus spending bills without ever reading them. that's complete dysfunction that has to change. speaking opportunistic the numbers because someone asked about raising revenues. i put a -- through a privilege motion and rand's done it often a balance budget over 10 years s in my case and the biggest data set we collected was that over 50 years regardless of tax rate they stay about 18.5% of gdp. check it out. when you have a high rate, you're going to generate a lower economic activity. if you got a lower rate, it was just proven, i almost had the cbo admitting that pre-covid, the tax cuts that were done in 2017 were paying for themselves plus we had a economic growth of 2.5-3%. so the whole idea that you can raise revenues, that's not going to work. 50 years of data show that those

hang in that narrow range. so that means that you're going to have to do it growing the economy, which was mentioned earlier, that's one easier way to do it. and then holding your expenditures into that historical band of revenues that we raise proven over 50 years. >> a different topic. a vice chair and the administration with embattled. >> we came from a secure briefing on that and the question i had is how are they going to change the temperature and the people of ukraine but at some point in time, we're going to start recognizing with the reality of the ground is.

>> that was a long two minutes and my team would not let me come out. as you saw the president made news today on continued support for ukraine alongside allies and partners, my colleague from the national security council, admiral kirby and take their questions and i'll welcome him to the podium. all right. >> i don't have any opening statement. i'm just happy to take whatever questions you have. >> all right. go ahead. >> thank you very much. my question is about the direct

and overconfident in that process. look we share president zelensky's concerns over corruption allegations and he take it is seriously and that's important and obviously he'll work his way through that and it goes through the comfortable process. playing any kind of corruption for ukraine and on the security side as well. the weapons and systems that we obviously work in lock step with ukrainians on accountability measures on that and see no indication that anything we've sent over has inned up in the wrong hands or is being used inappropriately. >> [inaudible]. inthe most capae

been very honest about that and there's training that's needed and sophisticated maintenance requirement and supply chain and jet engine horsepower and this goes into omitterring the tanks on the field. that said we never ruled tanks out. we have been from the beginning of this war now 11 months ago evolving for ukraine on the ground. so when you have to get your specific questions, what's

changed and the kinds of fighting that the russians are doing right now you need to be here and well into 2023 and well under this position and that's why we're doing a combined training for ukraine and battalion integrate them and even some degree from smaller systems. and open for terrain and the armor vehicle and it's very much following along. about making sure that they can fight on the terrain and they

cannot deep cover germany and they'll cover what this decision does do. you should know and two companies for ukrainian battalion and he'll be working with allies and partners to get additional companies of tanks in ukraine and it's about coordination and the unity here and resolve and for more ukraine.

the roll tide and you're right, i'm not going to speak for president zelensky and his staff and so the battalion that we'll provide, that's 31 tanks and that's for ukraine sized a battalion and american size one has more tanks and the way they're organized is about 30 to 31 tanks. and again, the they'll help organization another two battalions and about 60 more roughly and that's what was talked about today.

we'll go after crocodile with a corn stock and these vehicles and tanks and armored vehicles will have an effect. and other than that, there's not

been a whole heck of a lot around in the down in the south but as the weather conditions improve when the operational conditions are per mis-ive and does that answer -- permissive. does that answer your question? >> how is this today when the effort was 31 times down the line. >> i know there was a lot of diplomacy with the announcements today and i know we all have been focused on the last few days and things have been said publicly and these tanks won't

get here for many months or take as long to gets there as abrams and the manned tanks and they can be ready to receive those tanks are on the battlefield. it's not how to operate the abrams and maintain and how to build in have an organic supply chain process and logistical sustain want process and -- sustainment process and over the long haul.

>> at this point they're partly forcing what indeed. [inaudible]. voter woe don't just take anything for granted when they say it and not dismissive. that said, these tanks are meant to help ukraine fight effectively on open terrain to defend their sovereignty and territory and to win back not with soldiers in ukraine and not to russia. >> [inaudible].

using to regroup and retrain and reequip and prepare himself for continued fighting when the weather improves. so we want to make sure that we're using this time as best we can.

a to help them defend themselves and whatever offensive operations the russians might be planning to do when the weather improves so again, i can't predict perfectly how to go but this is very much some of the criticism i've heard and heard at the pent gone too and it's -- pentagon and they hand them out and you guys aren't thinking ahead and whatever is needed for today and this decision today is very much indicative of the president's long term commitment to ukraine and how he's tasked the national security team to think ahead and plan ahead and help the ukrainians get ahead of what's coming down the pike.

they can be successful and these are their decisions to make in their country and war and our job to make sure to process that effectively. >> previously and your assessment of both military and economic.

>> i got them a little earlier and it's basically the size of ukrainian it's shawler and two companies about 15 tanks a company and get to 30, 31 and usually at least one of these tanks is the commander's in there and say you've got to command and control a tank that sort of is in charge of how they're operating on the field and i'm really, really going past my expertise but that's as far as i can go.

>> ukrainians said thank you very much, now how about some fourth generation fighter jets. what are the chances o f that happening? we evolve as conditions change and can't blame the ukrainians for wanting more and more systems and not the first time they've talked about fighter jets and no announce el pasos to make on that front. you're a

c. -- ceo or if you're a low-income worker at a hiltonon hotel. what is the debate about? the debate is philosophical and i'm not even sure what. it's partly my conservative colleagues who generally want to privatize medicare and social security. for them it seems to be something fill ossoffic or --

philosophical or ideological. if you privatize medicare and social security, it will help the banks, if you privatize the v.a., like many want to do, undermining what veterans have earned by serving their country, it may help private sector corporation, it will help pad their bottom line and help ceo's make more money. when work has dignity, people have a secure retirement, pensions are protected, americans can count on medicare and social security. a secure retirement shouldn't be a partisan issue. it wasn't a partisan issue particularly in the 1930's, it's not a partisan issue to the american people. i don't think you can tell a difference between a democratic or republican drawing social security. they've paid into it for decades and earned it. it's one of the moss unifying institutions in the country.

americans want to protect social security and medicare. they want to make those programs stronger. americans do, but elected officials, far too many people on this side of the aisle, as the presiding officer knows, people from the other side of the aisle think that it should be privatized because they say it will be more efficient. we know what will happen, insurance companies will make more money, banks will make more money and people who played by the rules and worked all their lives get squeezed. so today, down the hall, especially, mr. president, straight down the hall at the house of representatives, republicans are warning that they want to raise the debt limit. the debt limit, we should pay our bills, we've run, this administration and all need to

pay. they are refusing to pay what our nation owes and they're saying if we don't do what they want to do, they're going to stop social security checks from going out and try to privatize social security. they want to take this country and the american economy to the brink of default. they want to leverage their fiscal liewn lunacy to cut yourl security. and there's privatizing social security. the details differ. the terms may change, but the goal is the same. i've been in the senate now, this is the beginning -- this is part of had my third term, this is my 17th year. every is couple years a few of e wonderkinds want to privatize medicare and social security and the veterans administration. it's nothing less than to go back on a bedrock promise. the senator from nevada

understand that people pay into social security every paycheck, they pay into medicare -- that's not true, if you are rich you pay into social security the first part of the year because you paid the first part of the year in some philosophy i don't understand. you pay in for all of us, if you pay in, you get the benefits. i have affirming the senate's commitment to expand social security. it said we affirm and pledge to protect social security and medicare from any kinds of cuts, from the far right that doesn't believe in the program. almost every democrat signed on. not one republican signed on. not one republican recommitted to our promise, if you work hard all your life social security will be there for you. americans shouldn't

have to worry. i urge my colleagues to do what the american people want us to do overwhelmingly. they want us to protect and expand social security and medicare. as i said, madam president, just look down the hall in the house of representatives. there's a new majority there, a new majority controlled by the far right of what used to be a pretty centrist republican party from the far right that whenever they -- they try to privatized social security and medicare. they get all kinds of contributions from the right wing and wall street and from big health care companies and some big energy companies and all that. and it's wrong. we know it's wrong. we know whether it's nevada, whether it's las vegas or cleveland or reno, columbus, whether it's carson city or dayton, we know overwhelmingly people in this country want a strong social security that will always be there for our kids and grandkids and great grandkids. they want a medicare that will provide health care to people regardless of your wealth, your

income, regardless of your station in life. that's my pledge. i know the senators from -- are on the floor from connecticut and nevada also support that commitment and pledge. it's where we ought -- it's where we are as a country. it's not unfortunately where so many of my colleagues sit. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. madam president, this week the country has been riveted again by scenes of mass shootings, this time in california. i dispo on the phone to my seat mate senator padilla a few days ago and it's a conversation i had with the presiding officer, a conversation that i have had with senators from colorado and virginia. we all now increasingly come from states where we have seen dozens of people murdered at one

time in these horrific, horrific mass shootings. madam president, i'm proud that in the wake of the uvalde massacre, the shooting in buffalo last summer, this congress came together and finally passed after 30 years of inaction legislation that begins to make our communities safer but what we saw in monterey and half moon bay is confirmation, reaffirmation that we have enormous work to do. let me first tell you the good news. that is this. the legislation we passed last summer, the bipartisan safer communities act, it is saving lives as we speak. if you recall, that legislation set up a new background check process for younger buyers of weapons in this country. it eliminated the boyfriend loopholes so that no domestic abusers in this country can get

their hands on weapons. it gave funding to states to set up red flag laws. it strengthened our background check system. it's a set of really important changes. and a bipartisan group of us went out to west virginia just a few weeks ago, senator cornyn, senator tillis, senator capito, three republicans, myself, senator manchin to see the background check system at work. we went out and sat right next to the background checks operators in their cubicals and we watched them process these new background checks that are required because of the law that we passed. and we got briefings from the fbi in which they laid out for us the details of incredibly dangerous individuals, individuals that were in crisis, many of them under 21, who would have gotten a weapon in their moment of crisis is had it not -- crisis had it not been for the legislation that we passed. i also saw how diligent these

background checks operators were, how serious they were about their job, how proud they were of their job because they knew that in their hands they held the safety of the american public, that every time that they clicked that button, there was an individual walking out of the store where a gun and they wanted to make sure of two things. first, they are protecting the american public. make sure that only those that were qualified under the law that weren't deemed to be too dangerous were getting those weapons. but the second thing they were concerned about and every single one of them told us this, they were there to uphold the second amendment as well. they were there to make sure, to make sure of the guarantee that if you're a law a i biding citizen -- law-abiding citizen, you can get a legal weapon. and i think all of us that visited were really impressed by the work that our background checks operators do and were confident that the bill we passed last summer is saving lives as we speak. but everybody in this country

knows it's not enough. everybody in this country knows that it was just a start. and i hope this year we will be able to build on the progress we made last year to find additional common ground. because what you are seeing in california, what you have seen all across the country are individuals, largely men, mostly younger men, whose brains are breaking. and in that moment of crisis, they are reaching for a weapon. they are seeing their path to exercise those demons as running through an episode of mass slaughter. but it's important to note that this is not the only country in the world where brains break. this is not the only country in the world where people have paranoias. this is not the only country in the world with severe mental

illness. and so the story of american mass murder is not a story of mental illness. it's not a story of paranoia. it's not a story of grudge or grievance because any other country has that, but only in the united states does that grudge, greerveg advance, pair -- grievance, paranoia and illness lead to mass assassination. and that's because in this country, we are flooded with weapons. and not gist any weapons but -- just any weapons but weapons of mass destruction. these killers, they use the same set of weapons, semiautomatic weapons with attachable clips that can fire 30, a hundred bullets out of one cartridge. they all use the same set of weapons because they're trying to kill as many people as quickly as possible. only in this country can those individuals who have decided to take out their anger, their

grudge and their grievance through mass murder get their hands on a weapon that will allow them to do that. other countries just don't allow that to happen. i told the story many times before but on the same day that sandy hook occurred, there was an equal number of students attacked in a school in china. every kid that was shot in sandy hook died. why? because -- i won't describe it for you on the floor today but the damage that a bullet fired from an ar-15 does to the body of a little child is irrevocable. it literally takers you -- tears you apart, the bullet is going so fast through your body. so none of those kids survive. but in china, every child that was attacked survived. why, because the attacker who was just as unhinged likely as the attacker in sandy hook had a knife, not a gun.

knives can do damage too but not as much damage as an ar-15. and so states that are more serious about keeping assault weapons off the streets and guns away from dangerous people, they have a lot less gun crime, a lot less. countries that are more serious about making sure that people who have these grudges, grievances, and paranoias don't get their hands on dangerous weapons, they have almost rock bottom levels of gun violence. and i think we are at a moment in time where americans know this. americans are sick and tired of the status quo. that's why we were able to pass this law last summer. it was a start, a really important start, but it was not a result of any of the advocates in the senate perfecting their argument. it was as a result of parents and students, families out there in america compelling congress to do something because this country has had enough.

and this country has not just had enough of the mass shootings but of the hundred-plus people who die every day from gunshot wounds, suicides, accidental shootings, homicides all of which can be prevented through limiting the access to dangerous people or people who are going through crisis to weaponry, in particularly weaponry of mass destruction. so i think that message from the american public that we heard last summer, it's not going away. the good news is we found common ground. and right now in the united states congress, you have no choice. if you want to get something done, but to find common ground. we found it and i don't think that anybody who voted for it paid any substantial political price. i think there was only political upside to supporting a compromise that was wildly popular. if you remember senator mcconnell showed a power point

presentation to the republican caucus in may of last year and showed his republican colleagues how popular all the things that we voted on last summer were red flag laws, stopping domestic abusers if getting guns, no political downside in continuing to make progress when it comes to making our communities safer. and as we lifs amidst another -- live amidst another moment in history where the country is recognizing the unique problem of mass shootings, as we think about 20 some odd days gone in the year with 40 mass shootings already, when we think about the fear that our kids live in when they go to school, wondering whether they'll be next and now the fear that workplaces have and churchgoers have, whether they'll be next. it's more reason for us to make 2023 a year in which we don't follow the pre-2022 precedent of doing nothing but we follow the 2022 precedent of finding the common ground between

republicans and democrats to make this country safer.

the process of classified material handling, the guidelines change up a time and a sick technology changes we are always reviewing the procedures to make sure they are fully appropriate. is there a problem? >> you are always trying to meet that balance about whether things are classified approved

really and the intelligence community works at this and obviously weren't we work at this. i wouldn't go so far as to slap a mandate on it but it's a balance we try to strike to make sure everything is a properly marked inappropriately handled but it varies from document to document and information to issue. spin and germany at any point during the conversations with germany did they make the plan a contingent on the u.s. and can you give us some sense of what's next? he didn't want to send the tanks and then he decided to send the tanks. we have been nothing but honest and transparent about the particular challenges which those challenges still exist. .

mr. murphy: madam president. . the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that s. res. 13 submitted earlier today be held at the desk, that following morning business tomorrow, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that at 1:45 p.m., the senate vote on adoption of the resolution, that if the resolution is agreed to, the preamble be considered and agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: i understand there's a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time. the clerk: s. 1,a bill to

provide a moratorium on all federal research grants and so forth. s. 82, a bill to protect social security benefits and military pay and so forth. h.r. 300, an act to amend chapter 3 of title 5, united states code, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. murphy: i would now ask fora a second reading in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14. i would object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, january 26. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to the consideration of the klobuchar grassley resolution as provided under the

previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: if there is to further business to come before the senate, i would ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorro