government policies without putting our national defense at risk. we can pass laws, we can conduct oversight, we can meet with administration officials, we can hold hearings. from time to time, senators object to an individual nomination, usually to express opposition, either to the nominee or to ensure that the senator gets answers from a federal agency. i've done this in the past, as have many of my colleagues on poet sides -- both sides of the aisle. that is not the approach the senator from alabama has taken. instead, he is blocking every single top military leader from advancing indefinitely. the last time i came to the floor, he was hold be up 184 nominees. now he has snared 221 top-level servicemembers who are currently

slated for advancement. he has stopped every one of them, dead in their tracks. the senator from alabama is single-handedly holding up three four-star commanders, 35 three-star commanders, multiple silver star and purple heart recipients. the next commander of our fifth fleet in the middle east, the next commander of the seventh fleet in the pacific, the navy's air and surface warfare commanders, and as a preview of coming events the senator from alabama has already promised to block the next claireman of the -- chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. the senator from alabama has already held some of these nominees for as long as three months. that's three months that they won't have time in their next role. that's three months that they won't get a pay bump, and

there's no retroactive pay here. that's three months that they don't get the experience and the responsibility of their new duty stations. that's three months, and there is no end in sight. how many blows to their military careers and to their families do these men and women have to suffer before some of them simply walk away? this isn't right. the senator from alabama has not raised any objections to the process by which these men and women were vetted and nominated. each of these nominees has undergone a thorough review, first by their military service and then the joint chiefs of staff and the obviously of the secretary of defense. months after that review, their nomination is sent to the white house for additional scrutiny, and then to congress to

officially authorize the promotion. these are our military's best leaders. they have proven themselves to the highest degree. and as a reward for their service and their exemplary dedication, the senator from alabama holds them hostage, with no concern for what it means to their careers, the servicemembers depending on them for leadership, or their families. the senator from alabama's actions are not just the usual back and forth in washington. his holds pose a grave threat to our national security and our military readiness. they actively hurt our ability to respond quickly to threats around the world. that is not my conclusion. that is the conclusion of the secretary of defense. when i tried to move these nominations forward the last

time, i said i was concerned about how the actions of the senator from alabama were undermining military readiness. the senator responded that he knew that i had september a letter to secretary austin, to ask him about the impact of the holds on military readiness, but that the secretary had not yet responded. the senator said, the last time we were on the floor here together, that he would consider secretary austin's concerns. in fact, he said, and i quote, that he can't wait to read it. but he would not budge in the meantime. so i'm here this evening to place into the record secretary austin's reply. in his letter, the secretary makes his concerns clear. he explains how the actions of the senator from alabama pose a grave threat to national

security by harming military readiness. the secretary also explains how the senator from alabama harms military families. i sincerely hope that the unvarnished assessment of our secretary of defense will be enough to move the senator from alabama to live his hold and let these nominations go forward. here is secretary austin's letter in full, which i ask to have it placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you. i am here today to ask my colleague from alabama to let these promotions move forward and to find other ways to continue advocating for the policy changes that he wants to see. i am hopeful that he will do the write thing and allow these servicemembers to carry out their responsibilities to our

country. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 204. this nominee is a native of pittsfield, massachusetts. if confirmed, he would be the navy's next subboss, making him the most senior operational submariner in the navy. the submarine force is integral to deterring our enemies and keeping america safe. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 204, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or don't, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the

record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. tuberville: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: reserving the right to object. i continue to reiterate my stance and my position over the last almost four months now. about my opposition to this policy. now, the burden is not on me to pass legislation to stop this illegal policy. the burden is on the administration. the burden is on the administration to stop breaking the law. and so let me just say this one more time, because i keep getting asked the same question over and over again. i will keep my hold. i will keep it on until the pentagon follows the law or changes the law. it's that simple. those are the two conditions that would get me to drop the hold. so until these conditions are met, i object.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, let's be clear what is at issue here. servicemembers and their families don't get to decide where they serve. the policy that is at issue here allows servicemembers who need reproductive health care to request time to travel to receive the treatment that they need. the treatment could be an abortion, but it also could be ivf. it also could be helping a servicemember or a family receive -- or a family member receive treatment after a miscarriage. commanders respect servicemembers' privacy, and they don't want to be required to ask why the servicemember is taking leave. now, i understand that the senator from alabama doesn't like that. he doesn't think that the department should be

facilitating certain types of reproductive health care in any way. the administration, let us be clear, is not breaking the law. chairman reed has already gone through all of the legal precedent and the legal opinion that states what the department of defense is doing is absolutely within its purview. the department of defense is following the law. i understand that the law could be changed, and the senator from alabama can advocate for the bill that he cosponsors, that would ban the department from providing paid leave or transportation to access legal reproductive care. now, i think that such a policy would have terrible impact for the privacy of our servicemembers and their families, who would have to tell

their commanding officers intimate details of their medical situation in order to get the time they need to seek care for things like ivf or a miscarriage. it could prevent servicemembers or their families from accessing important legal care that would require them to travel or take time away from work. it would also have negative impacts on our commanding officers, who would spend less time training against our national security threats and more time asking invasive questions about their employees' health conditions or those of the employees' families. even so, the senator from alabama is free to advocate for this policy. as i've said before, the senator does not have the votes in congress for a bill like that. i think the senator from alabama knows that, which is why he has

taken this radical step of opposing swift passage of every high-level military nomination pending before the senate. this approach is dangerous. many of us are frustrated by executive branch policies and actions, but that frustration is not an excuse to endanger our national security and deprive servicemembers of the leaders they need. the senator from alabama and i fundamentally disagree on the issue of abortion and on dod's policies. but we should all be able to agree that a blockade of the promotion of every single member of our nation's military creates unacceptable risks to our national security. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 192. if confirmed, this nominee would

be the first female superintendent for the naval academy. of course, she is no stranger to breaking down barriers. she was also the first hispanic woman to command a navy warship. we are in the middle of a recruiting crisis. she is precisery the -- precisely the kind of leader we need to inspire our next generation to serve. i'd like to yield to the senator from rhode island, and then i will make my motion. mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i just want to reiterate what andersen warren -- senator warren pointed out. this policy is not illegal. it has been fully justified by the department of justice, by interpretations of the many different agencies. in fact, one of the ironies here

is senator tuberville is denying promotions to general officers because he will not allow female members of the military forces to have some of the same protections federal prisoners have. if that's not absurd, i don't know what is. also, i've had the opportunity, really the privilege, to serve and command paratroop company. i have a lot of friends who made careers in the united states military. you get to the level of a colonel, about to be voted brigadier general, it's a great honor. you worked your whole life for it. you very much want to do that. but you have family responsibilities, you have other responsibilities. and i can pretty much assure you, most people who are qualified to be brigadier generals in the army are being courted assiduously by companies to work for several hundred thousand dollars a year.

the longer this goes on, the more the demands of family, the more the uncertainty, the more the frustration, we will lose these talented people, at a moment in our history where we need the leadership to assist our allies and also to confront a very serious threat across the indo-pacific at a time when the practice of warfare is changing, second by second, with technology. when you have the proponents of a.i. warning us this week that a.i. could be a catastrophic destruction of our species, well, guess where that's going to be first manifested -- in a military i did mention, i believe. and that required leaders of character, intelligence, and

compassion, dedication to democracy, and those leaders now are questioning whether they can continue because of an attempt to suggest that this is not legal, which is wrong. ironically, again, to take away federal support for women who serve in the military of the united states that we extend to federal prisoners, and i yield back. ms. warren: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts is recognized. ms. warren: that the department of defense is not breaking the law. there is legal precedence for what the department is doing and the -- has been reviewed by the department of justice. that the department of defense is fully in accord with current law. and with that, i would like to

go back to the nominee who would be the first female superintendent of the naval academy, mr. president, i renew my request with respect to calendar number 192. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lee: . mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: reserving the right to object. we heard talk about clear legal authority, fair legal precedent. i wasn't here when the senator from rhode island was providing that, but it's my understanding that there are judicial precedence for this. one of the cases he cited is from 1981. significantly, that's a full three years before 10u.s.c.1093 was enacted into law. that was enacted into law as part of the defense authorization act for fiscal

year 1985. it was voted on by, among others, then-senator joe biden. he voted for it. so whatever 1981 case you're citing, i don't know, but i'm sure it didn't involve 10 u.s.c.1093 because it didn't exist. i'm certain that whatever personnel in the department of justice that blessed this, whatever lawyers that blessed this are part of the biden administration ultimately are serving at the pleasure of the president. i wouldn't expect that they would come back with an answer he didn't want because he and his administration have made it this is an all government approach to make it better in the wake of dobbs. so i find it impossible to believe that any court could have addressed this particular issue, setting aside whether that 1981 judicial precedent that he cited that i haven't

seen is the only one. let's assume that there were others. if there were others, there couldn't have been others even if they were decided after this was enacted into law a in 1984 as part of the defense act for 1985, because this policy didn't exist. it didn't exist until a couple of months ago. it couldn't have come up. courts don't answer these in the abstract. the courts are empowered to answer cases in controversy, article 3 means that you've got to have standing. to have standing you have to have an injury fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant that is subject to being remedied by the court. until a couple of months ago, this did not exist. they could not have addressed this. i'm not sure what authorities the department of justice

officials to whom my colleagues are referring were relying on, but it's not the right controversy that could have been capablably adjudicated. this is full of ironies, the fact that the same president who voted to support u.s.c., section 1093, makes -- it makes clear that we don't want department of defense funding to go for abortions. they rely on the argument that is reminiscent of pinocchio in the movie shrek3, pinocchio gets away with all kinds of things by speaking in ale form of legalese that would make any lawyer blurb. it confuses people. that is sort of what they're doing here. look, if you want to make the argument that this is legal, first of all i don't agree with

it. this violates at least the spirit if not also the letter of the law, even to the extent it is compliant to the letter of the law to point out that i'm not willing to concede because this is in fact funding the process to get abortions, this is funding the endeavor of an abortion, this is one of the things that unites americans of different political backgrounds, of different party affiliations, regardless of how you feel about abortion, and under what circumstances it should or shouldn't be legal. americans are overwhelmingly united behind the concept that we shouldn't use u.s. taxpayer dollars, thus forcing the american people at the point of a gun, ultimately when you pay taxes, you are paying at the point of a gun because if you don't pay taxes, a person with a gun will make you show up to pay. we find that is wrong regardless of how any individual feels about abortion themselves.

but this comparison is too cute by half. the best i can say of it is so analogize it this way. if you want to park in that handicapped spot reserved for persons with disabilities, and you're annoyed it is there and you pack next to it, thus rendering it unusable space, that is the best i can analogize this to. to whatever extent you're complying the letter of the law, i don't concede you are because i don't think you are, you are messing with the underlying purpose of the bill. the point made by my colleague, a distinguished harvard law professor herself. that this is lawful because the department of justice said it is lawful. a department that have made some

mistakes. this is, in any event, a clear affront to the men and women who elected each of us. these laws are policy changers. yes, they saw the need for a policy change in 1984 when they adopted the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1985. they understood that to put that in place, they couldn't just rely on department of defense policy. they needed to put it in statute so they enacted a statute to do that. this flies in the face of that, if you're encouraging and facilitating the abortions. don't think of this as an even-handed approach, one that aims broadly to facilitate reproductive care, no, the american people are not stupid. they cannot be fooled. we certainly must not be here. this is about dobbs, this is about their disagreement, their fundamental rejection of dobbs, this is about their fundamental

disagreement at the notion that the u.s. constitution doesn't give this authority of abortion to unelected judges who sit across the street in the supreme court of the united states and it was never a constitutional principle to begin with. the constitution doesn't address it. they disagree with it. i get it. it is their disagreement that prompted this policy. they have been clear about that. at the end of the day, this is a policy change. policy changes need to be made by congress, sphol changes that involve a departure from the policy in statute in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1985 which is legally binding and in effect to this very moment. if they want to get that changed, it is not incumbent upon those who oppose this policy to get the statute changed. it's those who want the policy to go into effect. i return to my long of-usesed

refrain -- long-used refrain, if secretary austin wants to change policy, he ought to run for the senate, he can't set the policy from the e-ring of the pentagon. as to the points of military readiness. look, i don't think there's anyone more concerned about military readiness nan my colleague from bam -- readiness than my colleague from alabama. he sits on the committee, he performs his oversight responsibilities very faithfully. nobody is more concerned about military readiness than senator tommy tuberville. no one. but to whatever extent this impings upon military read -- impinges upon military readiness, where he has concerns about this and raising objections, that door swings both ways, if anything it kurtz stronger in the other -- it cuts stronger in the other direction. we should allow congress to decide this in connection with the national defense

authorization act for fiscal year 2024, we we -- we will turn to in the coming weeks and months, in the meantime set aside this policy, this policy that is a departure, a clear violation of at least the spirit if not the letter of the law and let that be decided. if this interferes with military readiness, let's put this down and not allow american national security to be impaired by that. now, i don't believe we're in that position. i believe that while it's ideal for us to be able to move these nominees forward and get them moved, it's also very legitimate for a united states senator to identify a problem, a simple problem arising out of the fact that the department of defense has got a couple of things that it wants to get done. it wants to get these people confirmed so that they can be promoted and it also wants to put in place a policy. it wants to do both at the same

time. senator tuberville won't, in fact, senator tuberville can't, physically, under the rules of the united states senate, he cannot, he is physically unable to stop them from confirming these people. there are ways to go about it, it's just time consuming to do it without sis consent. they want a shortcut and they're asking for him to do them a favor, a favor that is unresip ri indicated, not -- unreciprocated, a favor they would not give him if he took this unfortunate step. he did that i think in december. knowing that, they incurred this risk, to whatever degree they're right that this impacts military readiness at the expense of america's national security. this is on him. he knew it would have this effect, he wants to force senator tuberville, to shame him into doing him a favor by expediting this process so the senate won't have to go through

the additional steps that the senate will have to go through to get these people confirmed without senator tuberville relink wishing it -- relinquishing it. you can't legislate from the e-ring of the pentagon. he is thwarting and disrespecting this institution and the sacred laws of our country passed with really good reasons in order for him to promote his own woke policy agenda. shame on him for doing that. i object, mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reed: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: first, anyone who suggests that the secretary of defense does not have a role, in fact, a responsibility to shape policy at the department of defense, it's nonsense and i would suspect that the person has never served in the military forces of the united states. this is a policy that the secretary of defense is not only

legally entitled but is, i think, compelled to clarify the position of the department of defense when it comes to this dobbs decision and its effect on the military. the gentleman from utah did not hear my opening remarks. i did not refer to judicial decisions, i was referring to opinions, valid opinions of the department of justice, section 1093, he cites, is the most significant provision of law. what it does, it prevents funding to perform abortions and restricts the use of the department of defense medical facilities to perform an abortion except when the life of the mother is in danger or in the case of rape or incest. i think my colleague the other day wouldn't even recognize that part of the law, but that is part of the law.

there is no discussion of other aspects, i.e., providing transportation, which i pointed out federal prisons provide transportation. these are policy decisions that were relegated to the secretary of defense. same types of decisions he has to make every day. what are the physical standards for the troops in the united states military? is that an act of congress? no. i don't think anyone here would reasonably argue that we are the experts and should decide that and we know better than the secretary of defense. a whole bevy of reasons. 1093 is the key statute and it prevents noncovered abortions from being conducted at military regulations by the department of defense. it has no comments in terms of

any other aspects. the department's policy is legal, as i pointed out. it's rooted in long-standing department of justice interpretation of both the hyde amendment and similar restrictions. the department of defense general counsel requested the justice department on the policy last fall because they wanted to be sure they were right before they went ahead and they issued a lengthy opinion which is part of the record. and they concluded that 10 united states code section 1093, which my colleague from utah refers to, does not -- to pay for servicemembers and their dependence to travel and obtain abortions that the department cannot fund directly because of section 10 3-9d 3. so this is not illegal. and what is contemptuous i think

of the senate is not this debate over this policy. sit's ignoring years and years and years of respecting the promotion of military offices by the department of defense based on merit, based on their abilities, not their politics, and for the first time using military officers as political tokens in a political game of trying to change things that they don't like, even though these policies are absolutely legal, have been confirmed by the department of justice, and provided, i think, benefits that, as i pointed out, that in transportation we provide to federal prisoners. i would hate to see our soldiers, our female soldiers,

particularly, treated any less appropriately than federal prisoners. so this argument is a lot of, you know, storm and drung i think is the german pronunciation of it. the policy is -- another simple minded point, if it's not legal, why hasn't it been challenged in court? because it's legal. now, you could disagree with the policy. and many of my colleagues do. in fact, many of our colleagues have submitted legislation. and that legislation will be considered at some point. but no one has risen to the point of invoking this block on military people. it affects the military. it affects families. it affects our readiness. it affects our recruitment. if people look far enough down

the road. and every day it is still held, it does more and more damage. it's cumulative effect. and i am very, very strongly objecting to the continued really decapitation of our military. let's carry this forward for six months a year. we don't have a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. i think we will because i think the majority of my colleagues understand how important it is to have that. but it won't be done in an efficient coordinated way. it will be objected to. it will be argued about. commandant of the marine corps. no, got to put this gentleman, general smith, through the wringer. the secretary -- excuse me, the

chief of staff of the army, same way. we are in a situation we're in tremendous pressure globally assisting the ukrainians in their battle, protecting a new peer competition with china, trying to assimilate the technology that is changing the battlefield every second literally. and now we're spending time arguing about what is within the willing authority -- legal authority of the secretary of defense and doing it by taking military officers and making them political tokens that you're trying to trade for something. i personally resent such treatment of professional officers in our military.

ms. warren: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, the senator from alabama earlier claimed that the department of defense' policy violates the law. the senator from utah then made a slight shift in how he described his complaint with the department of defense policy. he said it violates the spirit if not the letter of the law. and therein lies the difference. the law that we're talking about here is the hyde amendment. and that is a congressional prohibition on the federal government paying for abortions. let's be clear about the department of defense policy. servicemembers remain personally responsible for bearing the medical costs of abortion. just like they did before the dodds opinion. just like they did the year before that and the year before that and the year before that all the way back to when the hyde amendment was passed.

instead of dod policy does is clarify that servicemembers who need to travel out of state to access any kind of reproductive health care that is not available where they are stationed can request the time off to go get that care for themselves or a family member. that's it. that's what people in the peace corps can do. that's what people in federal prisons can do, and that's what our servicemembers can do. that's not a violation of the explicit language in the hyde amendment. and to stand up and claim that somehow with the department of defense -- what the department of defense has done is violate the law is simply not to read the law. the law is clear. and the department of defense continues to follow it. but there are real consequences to this argument. i understand that there are members of the republican party,

members of the senate who would like to change that policy. they would like the department of defense to follow a different policy. they can try to change the law. they can introduce an amendment. in fact, they already have introduced an amendment. but in the meantime, they cannot hold hostage the promotions of our top military leaders. this jeopardizes our national defense. secretary austin's letter that i earlier entered into the record goes into great detail about how these holds that the senator from alabama has put on our top military leaders create mission vacancies that, quote, incur an unnecessary and unprecedented degree of risk at a moment when our adversaries may seek to test our resolve. he goes on to explain that the

holds undermine power projection abroad which, quote, diminishes our global standing as the strongest military in the world which is in large part based on our stable processes and orderly transitions, precisely what the senator from alabama is holding up. the risks are even greater in new dough mains of potential -- new domains of potential conflict, and secretary austin does not mince words on who benefits. who benefits? our secretary of defense identifies them. china, russia, iran, north korea, and isis. the leaders whose nominations currently stand in purgatory are responsible, according to secretary austin, for, quote, executing strategy, acquiring

new technologies, enhancing tactical effectiveness, conducting joint training, and strengthening global alliances. this isn't rhetoric. these are specific examples of u.s. national security interests that are endangered by these reckless holds. i understand that the senator from alabama may not be persuaded by secretary austin's letter, but we have to face reality here. while we argue over the appropriate -- over the fact that the republicans want to change current law under the hyde amendment, we are endangering -- endangering our national defense. we need to move forward on the nominations that have already been approved by the servicemembers, by the white house, by our own committee.

the senate armed services committee, we need a vote to that these people can move to their next posts and do their jobs. in a moment i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 199. if confirmed, this nominee would be deputy commander for air force materiel command which employs nearly 86,000 military and civilian airmen and manages a $71.3 billion budget. she is also a momma. she calls her kids the three musketeers and says they are the center of her universe. these holds are the hardest on military families who are trying to figure out how to sign up for new schools, trying to establish their lives in their next deployment. this nominee has already moved

17 times during her career. and she is now held by the senator from alabama, cannot move to her next deployment, cannot establish herself and three musketeers, get them settled in school, get her family in the place where they will be so that she can do her job for the american people. we need people with decades of logistics management experience, and we need to treat them with some respect. mr. president, i renew my request with respect to calendar number 199. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: i rise today to support my friend and colleague senator tommy tuberville as he continues to do the right thing, to do justice, as he continues the fight against the radical pro abortion policies put in place by the defense department

earlier this year. mr. marshall: i remind everybody, this is a fight the department of defense picked. we didn't pick this fight. they picked this fight. they're the ones that decided to change their policies to break the law. this february 16 policy provides military personnel three weeks of paid leave and uses taxpayer dollars for travel expenses incurred while seeking an abortion. a clear violation of the hyde amendment. the policy is illegal. it violates federal law prohibiting funds to the dod from being used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother is endangered, rape, or incest. this policy takes the number of the department of defense abortions from less than 20 per year to an estimated 4,500 abortions. the policy also describes abortion as reproductive health care. and i think that's the true issue here. as an obstetrician, i'm often

asked two questions. when does life begin and what was the favorite part of a pregnancy for me. i want to talk about the pregnancy for a second. i took care of hundreds, maybe thousands of infertile couples and certainly that first time when they had a pregnancy test was positive was a great moment for me to share with them. four weeks after conception, we could see a baby's heart beat on the ultrasound, another spectacular moment for every couple to see that little baby's heart beat at four weeks after conception. at 12 weeks we could hear the baby's heart beat on a doppler, and it was one of the favorite moments for that mom and dad to hear that baby's heart beat as well, especially those women that had recurrent miscarriages, those are the ones who had lost life early repeatedly. and through miracles and medicines, they were able to

conceive and carry that pregnancy. they get through the first trimester, they hear the baby's heart beat, they're pretty much out of the woods. one of my favorite visits came at about 15 to 16 weeks after conception. and the mom would come into my office and i would ask her, how are you feeling. and the nausea and vomiting is now over with. and i'd ask her, are you feeling the baby move yet? and her eyes would light up. and she'd say yes, doctor, i can feel the baby move now. isn't that incredible? so i always loved that. and maybe the next visit, maybe at, you know, 18, 20 weeks along they'd come into the room and i would examine the mom and put my hands on her abdomen. i could feel the baby's head and the baby's buttocks and maybe the limbs and i would see the baby kind of start to move as i would kind of push on one spot. and maybe there was a little brother or sister in the room as well. and i'd listen to the heart beat

and the most -- and almost every time that brother or sister would screech out mommy, is that my baby brother or sister? this is at 18 weeks. and then what was miraculous of all is that little baby, the fetus, the unborn baby inside the mom, you could hear the heart beat increase in intensity and the rate recognizing its baby brother or sister's voice. the rest of the pregnancy, another six or eight visits, and they were all fun and special. i delivered a baby almost every day of my life, for 25 years. and every labor was different. it was touching. it was hard. it was easy. all those things. we had prolapsed cords, pla septembera's -- placentas separate, women seizing. i was blessed i never lost a mom. god blessed us and gave me the

skill to get them through that. some labors were short, some long. some lasted 30 minutes, some two days. sometimes they push for two minutes, sometimes a woman would push for three hours. but my favorite moment of every pregnancy was delivering the baby and watching it, rubbing it down, checking its pulse and heart rate, see is it breathing, making sure it was dry, and quietly praying to myself for this newborn baby, until i heard it start crying. the favorite moment was giving that newborn baby to that mom. and just watching her and observe her and just being able to watch that total nonjudgmental love of a mom for a newborn baby. i take it backwards from there and talk about when life begins. there are those people in this congress that, even after a baby

that would survive abortion, they think that that baby should not be treated and cared for. certainly, i believe life begins if the baby survives the abortion and is past the point of viability, we should do everything to help that baby out. you go backwards, viability probably 20, 21 weeks, 21 weeks probably today. does life begin at 21 weeks, if that baby was born outside the womb, would it survive, at 21 weeks it has a chance? i think most of us believe life begins by then. what about 18 weeks, when that baby recognizes its brother or sister's voice? or at 16 weeks, when mom can feel the baby move? or 12 weeks when we can hear the heartbeat? or six weeks when we can see the heartbeat? well, after years of study and doing this, i just -- my heart tells me life begins at

conception. no one has been able to prove me wrong. i think we have to assume life begins at conception. that's why it's so struggling for me to hear people call an abortion reproductive health care. reproductive health care, to me, means helping patients who can't conceive, helping moms to have a healthy pregnancy, you know, taking folic acid a year before they're trying to conceive, making sure they're doing everything to prevent spina bifida or anecephalic babies, getting sugar under control. that's what reproductive health care means to me, not taking the life of the baby. legal abortion as health care is a tactic used to promote the radical abortion agenda. this irreversible and unethical scheme politicizes our doctors'

offices and in almost all cases dot no -- does not improve women's health. i'm sorely disappointed in the military i served in, my dad, brother, uncle and great uncles, my dad, my mom's dad, my mom's uncle who died in world war ii. my son, who is now serving. i'm disappointed that the military turned its attention to resources to terminate life. i remind the department of defense they exist to protect the citizens of this great nation, not to push a radical abortion agenda, that they took an oat to the -- an oath to the constitution to defend this country. why are they picking this fight to end the lives of unborn babies. it's morally wrong. it's illegal. and the pentagon needs to be held accountable. the biden administration has created the most politicized pentagon in history, destroying their own morality, destroying

recruiting, destroying the readiness of our military. unelected bureaucrats cannot ignore congress and change the law with a memo. the policies outside of the department of defense's mission to uphold and fight for life, not destroy it. i'm honored to stand up here and support my colleague, senator tuberville, to fight back against this outrageous abortion policy. both in the name of protecting life, ensuring our military uses resources to protect our homeland and our interests abroad. the policy is wrong. the dod's policy is wrong. until the military gets back to providing for the common defense, out of the business of providing abortions, i'm proud to stand with senator tuberville. miss president, therefore, inter. and i yield back. -- therefore i object and i yield back. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. ms. warren: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts.

ms. warren: madam president, the department of defense has adopted a health care policy that is both legal and necessary to protect the readiness of our forces. it also protects our national defense. these policies were also reviewed by the department of justice. the prohibition to which my colleagues refer is the prohibition in the hyde amendment of using federal dollars to pay for abortions. let me say this as clearly as i can -- under the department of defense's policy, servicemembers remain personally responsible for bearing the medical cost of abortion. that is true today. it is true last week. it was true the day after the dod opinion, it was true before the dod opinion. for years, that has been the policy. what has changed is that the dod

has clarified that servicemembers, who need to travel out of state to access any kind of reproductive health care that is not available where they are stationed, and what kind of health care might not be available? it might be abortion care. it might be ivf. it might be care for someone who has suffered a miscarriage. that any person who has suffered that personally or someone in their family in your basic rights.

i appreciate that my colleagues have strong views on abortion. so do i. we're not going to agree on that. but all of us should be able to agree that we should not take steps that harm the people who volunteer to serve in our military. that if they need care that they cannot get in the state where they are, they should have an opportunity to go somewhere else. that's it. there is no prohibition in law. there is no hyde amendment violation here. instead, what we've got is wholesale holding up the nominations of more than 200 of our top military leaders who cannot advance to the posts that they have been thoroughly vetted and are ready to be promoted into. cannot advance to their duty stations. cannot settle their families in their next assignments.

cannot receive the increase in their pay that they are entitled to. so, in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 90. this is the person who would be america's military representative to the north atlantic treaty organization, but is currently being held up by the senator from alabama. i'll be asking for the senate to confirm calendar number 94, collectively these are 37 nominees who have served in the army for nearly a thousand years. i'll be asking for the senate to confirm calendar number 84. this nominee would command the fifth fleet, which operates in the middle east. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 49. this is the man who was the cheaf of staff for operation -- the chief of staff for operation warp speed. one of the greatest achievements of the trump administration to rapidly develop, test, and

distribute life-saving covid vaccines. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 82. these 27 air force nominees have collectively served their country for over 600 years. one of them, in fact, is a nasa astronaut who received his master's degree from mit and commanded nasa's third longest-duration commercial crew mission. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 47. this nominee would be commanding general for the u.s. army space and missile defense command and u.s. army forces strategic command. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 97. collectively, these 16 nominees have served in the navy for more than 400 years. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 46. this nominee studied at the air

war college at maxwell air force base in alabama and currently serves as commander of the tenth medical group and command surgeon for the united states air force academy. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 83. this nominee studied at the squadron officers school at maxwell air force base in alabama, and she is now capable and ready to serve as the chief of staff for air mobility command at scott air force base in illinois. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 48. she would serve as deputy chief of staff for the army's g-4, which is responsible for the army strategy, policy plans, and programming for logistics and sustainman -- sustainment. i'll ask the senate to confirm calendar number 50. these two women's served in the army over 60 years collectively.

they deserve to be promoted. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 51. this man would serve as deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration for the air force. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 52. this nominee would be the military deputy and director for the army acquisition corps. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 86. collectively, these 11 nominees have over 275 years of service in the air force. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 87. these two nominees have served the air force for over 55 years. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 88. these ten nominees have served over 288 years. together they have nearly 20,000 flying hours of experience.

i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 89. this nominee is currently commanding the largest army i'll be asking the senate to confirm number 92. this for europe and eurasia, for the defense intelligence agency, helping to make sure ukraine and our allies in europe have the critical national security information they need so that they can compete on the battlefield. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 93. this nominee is currently the deputy commander for support providing security assistance to

ukraine. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar numb 95. collectively, these eight nominees have served in the marine corps for over 200 years. they deserve their promotions. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 96. these nominees have served in the navy for over 55 years. both are currently serving in the bureau of medicine and surgery, making them responsible for the health and safety of our sailors, marines, and their families. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 98. collectively, these two nominees have served in the ihenacho for 55 years. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 99. these two have collectively served in the navy for over 60 years. managing major weapons systems programs. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 100.

this nominee is currently serving as the director of health and training at the defense health agency, and he is recognized as a diplomat of the american board of general dentistry. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 101. this nominee will be the commander of naval supply systems command, which makes sure that the navy has everything they need all around the world. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 102, these 13 nominees collectively served in the navy for over 400 years. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 103. this nominee is currently serving as the executive assistant for the director of the defense intelligence agency. we need people like this. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 1 oh, 4. these two -- 104.

these nominees have collectively served the navy for over 55, one serving for information warfare commander. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 105. these four nominees have collectively served the navy for over 100 years. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 1806, these two nominees -- 106, these two nominees have served the air force for over 65 years. one nominee earned her nursing degree at boston college and earned to become the chief nurse of the entire air force. i'll ask the senate to confirm calendar number 107, currently serving as the commanding general for marine corps forces of command. i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 110, collectively these 23 nominees have over 620 years of service

to the air force. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 111. this nominee would be the deputy commandant for aviation for the marine corps who advises the marine corps top officer on all aviation matters. i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 10 -- this is the only operational nato command in north america responsible for the north atlantic and the artic. we need capable leaders like this. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 203. this pilot has flown more than 3,000 hours in the f-16 and the f-35. we need capable people like this. in a moment, i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 202. this nominee would be the director of the naval nuclear

propulsion program. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 201. this nominee is an experienced information warfare officer. we need him in his post. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 200. this nominee is someone you can count on in a crisis, a native of san juan, he was there to help his fellow puerto ricans after the earthquakes forced 7,500 people to leave their homes, he has stepped up for people who need him. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 1998. this nominee would be the commander of air combat command, which is the primary provider of air combat forces to u.s. war-fighting commands all around the world. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 197. this nominee would be the deputy chief of naval operations for

warfare -- war fighting requirements and capabilities. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 196. it would be the deputy commander for u.s. central command. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 195. he's logged more than 500 carrier-assisted landings and 2,800 flight hours in tactical aircraft. we need him. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 194. this nominee from falmouth, massachusetts, if confirmed will be the deputy commander of the u.s. fleet forces command which is responsible for training and providing combat ready navy forces wherever combatant commanders need them and we need him. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 193. this nominee would be the

commander for naval surface forces and commander naval surface forces u.s. naif fleet where he will make sure the navy has every capability we need for a force that is balanced, affordable and resilient. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 191. this nominee would be the commanding general for the marine expedition ri force and u.s. -- u.s. marine corps forces japan. i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 190. this nominee would be the deputy commander general for fiewrtsd p and concepts at army future command. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 188. this nominee would be commander of pacific air forces, which integrates airspace and cyberspace to keep the indo-pacific open and free. he has flown more than 5,000

flight hours and served as commander for u.s. forces in jeacht. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 189. as a leader, she sees that our power as a nation comes from our world strength and standing up for what we know is right. this nominee would be pacific air force deputy commander making her the nominee for the nominee i just spoke about. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 187. if confirmed, this nominee would be deputy commander of u.s. forces korea and the commander of the seventh air force. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 186. this nominee would be deputy chief of staff for air force's future, which charged with representing the voice of tomorrow's airmen to be ready to defeat any future threats and capabilities our enemies wield. we need this person.

i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 185. if confirmed, this nominee would be military deputy to the assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition technology and logistics, making him the primary military advisor for everything the air force buys to keep us safe. -- safe. i will ask the senate to confirm calendar number 184. this nominee took his first flight at two weeks old and became a command pilot with more than 2,500 flying hours. i will ask the senate to confirm calendar numbers 128 and 183, this nominee will be the next navy surgeon, making him -- i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 181, during his service he has accumulated over

5,000 flight hours an over 1,100 carrier assisted landing. he was a top gun instructor and later the commander is war fighting investment. he is entitled to his promotion. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 180, this nominee is also a top gun graduate, completing eight carrier deployments in the western pacific north atlantic mediterranean and north arabian sea. i'll be asking the senate to confirm calendar number 112. he would be the director of the defense contract management agency which manages 225,000 contracts valued at more than $3.5 trillion at 15,000 contractor locations worldwide.

i don't know what to say except that we have more than 200 people here who have dedicated their lives to the united states. they have volunteered for military service, they are all career, they are in it all the way. they are capable, they are talented. they serve our country and right now they have become the political football for the senator from alabama, and that is wrong. these people deserve their promotions. they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for the work that they have put in for our nation. it is the least that we can do for them, that we can do for their families, and that we can do for the national security of the united states of america. we need these people. we don't need to tell them that we don't care about them. we need them. we need to retain them. we need to promote them.

we need to use their talents. madam president, i renew my request with respect to each of the calendar numbers that i have identified. the presiding officer: is there objection? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: reserving the right to object. my position continues to be either follow the law or change the law. for that reason, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the presiding officer: does the senator from massachusetts yield? ms. warren: i will yield to the senator from utah. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i want to be clear about a couple of things. this is the law. it is not about the hyde amendment, there is the hyde

amendment. the military has its own statutory, it is 10, u.s.c., 1093, adopted as part of the defense authorization act for fiscal year 1985. it's been the law ever since then. you can't use pentagon money for this purpose, nor can you use pentagon facilities for this purpose. saying that you're not doing that, even though you're paying people, giving them three weeks of paid leave time and paying all their travel expenses and their per deyes, ma'am in order to do -- diam in order to do this, that is openly flouting the spirit of the law. i will -- use an analogy, you go to a parking space, it is a handicapped space, you don't have the disability symbol on your car, but you park next to it so close to the line that you

render that spot unusable for anyone with disabilities who would have access to it. you're doing it in an deliberate attempt to cause the same harms that that particular law was designed to prevent. now, this is a policy choice and it's a policy choice that congress took away from the department of defense, deliberately took out of the hands of the secretary of defense. he's seized that back. senator tuberville saw that coming back in september. he told secretary austin in no uncertain terms, you should not do this, this would be in violation of the law and if you do this, there will be problems, and i will no longer cooperate with you if you seek unanimous consent to facility the confirmation -- facilitate the confirmation of the flag officer promotions, he made it clear. secretary austin made made his choice when he took this non.

he has the you a -- he took this on. now he has the audacity, i got what i wanted, i'm openly flouting the law, it's spirited, if not also the letter and i want you to cooperate with me senator tuberville because that is more convenient for me. that's not fair. that's not lawful, it's not legal. it's not kosher, it's not school. look -- cool. look, the fact is, we could end it now. i can't speak for senator tuberville, but i have a suspicion, he would let you get every one of these men and women confirmed this moment -- at this moment if you take this off the table, but secretary austin took this hostage. took all of these men and women hostage the moment he did this having been forewarned by senator tuberville. he can't come back having waived his right to do that to come

back and demand that are senator tuberville be shamed into cooperating, into facilitating this. the other point is they can get these people confirmed even without the compromise which you could make tonight, you put this thing off the table, you stop trying to achieve this through extortion, he'll let them go right now. i'm 99.99% sure of that that and that's -- sure of that. and that's pretty confident. even if you're not willing to do that, you can get them confirmed, you don't want to do the hard work, it takes time without senator tuberville's full cooperation. if you really are are serious about -- really are serious about entered-strength readiness, that's what you would do. that's what someone would do if they were worried about end strength readiness. let's talk about that. end be strength readiness shouldn't be confused with flag officer promotions, that's not

where we see end and strength read read -- readiness. it doesn't make them not able to have their promotionings, but to say that it affects end strength readiness disregards what flag officers are doing and the capacity they hold. if any reason that would affect our end strength readiness nor am i aware of any compelling reason without this policy, this policy that openly flowts the law -- flouts the law, our military would suffer from a military end strength problem. that's absurd. in any event, it violates the law. it's the wrong branch of government, he doesn't have this power, he was forewarned and he did the wrong thing anyway. we don't reward bad behavior that way or unlawful behavior. thank you, madam president.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, madam president. madam president, the senator from utah and the senator from alabama have repeatedly said that the department of defense is somehow violating the law. let's pull the statute out and just take a look at it. i want to read the words into the record. under part a, restriction on use of funds. funds available to the department of defense may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, period. that's it. it does not say that funds from the department of defense may not be used for travel. it does not say that people may

not have time off. it does not say that people may be allowed to travel out of state. it has exactly one thing, that it prohibits federal funds from being used. and that is may not be used to perform abortions. let me say again as clearly as i know how. the department of defense's rule clearly states that the servicemember will pay for her own medical services. it will not be the case that the department of defense will pay for abortions. if the senator from utah wants to change that law, he certainly can introduce an amendment to do that. the same for the senator from alabama. but right now the department of defense is following the law in the united states.

the senator from alabama's actions pose a grave threat to our national security and readiness. that is not just my view. it is the view of the secretary of defense and the former secretaries of defense serving in both democratic and republican administrations. if the senator from alabama stays on this path, his actions will soon endanger the nomination of the next chairman of the joint chiefs, an action we have never seen in the history of our nation. we have 221 good people who have earned their promotions, who are ready to go to their next duty stations and serve their nation. they are being treated with disrespect and this action is

undermining our national defense. i urge the senator from alabama to release his holds immediately and allow these senior military officers to receive the promotions that they have earned. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: with great respect to my friend and colleague from massachusetts, the pentagon itself acknowledged that while military abortions been counted i'm thinking the range of 20 or 30 per year in the past. this policy which funds abortion, it just does, that number would increase to about 4400, maybe 4500 a year. the causessation and the number was estimated by the pentagon itself based on subsidy. this is a subsidy for abortion. they are in fact subsidizing abortion. the fact they engineered the way

they think gets them around the technicalities of the law which mean very little to us as policymakers, lawmakers that their -- owe they're openly flouting the law. they're going through this trickery only because they don't like the law. they hate the fact that this became law. so they're trying to find a way to get around it. they are in fact funding abortion. that is what you do when you pay somebody to travel. you give them three weeks of paid leave to do something. when you fund their per diem, you cover everything for that. you are funding abortion. if the only argument you're left with is we're not paying for the actual surgery itself. we've just paying for everything around it, when the value attached to the travel, to the per diem, to the paid leave time is a significant expense, an expense that i suspect in many if not most instances would well outpace the cost of the medical procedure itself. they are in fact funding

abortion. that's what this does. it's done knowing, expecting, anticipating, and desiring that this would increase the number of abortions performed in the military every year to a significant degree. that's what they're doing and it's wrong. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

recognizing this is better than the possibility of facing default by next week's deadline. in the rules committee the legislation ultimately sending it to the floor of rifle votes. that vote was seven -- six. very interesting note to conservatives voted with liberals to block the advancement of the rule i was stricken roy and ralph norman to critics of the bell but nonetheless that backlash did not block it and see a full vote

in the house today. press the third to watch was thomas massie yesterday. he committed what is this perspective going forward? rex thomas massie folder number people before the rules committee meeting there a lot of questions when he opposed a bowl and block the bill from coming to the floor? as the rules committee works the majority of rules committee members, 13 on the panel i'm sorry 13 on the panel decided not, it would not advance the cult floyd break but check right and ralph norman were strong currents of the bill. if they revolted against the party that blocked the role. but in the rules debates, massie said he would vote for the has g treatment and there's a provision in their hand champion appropriation bills as part of the annual fiscal year spending appropriation process. if that does not happen all 12 bills are not passed by

january 1 the annual spending will be cut by 1%. this is something massie had champion was an applicant about for the rule. east end reporters and lawmakers even more after that. telling reporters and his conference in a closed-door meeting he's going to vote for the bill today comes the floor. he called my colleague this is because the first piece of legislation vote on that will actually cut spending at the end of the day. thomas massie with a lot of folks yesterday. >> tells what to expect today. especially the first to debate the rules and the actual vote itself. what are we expecting hear from the various factions on the republican side? that's a lot of action. first up we will see a vote on the rule. and then after that becomes a general debate on the piece of legislation. it's very possible and likely rather it will hearing a lot of grumblings from conservatives again who don't think spending accounts were aggressive and effort will likely hear liberals

think there are too much in this legislation particularly airing concerns about the work requirements. the spending caps. think we look for more moderate members who again are recognizing this belt may not be everything we wanted. note site is coming out happy and thrilled. as a compromise stuck between the two compromise of the party it's better than default. their sweeteners in the deal for both democrats and republican. we will be hearing the same arguments. the vote is not expected on final passage not until around 8:30 p.m. tonight for two reasons. and by the 70 hour rule that required once the bill text was posted lawmakers the 72 hours to review before voting. this was a concession at mccarthy had made to conservatives back in january. during the drawn out speaker's race. the bill text was released sunday at 7:00 p.m. meeting the vote cannot happen until at least 7:30 tonight for another

reason is will see this vote once the market closed. if something were to happen and the vote would take that route markets right away. >> a number to get there. especially where they come the republicans or democrats talk about those numbers for question two thresholds he's hit today. there's a threshold of actually passing this belt wishing to simple majority in the house. widely expected to include democrats and republicans again with this was a bill negotiated by biden. when has the white house a blessing. mccarthy is going to need to rally enough support. within both parties to see this cross the finish line. he also have to think about his future. during that drawn out speaker's race conservatives again forced mccarthy into the concession of agreeing to lower the motion to vacate the chair which is essentially focusing about taussig's figure from five members down to one. that is loomed over carty's speakership since with them having to appease conservatives

rozzi can face and vote and lose that gavel you work so hard to get back in january. since conservatives are warning if mccarthy does not get a majority of the majority of republicans on board for this legislation he can face a motion to affect to vacate. this is something matt gates open said yesterday. verse one of the conservative critics from january saying if mccarthy does not get the majority of the majority ultimately trigger a motion to vacate. mccarthy is on this act right now. you got to get the bill passed this guts have the future wielding the gavel. (202)748-8007 democrats to 748-8001 for republicans and independents (202)748-8002. unitech's (202)748-8003 as i do that. our facebook and twitter feed.

what are we expecting from leadership as far as telling and things like that both on the democrat and republican side? >> massive operation happens find the scenes on both ends of the aisle. negotiate by biden and mccarthy. leader jeffries, democratic leader jeffries yesterday and mccarthy and republicans have said they will deliver at least 106 votes of their conference. that's from two thirds of the republican conference but i will note mccarthy is not said this publicly. this is something jeffries has released reporters it is like late mccarthy's going to try to get that 150 vote threshold again we talk about the majority of majority. he's going to need a pretty high vote count for jeffries on the other hand if the democrats are not going to let the country default. so essentially meaning they would deliver as many votes as needed. but again this is going to be on mccarthy to first see how many votes he can get if he can protect the majority of the majority. but absolutely it left five

house republicans were at the capitol until around 10:00 p.m. a closed-door conference meeting lasted about two and half hours. during this meeting for leadership was selling the bill to rank and file members. we also heard from sources in the room other rank-and-file members were airing concerns with the bill, leadership alleys respecting support for it. you see that whipping operation happening in the capitol last night. it's likely going to continue throughout the day until bit the vote tonight to correct as far as messaging is concerned our boat suppression house? >> republicans are recognizing this is not everything we wanted. again conservatives saying the spending cuts are not as aggressive as we wanted to see. it is a water down version of the act passed last month. but it will avoid default there are some sweeteners in the deal. there are work requirements, there are spending caps for the due percentage of irs >> that was appropriated from the inflation reduction act passed last summer.

democrats again are saying this is not everything we wanted the president biden cut the best deal they could given the circumstances were given the hard negotiating tactics bite mccarthy and republicans. they also saw some quince the debt limit will be increase for two years. that means the next time we have to have this battle will be after the 2024 president-elect at seven democrats really wanted. there also some exemptions for work requirements for federal spending programs. federal aid presumes that that's another thing democrats are touting. both sites are recognizing it's not everything they wanted. but they do have some wins and at the end of the date better than faulting. boxers also questions was not included in the deal we can walk through a couple of those. it comes to college repayment tell exactly what this bill does for that. >> of this bill does it says essentially 60 days after this bill has passed i'm sorry exceed days after june 30th process on student loan repayment would end. this was a high priority of the

republicans president biden had said this also takes away from some proponents of positive student lobe papacy to have the opportunity to get another moratorium on those payments. that case is currently tied up in the courts and president biden had said he would end the pause on student loan repayment again 60 days after june 30 or wednesday supreme court this this but decide on the top button issue. it would take away the consideration of the supreme court that is something some democrats are not happy that activists are not happy about also. >> or was provision for clean energy center joe mentions name gets mentioned in the final package could you clarify that? >> some of the provisions in the house gop built some inflations in index inflation reduction act democrats pass on their own last summer a repeal of those were clear and house gop bill. compromise bill is not there as

you mentioned joe mentions name pop up in this conversation and this legislation. it's going to quicken the process for a pipeline process he is a champion for that is drawn fire from some lawmakers on capitol hill. they've been grumblings in the senate there may be an amendment considered him pain take that provision out of the bill but yes that's the nothingness of pop up in the bill he surprises me some of the bill text on sunday for. >> michael reports for congress for the hill is joining us to walk through what to expect later today for the votes. again you can watch it play out on c-span first culprit comes from harold. harold isn't washington d.c., democrats on your own i guess good morning. >> good morning for greetings to you and your gasper and really enjoyed listening to your show. three things i really see as an eyesore, what is with mccarthy invited meeting several weeks ago. there is a gentle agreement.

i think the leverage is at a high peak. because number one bill is not agreeable so far in terms of inflation. at the same token is going to make sure the whole country does not go tank under. my question is in with your guests when is this going to taper off? this government we have the united states is supposed to be strong government needs to focus on a lot of the taxpayers. isn't that true or what? exit is an interesting point interned when he talks about the taxpayers you talk about helping americans. some think democrats have touted. i spoke to congressman yesterday you do some progressive be frustrated with this bill.

something she pointed out in the legislation there is a carveout we talk about work requirements are some of the federal aid programs there is a carveout for homeless individuals for people just coming out of foster care. this is a proponent that is being touted by number of democrats from the legislation. so there is frustration with the student loan pause absolutely. but there are sweeteners in the deal for democrats. one of the things they're pointing to is the carveout and work requirements. the argument could be made as helping a number of taxpayers with getting them on the federal programs for. >> into on our dependent line run hello. >> caller: i negotiated for michigan education association for eight years. the thing that gets me is you have a biden who historically has a huge background in the political background and then you have mccarthy. both come up with an agreement.

those agreement should be held accountable the way they are afraid the politics that involved in this between democrats and republicans should be shoved in after this is approved for anything that is left over that needs to be argued should be argued for the following a one-year or two-year to get it into a bill. but to sit here and hold the people of the united states hostage and to destroy our reputation is unconscionable. it is something the republicans and democrats have to realize you're going to play the political game you are going to end up hanging your self at both ends of the scale. that is all i have to say i think start very well thank you. see what thank you. >> guest: in terms of that, there was an argument made from democrats sort of saying the economy was being held hostage by these demands from republican negotiators. but from the republican perspective we always do this

debt limit was going to be the next high-stakes battle on capitol hill it's really one of the only places where republicans have leverage. this is a must pass a piece of legislation for the debt limit has to be raised by the u.s. would fall into default much economists have a warrant would be cataclysmic for the u.s. economy. some republicans all this is a must pass a piece of legislation they could used to extract spending cuts. at the end of the day they did see a number of victories there and president biden got something he wanted the debt limit will be raised for two years but absolutely the idea of the economy was being held hostage or something heard from democrats day in and day out two. the end of the day republican stuck to their guns decided to use it negotiating tactic for those spending cuts. steward assuming they will pass today however is a senate doing this? >> number of republicans are threatening to hold up the

legislative process. leslie process under mike lee republican from utah saying he was not happy with the legislation this week he suggested he's not happy with it. here he gives every procedural tool at his disposal slowdown consideration of this bill and the center. they have suggested that hold up process could take six -- seven days will end up seeing if mike lee ends up going through with the threat. and of course if that were to happen it would bring us right up to june 5 deadline on monday that's when treasury secretary janet yelena said if the u.s. does not raise the bar it meant to be out of cash. will not be able to pay our load in the country's first ever default. if, like you said the legislation passes the house today which is expected to go to the santa barbara cannot yet provide a timeline we just do not know how conservatives are going to react to this in terms of the possibility of drawing of the process. back senate majority leader

schumer hewitt the legislation and the minority leader mitch mcconnell? what schumer started support behind the bills all pungent strong support invited. that was negotiated by biden blessed by the white house. support behind similarly mitch mcconnell is as well. he praised the deal struck when the sender and the speaker but he said he does not want to see in the delay tactics be used in the senate. mcconnell is an interesting figure in this saga. from the start he said the country will not default on its loans. number of lawmakers are wondering if mcconnell will jump into the negotiation. he has a history of negotiate with president invited biden was vice president on a number of budget deals. mcconnell and a number of occasions said this is a just be struck between the house and the white house. he threw his full support to speaker mccarthy now mccarthy has landed a deal he is endorsing it. he is called for a speedy consideration and passage of this bill back my tears kathy

and texas democrats line you are up next to low. >> caller: yes, i am on social security retirement. we are supposed to get paid on friday. are we going to get paid? the people on medicaid get paid on the first and the people going to get paid on social security. and government agencies are they going to get the money and time or are they going to send any money. >> mckay need to know i've got bills to pay i have got bills out of my checking account. and if i get overdrawn you know and everything. i just need to know are the people that supposed to be getting paid on the earth and

the third going to get paid? >> thank you for the question it's been a common question from many in the past couple of weeks concerning this process regrets absolute payments are going to continue as scheduled s because both negotiating and immigrants republicans agreed early on entitlement programs, social security, medicare and medicaid would not be touching this process. drama during the state of the unit we had an unusual back-and-forth between president biden and republicans had in real-time negotiation. president biden got the republicans to agree to take those inside of us, social security and medicare off the table both sides cap to that bout in those entitlement programs are not touched it all in this process that they are not included in the legislation. >> except for the fact if it passes the prioritization process and the treasury department as far social security payments to know that? website do do not know that's been spoken about yet firstly not entirely sure of that fact. megan secretary janet yelena said they could about mike

monday june 5 at the debt limit is not raise. lawmakers and said that's not going to happen and yell and has been upping the pressure on lawmakers but if we get close to that date it's likely that will be more of a priority in a conversation right now lawmakers are focused on getting this agreement they're finally able to strike after days, more than a week of negotiation across the finish line to avoid that situation. see what line this is mark from california. >> caller: hi sir and ma'am thank you for your clarity. i just have two questions. is there anything in this bill that might lower gas prices? and secondly i've been watching a lot of the hearings and i am still not clear. is the debt going to go up temporarily but then isn't going to go down in a couple years? can you provide clarity on that please? >> is late debt limit increase for two years which means that we have to wear but increase

limit until after i'm sorry january 1, 2025. that buys lawmakers more time to not have to go through this negotiation which is obviously a high level high-stakes negotiation years. it pushes that after the 2024 presidential election. a suspension of the debt limit. that janet first 2025 they met a debt that is been accrued from now until then will be calculated with the new debt limit is there this is a two-year suspension of the debt limit. stu let larry isn't west virginia independent line hello. >> caller: hello. the question i have and i've been democrat for over 50 years. i have chose to stay independent because of all the infighting going on in washington today. i believe somewhere along the line our social security is got

into the wrong hands. it basically put into the national debt. of all the years i've been paying and i worked over 50 years i just do not understand how you all or doing this or the government is doing this. all the infighting and both parties has drove me were i am independent now. i'm going to look for the best of the best not the worst, i thank you. thank you color. as far as we come until later today, the procedural things if he does in the middle of the boat delay or stop altogether? >> guest: yes but it's unlikely. mention yes to the rules committee against the rules before but will see a debate on the rule in a boat on the roper

customer currently they are very party like the majority party in this case the republicans about to advance the role. democrats or the minority party will vote against the rule. some republicans are threatening to vote against the rule they are very opposed this bill i spoke to connor's and bob good yesterday said there's a possibility he will vote against the role today that is a possibility of the bill being blocked because republicans only had a four seat majority. meaning if they lose five members the rule would be blocked but is widely expected in this case democrats would swoop in get the road to advance because again number of republican support this measure quincy number of republican vote for this measure. but again there is the january beth default deadline living. the republicans are not going to let me block like that. that is a possibility though it's unlikely. he went from oklahoma democrats line cal is next hello.

>> caller: good morning. calling in them which is something i rarely do. ssa a good word about my congressman who happens to be chairman of the rules committee. i was in our own legislature for nearly 30 years so i know him well. i was impressed with his patients and work yesterday. and he cast the deciding vote to send a proposal to the floor. the other thing i would like to say is finally adults were in the room on both sides republicans and democrats that showed the extremists where they need to be on this very important issue. i am proud of the congress. they have done what needed to be done under very difficult circumstances the president lead, mccarthy was reasonable this ought to pass later today, tonight.

only worry i have is some extremist in the senate will attempt to hold things up for several days. bottom line is it looks very good. i just wanted to say congratulations to my friend and congressman tom cole thank you for taking my call. tom cole, k job chairman of the rules committee more been obscure committee on capitol hill a really powerful because they set the parameters for debate on these rules. often called the speakers committee individuals were honor requests the speaker they can't understand what amendment to be on the floor and that that parameter. absolute tom cole cap paid he delivered a rule yesterday it could've been conservative conservative backlash which would have caused a lot of problems. also something interesting about the negotiators speaker mccarthy had been very -- mickey spoken very highly of the white house negotiator the director white house advisor steve, luisa

terrel she is in the office of legislative affairs but they spot spoke positively at the tree of this is big mccarthy went all along. he wanted to get to the room directly with the biden were able to appoint deputies to hash out the specifics on the republican side congressman graves and congressman tripp mchenry. these are high-stakes negotiation we did see republicans highly of this white house negotiators for. >> jeff and ohio republican line you are next up, five. >> hi. i'm kind of wondering, we spent over $2 trillion more the last couple years because of covid. that was the premise that was an emergency. and everybody understands that. but covid is god we know a lot of the covid money has been stolen. i do not understand why can't becky for trillion dollar budget

we had before? ask that something that republicans had been pushing for. they wanted to bring spending levels back to pre-pandemic best the democrats would not get on board with. ultimately that was not the decision made in those negotiations for the agreement. many talk about funding there's a covid provision in this bill. it's a clawback code 19 funding. member congress passed a bill that ended the covid 19 national emergency this is something republicans had wanted the clawback of unspent covid funds. who's the bill they passed last month democrats got on board with that. that brought an approximate $28 billion spent that will be clawed back. that was highlighted in a compromise something both sides agreed on. research on but many clarify exactly what will happen with the iris because of this bill. >> is going to be about one

point to billion i believe dollars will be immediately rescinded from the irs for that was the amount appropriated for this year during the inflation reduction act which passed last year by democrats. there's also going to be repurposed in $20 billion in funds that come to the irs. we went for money to go after the two did not pay their taxes and decrease the wage gap that was the interest of hiring these agents? >> that's what democrats passed last year end inflation reduction act of the irs enforcement to enforce those the many collecting records jon inman said independently hello. >> hi. the gentleman from ohio took my first point. [laughter] yes, this budget nothing happens to the $2 trillion of extra spending. i am offended at both republicans and democrats.

but the republicans but rolled. look at what you guys were talking about the irs agents. one point to billion is 2% of that. that is just ridiculous that's not a negotiated they got role. use what is the politicians that we have right now. thank you for your time it. >> that's a sentiment among some republican lawmakers. they pass this robust piece of legislation last month that would raise the debt limit will $.5 trillion through march of 2024 whichever came first. or financially dollars in spending cuts. the office of congressional budget office came out their estimate yesterday and this report $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. definitely a watered-down

version asked last month. is not going unnoticed disbursing cap criticisms from the conservatives they would pass the bill last month that was the floor that's close it would've gone. anything else approved tasking market aggressive than that. i miss in doing a negotiation between suit to sides not going to get more than your opening bid. make less training to meet the other side. these spending cuts in the agreement between biden and mccarthy are not as aggressive as the belt republicans had last month for. >> when he walked in for today and for the people to watch? next time going to as if the bill passes. but the ratio is between democratic and republican support that is first off. definitely look and see if mccarthy can locked out a majority of the majority. twenty mean a lot for the spieth lid that is conservative if he

doesn't about lawmakers and as these liberals and progressives. i will oppose the rule against the bill that vote against the republicans of the voting against mccarthy. in this unique and rare situation, any note but would vote against aggression party leadership. michael snow covers congress for the publication, think if you time to explain his force today. quorum call:

good morning everyone. we just finished a carcass meeting with white house negotiators and presenters. it was a very thoughtful,

comprehensive, clear eyed discussion about the moment that we are in. and of course about the importance of avoiding a catastrophic default. in that meeting i made clear that i going to support the legislation that is on the floor today. and i support it without hesitation, reservation or trepidation. not because it is perfect. but in divided government we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. president biden did an incredibly good job under difficult circumstances and protecting some key priorities and values for the well-being of the american people. this process has been one or the

extreme magnet republicans were determined to take the country down by their two directions. door number one dramatic draconian devastating cuts that would have adversely impact the health, for safety and the economic well-being of the american people. they were going to use a hostage taking situation to force those extreme right wing cut stem the throats of the american people. door number two, if they are unable to get the draconian dramatic devastating cuts consistent with what was in their extreme default on american act they passed on the house floor with the deciding vote being a serial fraudster george sanchez on april 26.

if they were unable to get default on american act, they were willing to walk america through the door number two. door number two was an devastating dangers default. crash the economy. trigger a job killing recession. because, as many of them indicated including the chair of the republican national committee, that they believe a default in a crashing of the economy would benefit them politically. in 2024. those are the options they presented to the american people. so i am thankful for the leadership of president joe biden. a third calf. it is a third path that this

three important things. one, it avoids a devastating default. avoids crashing the economy. avoid triggering a job killing recession here in america and throughout the world. and avoid hurting millions of everyday americans. the second thing that president biden and his team were able to do successfully in partnership with house democrats in senate democrats every step of the way, was to make sure that america cannot be forced in another hostage taking situation for the balance of this congress. it was incredibly important to make sure the debt ceiling was

suspended through the early part of 2025. so that the american people do not have to be subjected to this type of turmoil for the balance of this year end all throughout next year. it gives us a space to work through how we can work through this hostage taking situation legislatively, legally, or administratively ever again and third important thing divided administration was able to accomplish is that they protected some things that were incredibly important to the american people. all of which were on the chopping block because of the extreme magnet republicans. and their ransom demands from the very beginning of this year. but because president biden held

the line very important things for protected this resolution. president biden protected social security. president biden protected medicare. president biden protected medicaid. president biden protected veterans. president biden protected the inflation reduction act. president biden protected the clean energy tax credits that will be transformational. president biden protected billions of dollars in funding to combat environmental injustice. i'm president protected the american people from the typesetting devastating cuts proposed by right wing extremist that would have hurt millions of everyday americans.

was all accomplished as a result of this resolution and i am thankful for the leadership of president biden. house democrats who stood strongly behind him and his administration. leader schumer senate democrats as well. it is now my honor field to distinguish what of the house democratic caucus who has held this caucus together in such an extraordinary way. from the first week of the 118 congress through the default on america act. every single house democrats opposed the extreme magnet republican legislation giving the administration tremendous strength. in the negotiating room all the way through making sure every single democrat new gems, blue dogs, progressives, all points in between sign the discharge

petition to strengthen the leverage the biden administration needed to bring about an outcome that protected the well-being of the american people. thank you general. >> thank you mr. leader. we are inspired by your leadership. it continues to be demonstrated. we are still to this day so proud to have cast 3179 votes for hakeem jeffries per speaker. but today let me start off with what we know. and how we can invest in the american people.

it is democrats who have prioritized over political gamesmanship. it is democrats democrats that have always been clear we will not allow this country to suffer a devastating default. the question is, whether it republicans today will decide to join us yelp speaker mccarthy negotiated when his presidents or negotiate an agreement on the debt ceiling. she guaranteed votes in the vast majority of our caucus. no one is mistaking speaker mccarthy for speaker pelosi. but he should be able to do it he said he was going to do.

i'm produced 150 votes in this majority. that should be on the table. the fact that it is still an open question. the fact that we still do not know if we both are there, that he is depending on democrats to avert disaster, that is a reflection of the extremism, of the brinksmanship and the rock is taking hold of their publican party. like all of you i eager to see the republicans final tally. but this caucus will remain unified with the president and most importantly the american people in this fight. i am very proud to yield to our chairman who has been helping us at every step of the way to keep our caucus informed, and together. >> thank you whip clark. thank you to whip clark and

leader jeffries for their leadership. photonic to house democrats this morning. for the unity of purpose they exude every day. this week will bring an end to the republican led republican manufactured crisis. the house democrats look forward to continuing to tout the achievements of the biden/harris administration jobs created but we reflect on this week it is important to know this was not about deficits. this was never about deficits republicans. they turned out every reasonable opportunity to close loopholes that would affect our depth deficits for their would to stand by the billionaire friends so they can pay less than teachers on their tax rate than the teachers in san bernardino. that is what this is about. they are going to show us

throughout the summer our prediction is there going to mark up a tax bill that would blow another fall over $3 trillion deficit. this is not about fiscal sanity for this is about them each and every step of the way protecting them billionaire friends. but house democrats stand poised to help. stand poised to be the adults in the room. we will ensure we put this crisis behind us. we have had a number of briefings with administrative person officials. i'm appreciative of them. i appreciate the president standing up for medicare and social security and medicaid. without that leadership and support this program should not have been protected this deal and in this year. we have a number of administration briefings. six briefings the administration spent two hours briefing house democrats. we appreciate their willingness to do that. and a partner in that process

all of the members of the leadership teams were on the zooms and these calls there today. but a partner in this has been vice chair ted. plenty chairman and let me first of all committee hakeem jeffries, catherine clark with strong leadership in putting the american people first. lloyd voll seen since day one of the hundred 18 congress and house democrats have remained calm, cool and collected in the face of repeated republican chaos. this is a gop manufactured crisis. this is a routine vote three times it happened the former president with no fanfare. as of how extreme they've got to take to the brink of disaster and were not going let that happen. but we've seen from president

biden's he get stuff done. president biden democrats negotiated bipartisan infrastructure law to rebuild your roads and bridges and highways. president biden democrats negotiated the bipartisan act to bring back high-tech manufacturing to america. president biden at democrats negotiated pact act to protect our veterans. this bipartisan agreement today protects all of those historic lows. in particular i'm very pleased this agreement fully veterans healthcare at the assist the democrats is not that long ago republicans passed default on america act that cut veterans funding by 22% because of leadership of democrats and president biden will able to restore that funding can fully veterans healthcare as well as toxic exposure fund. because of that i will be supporting the bill today ideal

back to jeffries. but thank you, thank you pete, thank you catherine questions? really leader jeffries a speaker mccarthy negotiated this. what if your message to progressive members in york caucasus work requirements should never been on the table? same message that i just delivered from this podium is exactness i delivered in my conversations all of the house democrats. throughout the last several days and we have been working there receiving information from the administration. add in the context of the discussion earlier today. cap, speaker mccarthy and the house republicans had been negotiating or in terms of both the health center in this context. as catherine clark indicated, it is our expectation that at

minimum. at minimum house republicans will produce two thirds of their conference to support a resolution that they negotiated after driving country into a situation on the brink of default. 150 votes. that is what house republicans need to produce consistent. what they have agreed to do in terms of units bill over the finish line. house democrats are going to make sure the country does not default. a. period they will continue to be responsible stewards of our economy. we will not let middle-class americans, working families, who also aspire to be part of the middle class the seniors, the sick, the afflicted be hurt by a

dangerous gop manufactured default. we will not let that happen. but, at the same time is important for house republicans to do their part supporting a resolution that they themselves negotiated. >> you are saying democrats. [inaudible] >> i did not say that perez said they are unified in avoiding a default. we are unified as it relates to why the country is in the situation. and we're unified behind the leadership that president biden has provided. already sign from democrats and odd. is this fracturing in the conference and how do we amend

this relationship have you reached out? it's a conference not at all. i had a conversation earlier today. unity is different from unanimity. the great jim clyburn has always reminded us. we will continue to be unified. we will make sure we avoid a default. who will be unified as we move forward in building an economy that works for everyday americans from the middle out ground up. we look forward to taking on additional fights for the american people. including stocking the extreme maga republicans from trying to gm and other tax giveaway to the wealthy, the well off american people. we will continue to be unified and all of those efforts. third row? >> this cuts to the budget

appropriation bills are passed, what does that say for the appropriations process later this year? how is that going to affect how things are going to go? does it raise the chance for the omnibus bill? >> we all have full confidence house democratic leader on the appropriations committee. once in the future chairwoman of the appropriations committee. to defend democratic priorities to fight for the middle class for working families, for older americans. those who aspire to be part of the middle class for vulnerable americans. and, as we resolve this default crisis and hand over the reins to the appropriations committee i believe we cannot be better served that from the leadership of rosa.

speaker mccarthy about how many votes democrats eat on the bill itself question approximate deferred to captain clark on the rule and on the bill itself would not gotten a precise number from the other side of the aisle yet. but we continue to maintain house republicans need to keep their commitment to produce 150 votes. with the resolution they themselves negotiated. and when that happens democrats are going to make sure there is no default. >> regards the roads very simple the majority is responsible for passing the rule. exiting as catherine indicated the majority is responsible for ensuring that passive passage. who will not allow a default.

mr. leader use afraid hostage taken at the end of the day every went negotiated are the debt ceiling. what is his main whenever the next time comes around? quicker than present but in the house senate were clear we are going to proceed on parallel tracks from the very beginning. parallel tracks meant for us who would avoid a default and, whatever resolution occurred relative to the spending sight of the equation, relative the appropriations process had to match in duration spending the debt ceiling. it was not the original plan from the extreme maga republicans. their original plan is 10 years of draconian spending caps. in exchange 11 or 12 month

suspension of the debt ceiling. are you kidding me? give us a break. that is their position that is not the resolution. remember get through this? x she felt the deal is today would have been better and on silent thankful for her comments. i have got full faith. i believe all of us do. certainly in president biden. and in the team of designees that were in the negotiating room. every single member of the house democratic caucus has great

confidence in the directness of yolanda young. before she said a word today she received a standing ovation every single person. because we had great competence in her ability. it was an enlightened decision president biden put her into that negotiating room. we knew she would defend our values and she did. but there has been talk of democrats holding their votes tonight to show republicans cannot pass it alone and show their votes later on to prove a point. is this something that should be discussed are appropriate course of action? what serves no discussion of that either in the meeting we had earlier today with all the top democrats on the standing committees, or enter to our 50 minute meeting we had in the caucus.

but she did say they were public tech to keep their commitment 150 votes. and then the democrats well. so what happens if they do not provide 150? what if they are sitting up there at 130? >> to be clear it is our expectation that house republicans will keep their commitment to provide one or 50 votes as a floor or an agreement and they themselves negotiated. this is not an agreement mitch mcconnell negotiated the chemo from the senate, that leader schumer negotiated. they were the ones who were in the room. it's reasonable for the american people bipartisan resolution to

crisis they created. in terms of functionality and what happens during the 15 minute vote series or things of that nature none of us have gotten into any of those mechanics. we have been very clear. who will not allow the country to default. we must always pay cash in our economy and hurt americans. mechanically what that looks like on the house floor remains to be seen. >> thank you leader jeffries. do you think the white house gave up too much or relented and set work requirements were a redline. with improved work requirements and second, what is your

reaction to threatening the caucus to file a motion would democrats stand behind speaker mccarthy? there could always be a worse option. >> will pass that bridge and we get it there's been no discussion over the last several days in any of the meetings we have had as it relates to any hypothetical motion to vacate the chair. our mission is clear. make sure we prevent a catastrophic default from being visited upon the american people. that is our mission in terms of the so-called work requirements which by the way have been in law 1996. this was a phony fake talking points injected unnecessarily into this discussion. let's be clear about that. overwhelming majority of people

who receive snap are already subject to work requirements because of the 1996 law. now, in the situation i think president biden and his team did the best that they could. and in fact, expanded eligibility for veterans. expanded eligibility in terms of snap for homeless and the un- house. an expanded eligibility for young people who have aged out of foster care. that is an extraordinary accomplishment. and what the congressional budget office has had to say about this development speaks for itself.

>> i was wondering how you feel. [inaudible] doesn't think he would strike down? >> i will respond that i want to give everyone an opportunity. >> i would just echo what the leader said house democrats stand poised to avert this crisis. personally, from the vice chair and night we appreciate the administration coming up here, continuing briefings. the documentation they have sent over to help members arrive at a decision that is best for their districts has been helpful. over the last 48 hours at the leader's request we have had six deep dive briefings plus the caucus session this morning. that is nine hours over the last 48 hours house democrats have been digesting information to make the best decision we can to

avert this republican led crisis. that is where we are at. we appreciate all the information we have taken in and members will make the decision that is best for them. >> house democrats are very clear. there is no perfect negotiation when you are the victims of extortion. nobody likes to pay a ransom note and that is exactly what tonight's vote is. our payment on the ransom of the american people. the maga republicans, the extremists have taken them hostage. offered as the leader except for a lose, lose proposition. we will either have devastating cuts 8 million jobs over night despite the cost of home ownership, car loans, the last time we even got close to default americans on the verge of retirement lost on average

$20000 of their life savings. this is how the maga extremists view the american people. it does not matter what will happen to them as long as they are winning their political game. who is at the center? it is families at home. its workers, it is small business people faith and credit of the united states. not only the recession and economic catastrophe that could start here, but triggered globally. so by the time our president is asserting strength of our country here and abroad bringing manufacturing back, investing in infrastructure employment resiliency, strengthening nato. sided with ukraine in standing for democracies around the world, this is the division of

the republican conference that you put all of that at stake for what? for what? to make the winners circle so small that only the very rich and earning well-connected continue to prosper in you are willing to cut off opportunity for american families who are trying to get by, recover from the pandemic, get back on their feet. it is hard to take in his soap cartoon villain bike. but unlike a cartoon the american people will not snap back up and drop the economic and vote on their head. this is where we are and we are grateful to the leadership from this white house to the leadership from the democratic caucus and what we anticipate we are going to see from our democratic colleagues senate. for putting the american people

first and steering the way for this country back to sanity and rejecting extremism. i'm sure my people again why we're here today. it is become under the former administration republicans passed a massive tax cut that benefited the top 1% and they do not want to pay for that. another reason their hair face because because republican surrogate routine boat injected up and put us on disaster it maga republicans will fail in their attempt to crash the u.s. economy. and that is because president biden and democrats for standing strong. we're going going to make sure our country does not default. and we, in america remain the leader of the free world. thank you again to whip clark in german aguilar and vice chair lieu. the last 72 hours a communication between the white house, the by administration and house democrats has been clear,

consistent and comprehensive. i think the white house for making everyone available at the highest level. under the leadership on our side with chairman aguilar and vice chair lieu to make sure there was a robust, active, authentic discussion so that every member can make an informed decision later on this afternoon and this evening as it relates to the legislation that will be in front of us in front of the american people. what is clear is that president biden has succeeded in protecting the american people from some of the most harmful and aggressive things that the republicans were trying to jam down our throats.

protected social security. protected medicare, protected medicaid. protected veterans. protected the middle class all those who aspire to be part of everett working families the poor, the sick, the afflicted from the types of devastating cuts that extreme maga republicans are determined to enact. and as a result of the efforts of the biden administration we are going to be able to make sure here in the house and in the senate that america is not default. and that our economy does not crash. we will all live to fight another day and fighting for the people.

>> good afternoon everyone. >> good afternoon. so a short while ago many of you stop yourself president biden convene cabinet members and agency heads from across the administration for briefing on the 2023 atlantic hurricane season and meeting he has convene each year since taking office for the president is also

updated on the ongoing wildfires across the nation and federal efforts to reduce wildfire risk in the united states. during the meeting the present esteem discuss ongoing preparations for these extreme weather events. response plans for when they occur and resources in place to help communities recover. the president thanked the brave first responders who worked around-the-clock and put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe and highlighted how the historic investments that are being made is investing in america agenda will make our community stronger and more resilient. with that my colleague admiral kirby is here to talk about the support we continue to go to ukraine and any other foreign policy questions you may all have. >> good afternoon everybody. >> good afternoon. i'm just not ever going to use

that. [inaudible] >> is not quite as enthusiastic. maybe that's just because of me not because of them. i think this week if you have all seen russia has continued to wage just a brutal completely unprovoked war against ukraine launching yet more airstrikes and bombarding you creating cities all across the country. in fact, just in the month of main russia as lunch 17 different air cells harming civilians, devastating civilian areas, hitting civilian infrastructure. in response united states continues to support ukraine and get them things they need to better defend themselves. as part of all of that effort with that upcoming package here want to be the ninth drawdown of equipment from the department of defense inventory using presidential drawdown authorities. we'll use that package that we are announcing today to provide

ukraine with additional munitions for patriot air defense systems which ukraine has been deploying quite effectively. as well as morris adventure air defense system senior antiaircraft in ammunition for the hammers, artillery united states continues to provide ukraine. think issue also unfold display in your chauvin geez seven allison partners divides in this effort. we can continue to expect to see that support will continue going forward. that is it. >> thank you so much. can you give us your reaction chinese fighter jet conducted what the pentagon described as. [inaudible] of the south china seas what are the ramifications of the follow-up be for the u.s./chinese relationship? what is unprofessional. during the pentagon speak to that you all saw the video for

yourselves. you can see they force the wsrc 1352 oh three jet wash the chinese which tells you how close it was, several hundred feet. that is dangerous. one of the reason we want to keep the lines of cumulation open affect one of the reasons to want to make sure we get the military channel back open so we have a way to talk to the chinese about incidents like this one that could lead to miscalculation and miss understanding maybe getting someone hurt. and on us right now unfortunately it military to military vehicles are open to its fathers and secretary blinken is so eager to get back over too beijing. we want to get back to the spirit of bali. there are lines of communication open certainly oblivious the diplomatic channel to convey our concerns over this particular interceptor.

that is not the same having that available to you. especially when tensions are so high and the risk of miscalculations are also high you to the ukrainian government to speak to that. we don't have any specific information that tells us who was responsible and it's not like we are going to go out and investigate this. that wouldn't be appropriate for us to do. and the second question on the counteroffensive, again, we would let president zelenskyy speak to this. wherever, whenever the ukrainian military is ready to step off

and get started that's going to be up to them to talk about and to explain. i would just tell you that over just the last few weeks alone, there has been a lot of fighting and a lot of back and forth and i think i need to leave it at that. >> i just want to follow up on china. from our conversations with administration open visuals, the message is what the u.s. into the chinese want to move forward beyond the spy balloon incident. my question is what about the investigation, where are we and what can we expect? will it made a public and then i have a follow-up. >> just to be clear, there is not an investigation going on. there was forensic and analysis on the material that we recovered from the payload that

was done by the fbi and quantico. and i don't know the status. i don't know whether they are complete or they still have things they are sort of looking at. but i wouldn't expect, and i've said this before, we are going to weigh this out for the public and this was an espionage piece of equipment and we want to get a better handle on it and understand it for our own purposes. so i wouldn't expect we would lay some sort of public summary of everything we've learned. this is a capability, surveillance capability that we certainly knew and we were tracking the chinese were trying to develop and improve. we exploited it when it was in the air and of the material that we recovered. >> on north korea on the conference they launched can you give an update on where we are in terms of the u.s. move under

the declaration is that all set up and does the incident kick off any element of that? >> the same question as far as i know, know the spy balloon didn't have an affect on you talk about the washington declaration and of the group with south korea. i don't believe that it had anything to do with that. i will go back and -- >> i think my answer still would be no. this was put in place before they started this launch over the weekend. that said, the declaration and the consulting group was certainly established as a result of the continued provocations by the dpr k over so many months here if not years and it's a way to help improve our ability to be responsive to

whatever threats there might be. as for the status of the group i'm going to take the question. i don't know where they are in the process. it was announced when the president was here and of the teams have been working on it. where they are in the timeline i just don't know. >> on the diplomatic side we know there's this whole push from south korea and north to japan and on the diplomatic side of it you mentioned and other officials have mentioned that the invitation is open for north korea any time. but has there any been any type of push on the diplomatic side? >> we have been clear and consistent since the beginning of the administration that we are willing to sit down without preconditions to talk about the denuclearization of the peninsula. we make that case all the time. i don't have the last conversation to read out to you, but it's been a consistent message that we have delivered in various ways to the dpr k and they have yet to take a

supplement. >> to follow up on some of the remarks on turkey he said that there would be another call or engagement within the next week. do you have any finer detail on exactly when that call is going to happen and is it fair to say the main agenda item to have in exchange for turkey agreeing to lead sweden into nato? >> i don't have an update on when that conversation will occur. certainly as we get closer to another conversation we will keep you informed. the president has been long supportive of providing to turkey and helping their air force modernization. that's something that he's talked to many times. that hasn't changed and that isn't linked to whether or not turkey is in the nato alliance. we also want to see sweden as a

nato ally. capable military. we are used to operating with them and we want to see that happen and the president expressed those concerns as well when he talked over the weekend congratulating him on his win windowsuggests there's some sorf linkage would be erroneous. but we want to see that. >> can you clarify on the policy because it is a general matter ukraine shouldn't strike. what does that mean, general matter, and does the country that's been under attack for more than a year not have a legitimate right to attack? >> we don't tell them where to strike. we don't tell them where not to strike. we don't tell them how to conduct their operations. we give them equipment and training, advice and counsel. we even do tabletop exercises to

help them plan what they are going to do but ultimately, president zelenskyy and his commanders decide what they are going to do from the military perspective and they decide what they are going to do with of the equipment that's been provided to them and that they now own a. all that said, we have been very clear with the ukrainians. privately and publicly that we do not support attacks inside russia and we do not enable, and we do not encourage attacks inside russia. we certainly don't want to see attacks inside russia that are being propagated that are being conducted using u.s. supplied equipment. >> the president said recently he has assurance not to use the f-16s we are providing and russia territory are you cognizant that assurance still sales? >> we've gotten that assurance at various levels not just president zelenskyy, but other senior military and defense leaders in ukraine.

>> elon musk and several executives who recently traveled to china met with some high-level officials. is the administration going to reach out to them given the difficulty in communicating with officials there and also is there any hope that this business level engagement with the chinese government officials might help in the current state of the relations? >> i don't know any plans to reach out proactively to these business leaders specifically about their trip. certainly if they choose to share some insights and perspectives we would be willing to hear what they learned but it would be up to them to decide whether they want to do that. there is no plan that i'm aware of any way to reach out actively to pull that from them. we've long said that we know the

economies are interconnected and we have to figure out the best to manage that. so that interconnectedness doesn't put our own national security at risk. when you talk to one of the outcomes of the g7 in hiroshima was a discussion about outbound investments and whether and to a degree certainly the united states is going to take a look at how much is being privately invested in china that could have national security implications for the united states so that's something we are going to have to continue to work through. whether or not this visit is going to help us along in managing that economic competition remains to be seen. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry can use -- >> with of the iranians, with

iran? >> we have multiple ways of communicating with the iranians. i'm not sure i understand what you're getting at. >> the jcpoa is just not on the agenda right now. we are not focused on that. nothing's changed about the fact that we want to make sure iran doesn't get a nuclear weapons capability. the president still believes a diplomatic solution to that would be highly profitable but the iranians were not negotiating in good faith and they've shown no inclination to move in that direction and given all the other domestic strife alongside iran and support that they've given to russia and ukraine, then we haven't prioritized talks on the jcpoa. >> the army walked away from the negotiations taking place.

what implication -- >> that's unfortunate. you know, we want to see the fighting stopped and the aid get in and it's hard for the agent to get in to people in khartoum and around the country that desperately need it for water and medicine so it is highly unfortunate they chose to walk away. we want them to take the opportunity for peace seriously. we are certainly serious about it and helping to represent and facilitate these conversations. we want to see them act accordingly. >> the aide to then senator biden back in the '90s and 2020 accused of a sexual assault announced yesterday she would be considered citizenship in russia and feels safer there. does the white house have any reaction to that announcement given the accusations that she's made? >> we would be willing to comment on the musings of a potential russian citizen that

is up for her to speak to. >> does the white house believe that her allegations may have been motivated by her allegiance to affinity for russia? >> difficult to say. i can't get inside her head and speak for her motivations and intentions. that's for her to speak to. the only thing i will say is the allegations that her life was at risk by the united states government absolutely false. there's nothing to that. >> "the wall street journal" reported yesterday about the european leaders and ukrainians about the potential for the u.s. peace summit. [inaudible] is that something president biden would attempt? >> we've been talking to the ukrainians for many months now about president zelenskyy's proposal for what he calls adjusted peace and we are trying to work to help operationalize

and organize data to see if we can get that moving. obviously we support moves towards peace but for any proposal, no matter who it's nominated by or put forth by, in order for it to be credible and sustainable it's got to have the support of president zelenskyy so what we are focused on is working with our ukrainian counterparts on operational landing the ten-point proposal for the just peace and we will see where that goes. >> will there be any kind of value if russia wasn't invited and involved? >> i think you first got to work with the ukrainians is the present and said to make sure that there is a credible proposal that can be moved forward. but where and when or even if the russians can be brought to the table that's got to be president zelenskyy's decision. that isn't something the united states is going to litigate on him. he has to be ready to sit down and talk and the conditions have

to be amenable to him. and then you can move forward with seeing whether the russians can be part of that. i would remind mr. putin has shown absolutely zero inclination. it's a great question shouldn't they be at the table. eventually if you are going to have a negotiated peace of course, but president zelenskyy gets to determine that in that they've shown no inclination of being interested at all in the negotiated settlement. in my opening statement just this month, 17 strikes on key of a loan and other places throughout the country so this is not the act of the leader, the nation that's got any serious design on diplomacy right now. >> could you give an update on efforts to the united states [inaudible] and any other prisoners their te use u.s. prisoners in air on and elsewhere that have been, you know, the potential subject of

potential prisoner swaps. are any of those efforts coming to fruition or things that make you optimistic? >> all i can tell you is we are working on all these cases very hard. i know that's not a satisfying answer to you but i hope you can understand why we wouldn't publicly negotiate here and publicly disclose the conversations that we are having. and as you are right to say there are wrongfully detained americans elsewhere around the world and we are working on that a very hard. each and every case is important and a prayer ready yet we are doing what we can. each case is also unique and different and has to be handled differently and what you put forth is going to be obviously different in each case in terms of its palatability on the other side, so we are working them hard. >> is there anything optimistic on the cases?

>> i would say we are working each one very hard. i don't know that i can stand here and give you a grade level in terms of optimism. what i am confident about, but we are confident about is that we are putting a good faith effort in on each and every case because each and every one is important. >> quick question. there's been quite a few tensions the last few days and the pre- minister said today the u.s. response was an overreaction. i wonder if you can react to that and second, with of the u.s. feels that they have a point that the low border turnout suggests that this may not have been the election. >> i didn't see the comment about the reaction so i would reiterate our reaction which obviously we believe and that is that all parties should take

immediate action to de-escalate the tension. we strongly condemned yesterday's attacks against troops from the nato mission. these attacks which injured numerous peacekeepers, absolutely unacceptable. the prime minister and government of cosa bow should ensure that elected mayors carry out their transitional duties from alternate locations outside municipal buildings and withdrawal police forces from the vicinity. likewise, the government of serbia should lower the security status of the serbian armed forces and urge coast a boat to hold the challenge is to refrain from further violence. we want to see this de-escalate it and want to see the violence stopped. that's our reaction and i think it's difficult in any way to look at that and think of that is hyperbolic in any way whatsoever. >> two questions first of all you said the ukrainians

counteroffensive wherever and whenever. i want to clarify do you really mean wherever because we are running out of time. >> i was talking in general about all the operations. we haven't been dictating to them since the beginning of this war where they are going to operate and how they are going to do it. we've been helping them, giving advice and tools and training. it's up to them to make the decision. the counteroffensive is no different and other operations they've conducted whether they are defensive or offensive in nature throughout the course of this war, he's a commander-in-chief and he gets to decide how his troops are going to behave on the battlefield and where they are going to fight and whether they will go and defend early on the offense and it is part of that. any offense of operation done by any military, the timing is crucially important and it's also one of the things you want to protect as much as you can and so yes it is absolutely up

to him. >> any attacks on russian territory including using using ukrainian equipment. the president has had three main priorities here for the last 15 months. one is to support ukraine and i announced another package today. i think it was pretty clear that we are doing that. number two is to support our nato allies and we've bolstered down increasing our footprint to 100,000 troops on the european continent alone and kept them there to protect and help them make sure we are meeting our commitments to the eastern flank and third is to avoid world war iii. i think we can all understand that a war that has already escalated way beyond the level of violence justified.

in fact there was no justified violence against ukraine -- i think we can all agree a war that escalates beyond that that actually does suck in the west and the united states it isn't good for our national security interest it isn't good for the ukrainian people or the people across europe were certainly for the russian people so we have found that as part of the thinking since the beginning. >> [inaudible] >> before the drawdowns do you expect you will have to seek additional funding from congress and last week how has the debt ceiling processed the struggle that we've seen both for getting additional funding? >> on the future, we've been doing one about every two weeks or so and this one is consistent with of the last three or four in terms of the amount and the

kind of material. we are going to be able to keep that up based on the funding we have available to us throughout the rest of the fiscal year. so when would we go back to congress and ask for additional appropriations? i don't know the answer to that. we are just now beginning june, so we've got some time to figure that out and i don't have a date certain on the calendar to do that and as for the debt ceiling deal, it won't -- no matter what happens in the halls of congress there won't be an affect on the ability to support ukraine. >> thank you, adderall, two questions. first on ukraine when the american people hear you and the president say the united states will support ukraine in this conflict as long as it takes and we further hear you and the president say the decision-making to how long the

conflict goes on, when the negotiations will be entertained all left up to prison and zelenskyy, why shouldn't the american people conclude that a critical decision-making about our national security, our taxpayer resources and our military are in fact being outsourced given over to a foreign leader? >> decisions are being made certainly by the commander-in-chief with full support from not only both houses of congress but both parties. on capitol hill there's been tremendous support for that and i think the american people are smart enough to realize that if we just walk away from this and we lead to food intake ukraine, which by the way, james, he hasn't given up on as a strategic goal, then what's next. and if you think the cost in blood and treasure right now is high, think about how much higher it would be if in fact we

simply all of us walk away from this because it isn't just the president that he says as long as it takes. every leader repeated the phrase in hiroshima. we all want to see this war and. and we would love to see it end right now. as you've heard me say it could end right now. mr. putin would do the right thing and pull the troops out. but there's no indication of being willing to do that. we've got to make sure ukraine can continue to succeed on the battlefield so when it comes time to talks, the president can do that with the wind at his back. nobody wants to see this war continue. you think they want it to go on for one more day after the suffering they've gone through? but we can't just walk away from this. .the american people i think understand that. >> i want to return to a colloquy that you and i had. everyone in the room is

grateful. the briefings are not transcribed and the transcripts are not descending into they are on the record is so if i could just use this opportunity first to register my protest that we should receive transcripts. second, the colloquy that you and i have is about whether china and russia or either one should be considered an equal regime. president reagan described the soviet union as the locus of the modern world into george w. bush referred to the axis of evil after 9/11. if you have governments running on concentration camps or launching for both with hundreds of thousands of people being killed into the president of the united states called the leader of the regime a war criminal i don't see what it is that prohibits you from calling a spade a spade which you refused to do in the earlier call.

>> i will take that back, james. at the president has never been one -- >> it's a criticism that you are posing as a question. you would like to see us put a label on the countries and president biden doesn't conduct foreign policy that way. look at the national security strategy and the national defense strategy. anything the president has said over his time and commander of chief and you will see that we are speaking pretty clearly to the american people and those countries and leaders about how we view the behavior and conduct on the world stage and relationships with them. we've been very honest about that.

i wouldn't pretend to know specifically what happened. we know it failed and frankly why exactly it failed shouldn't be the major concern right now. with each and every one of these launches whether it fails or succeeds, he's a scientist and engineer they learned and that they improve and that they adapt and they continue to develop military capabilities that are a threat not only on the peninsula but the region, which is why we are going to continue on holding the regime accountable and do everything we can to make sure we have the proper military

capabilities in the region including training and readiness to deal with those threats. >> does the white house believe that is part of the russian influence operation? >> i've seen no evidence or proof of that. >> she's in russia now. is there any thought maybe she's in russia because [inaudible] is there any thought or concern she may have been influenced by the russian government? >> i would let this russian citizen speak for her intentions and motivations. it's a matter of record mr. putin have tried to interfere.

going back as far as 2016 that is a matter of record. it should come as no surprise to anybody that mr. putin would show an interest in making it hard for president biden in the ability to govern as president of the united states. but whether this particular move by this particular individual is some sort of russian information on or propaganda campaign, i just don't know. >> is there any information that would link her? >> i've not. >> i would circle back on russia. what would you say to moscow's criticism that it's effectively offered a wink and a nod to ukraine when it comes to the strikes like the ones we saw? >> they aren't going to believe anything that i have to say but

again we've communicated privately to the ukrainians as recently as last week or so that we don't want to see u.s. supplied equipment to strike inside russia and we don't support attacks inside russia and we are not going to change the policy by not enabling or encouraging those attacks. >> [inaudible] >> we've made it clear to the ukrainians, certainly publicly i don't think we are going to take it upon ourselves as a burden to privately communicate that to the russians. we've been nothing but consistent on this and the ukrainians, president zelenskyy himself has given assurances. >> we will take a couple more in the back. >> to ask a follow-up the white house released a statement in february about the visit and

apparently he said china to chia accepted an invitation to go down [inaudible] haven't heard any updates since then. is that why president biden hasn't set a date to go down there? >> with of the u.s. brazil relationship, quite comfortable as a matter of fact. >> we aren't going to agree with everything he says or does. that's why you have bilateral relations and friendly nations can agree or disagree publicly if that's what's called for. but as for a visit i don't have anything on the schedule to speak to right now. >> thank you. in the western intelligence agency reported as the state-sponsored groups targeting the critical infrastructure

since 2021 and described as a cyber espionage campaign. do you know what has been targeted to address this? >> i will have to take your question. sorry. >> the spy balloon hasn't implemented the property protections. it said the level of representation right now there would be no repercussions no matter what china does. they should be allowed to speak for themselves and their travel. there's never been some sort of fiat by the white house or u.s. government that american business executives can't travel to china and conduct business as they feel is appropriate.

you also heard in hiroshima, you were there, that the leaders had concerns about unfair trade practices, and employment practices, intellectual theft. and certainly the potential risks of outbound investments and they came away from hiroshima unified about those challenges presented by the prc and about acting again according to their own. every country has to do it for their own. we will do it our way to protect national security in a way commensurate with these outbound investment concerns. >> i don't have a timeline for that.

>> [inaudible] but the political leaders and they are describing that piece into the u.s. is supporting the election under so what is your comment? >> i would have to refer you to the state department on that

one. >> about the government holding [inaudible] >> are there any concerns at all? >> good afternoon. one on nicaragua and at the covered on ukraine. the dictatorship continues to persecute and establish the latest of money laundering and human rights defenders. for decades confiscated the church buildings and shut down quite simply what is the message? >> there's been a deterioration

by the ortega regime including the harassment and imprisonment of the members of the political opposition parties as you rightly said including from the catholic church students and journalists. this is unacceptable. we've already taken a number of actions to promote accountability for the regime actions including by imposing sanctions and we will continue to do so. >> as you know pope francis put together the peace mission. does the white house believe they can achieve peace? >> there could be many helpful interlocutors to try to get to a peace proposal. it doesn't have to be any one country or entity. the chinese has expressed an interest and brazilians have

expressed interest and yes, i am aware the vatican has put forth some interest. we would welcome any and all proposals to try to end the war as quickly and as diplomatically as possible but as i said earlier, any proposal that's going to be seen as critical and if it is going to be sustainable, it's got to be supported. he's put forth his own ten-point plan. we support that effort and that proposal and we are working closely with his team to see if that can't be operationalized and moved forward. >> a statement signed by experts warning that artificial intelligence could lead to human extinction. is it warning something about the council that takes seriously at this point?

>> we've taken both the promise and the challenges of artificial intelligence since coming into office. the national security council advisor jake sullivan and certainly the president. as a matter of fact i think you would owe the president convened a meeting at the white house with the ceos from various tech companies involved in either ai research or an actual production of capabilities. there is promise and peril. a partnership ticket after the promises and the perils and the threats and challenges so yes we are taking this extremely seriously.

>> i have an international question for you. at this one is teed up but i will repurpose it. >> there've been many developments since the first international business dealings to get in fbi file. there is another to cover up an investigation that found 53% of the public including democrats quote joe biden in the influence peddling scheme the evidence for china, mexico, russia, ukraine.

is this the majority who believe the president is corrupt? >> the president has spoken to this, and there's nothing to these claims. as far as the whistleblowers that you've talked about and the document, i believe the fbi has spoken to that. thank you so much, admiral. appreciate your time. about 40 minutes out here. we try to get to as many people as possible. kick us off.

as you know director young was here and part of the negotiation process, so not going to go beyond what she shared here to all of you just yesterday or in-depth. what i can say and we will share and you've heard many times we are proud of this agreement and the common sense agreement that we believe should get passed out of the house and of the senate to the president's desk. it talked about how it's going to reduce the deficit by an additional 1.2 trillion which is important as we talk about the deficit. this is something the president takes very seriously and he was able to reduce the deficit in

the first two years. so again takes this very seriously. he thinks it's incredibly important to deal with it in a real way which is why he's put policies forward that deals with the deficit in that way. i am not going to speak to what it is the speaker is trying to do were the commissioner on what he's trying to put together. that is a question for the path he chooses to take. i can speak to what the president has done and what we hope to see in the next day or so. >> thank you. what is the top domestic priority? >> we've always been very clear that his economic policy is something that's important especially when he walked into the administration that was not existing with the last administration and what the president had to do to make sure we were dealing with covid and the economy so he put forth

along with the democrats in a bipartisan way some historic pieces of legislation that turned the economy around. that's been a top priority and continues to be. lowering the prices as it relates to the economy certainly is something the president takes very seriously and continues to work on with his team. >> there's a lot of action with china and you mentioned a high prices. what is the top priority over all? >> the president of the united states there are multiple issues, multiple topics the president has to deal with. that is the job of the president. he talked about climate and it wasn't just about climate but about how we foresee the season coming up with hurricanes, the fires that we've seen across the country. how we are dealing with that in this country. in a serious way protecting lives, protecting communities,

thanking the first responders. that's important and americans care about that across the country. we've talked about the bipartisan budget negotiation which is incredibly important. also to make sure that we do not default. all those things are important. all those multiple issues are something the president has to deal with on a daily basis. >> as you know there's the review i'm going to leave it to there. it's being reviewed by the committee so as the president thinks it's an important issue to deal with, but i don't have anything else to add to that. >> what is the white house reaction to this and how confident are you?

for the common sense budget negotiation he said when he lands by the time he lands in colorado, he hopes that the house will move forward. so we believe it is going to happen and we believe this bipartisan agreement should get both republican and democratic votes. what we can say is that we've had conversations with democratic members across the ideological spectrum to talk about the bills. we had director young talking about her job, giving the

information about what came out of this bipartisan agreement. look, it prevents catastrophic default as you've heard us say. it protects the games the president has made over the last two years and as it relates to the economy. it protects programs the american families need to make ends meet. it's going to be an important piece of legislation that the president wants to see at his desk. >> let me follow up. the president asked the other day with the message has been and i'm wondering if you can help fill in. >> president has been involved in the process throughout. he's been personally involved. we don't read our to calls or

private conversations. but it's not just him. it's his team. i will give a little bit of an update. it included the outreach we are seeing from him and his team more than 120 calls. some with members of congress that includes calls to all house democratic leadership and ranking members tried ideological caucus chairs and appropriation leaders. aid to briefings for the entire caucus including one today as you all have been reporting. with this process, six of those briefings would on energy policy and on appropriations and we've also briefed, offered to brief the audiological caucuses in addition to policy experts as well have had numerous conversations with members on the hill so we have been fully engaged through today through the last couple of days and we

will continue to do so. >> i don't have specific numbers to lay out, but that is a significant amount. 120 these are one on one that he end of the team has made it so he takes these relationships very seriously and has relationships with members of congress that he's had for some time now. i can tell you that it will continue throughout the next couple of days. >> will we have a set up with

gone how is he going to stay connected? >> we believe this is going to happen. the president will have a statement this evening. what form it will look like you all well know but you will hear from the president whether it is a written statement directly but he will have something to say about the passage. >> as the president confident enough that he might spend the weekend outside of washington? >> don't have anything to preview on the travels this weekend. what i can say is the president is confident or believes. this is his words he believes that this is going to get out of the house and the senate. it's going to be at his desk and he will get to sign it on behalf of the american people because it's incredibly important to make sure we do not have a

catastrophic situation on our hands as it relates to the economy. this is about protecting almost 8 million jobs and protecting healthcare. the american people truly need and depend on and he believes we are going to get this done. someone is coughing out of there, is it you? are you okay? i don't know who it is. just checking in. the congressional black caucus when this happened with welfare recipients in the clinton years he's headed didn't work there would be pain and suffering

during the budget process. what do you say to this congressman who is there? what do you say to that congressman and others that feel this pain and suffering? >> we believe we protected the economic gains. if you talk about the bipartisan infrastructure legislation act it would get for example it is going to help lower costs for families, healthcare costs. it's going to help our seniors when it comes to insulin to cap that. it's going to help many in those communities that we are talking about that is truly needed. energy costs. those are important for the families across the country. think about the chips and a science act.

this is what the president was able to do and to protect those types of historic pieces of legislation that have made a difference in american lives and not only that, but it's going to protect programs hard-working americans need. we were talking about potentially cutting medicaid which would have taken healthcare away from 21 million americans. we protected that. so all those things are important. veterans affairs. that's important. when you think about creating the eligibility expansion for veterans, for homeless people, for people coming out of foster care of all ages, it's going to expand that. so there are things in this bipartisan budget agreement and port into those everyday people, to those hard-working americans that's incredibly important. here's the reality. when you negotiate in this way, no one is going to get anything

that they want. that is the reality of negotiating. what the president is trying to do is protect the games that he made, the historic games the last two years and the key core democratic values that we believe is important to american families. that is the promise this president made and that we are hoping we will move forward as we look at the house and the senate and the president wants to get this done before june. >> did the white house do a compare contrast yesterday and received work requirements. also to the former head of oversight reform, he questions

this moment instead of dealing with it in the budget putting it in the discussion moment. why now? >> the reason we are in this situation now, if we remember correctly march 9 the president put forth his budget. he's very clear about how he's all the values for shipping the values to the american people how we move forward in the economy. and about six or seven weeks later it took republicans six or seven weeks to pass their budget on april 26. so this is a conversation that we were ready to have weeks ago. but it took time for republicans to put forth with the budget looks like or what they perceive their values are in showing that to the american people. i want to go back to the workers requirement question. i mentioned the 21 million that we protected amp the president was able to protect from losing their healthcare. there's food assistance at risk for nearly 1 million americans and it put critical support at risk for 1 million vulnerable

children. that's what the house republican bill, that's what it threatened so these are the things the president was able to protect. again, you know, it is important we believe for americans to not lose their healthcare and that is what the president was able to do. the president's insistence that the proposal for snap is temporary and at the bill includes a major expansion for the veterans, for homeless, for people that are homeless and foster youth. the combined impact is that the number of people subject to the work requirements would likely stay roughly the same. so that's another thing that's important to note when you look at the policy in the bells it maintains ability to support vulnerable children so that is what we were able to do and what the president was able to protect and those are incredibly important as we talk about it

and look at the hard-working families across the country. >> is the president planning a signing ceremony and well he invited the speaker of the white house? >> i don't have any ceremonies or anything to lay out at this time. he wants to see this past out of the house and the senate so he can sign it as soon as possible. don't have anything to lay out at this time. >> the president signed an executive order to address the current and historical injustices. how does the support for the pipeline that runs to the indigenous land in appalachia and imposed by a number of community groups? >> a couple things and i'm glad you asked the question because the permitting reforms in the

agreement to preserve the preserve the bedrockprotectionse national environmental policy act and develops a policy by accelerating the environmental reviews while protecting the full scope of those reviews so that's important to note. and so we have some quotes from the organizations that have said the agreement includes an important down payment. this legislation helps us meet our customers demand for reliable, affordable and increasingly clean energy by modernizing the permitting process. the natural resources defense council said, and i quote, president biden stood up to the extremist attacks and climate investments. so, we also have seen a long list of support for this agreement, and we think that's

important and it's going to protect again the clean air act, the clean water act, the critically important things to see with the president is trying to do moving forward. >> did kevin mccarthy but that pipeline and the deal or did the white house? >> i believe, i think director young was asked this question. i just don't have anything more to add on what was agreed or discussed. i want to be careful about that but what we can say and i've been very clear about this we think it's important that this commonsense piece of legislation moves forward. we think it's important for the american people and it's important to get this done avoiding any catastrophic results for the economy so we are going to be very clear on that.

>> what happens if the debt ceiling bill comes to the desk the day after, with the u.s. then technically be in default? >> what we are going to focus on is getting this done. we are going to focus on the house, we believe the house is going to take this and it's going to go to the senate and out of the senate. so we believe that it's going to get done and that's what we are going to focus on and that's going to be our main priority. >> to try to speed it up in the senate -- >> the mechanics of how this is going to move to the senate obviously we are in a short time frame here and it's going to get this done as quickly as possible as you mentioned the date that the treasury clearly spoke to recently.

>> [inaudible] last june almost a year ago, 73 journalists including reporters from nearly two thirds signed a letter calling the process antithetical, the concept of the free press and the corresponding association. last july you said ending the restrictions was a priority. yet they remained so i wonder if you could commit. >> i appreciate the question. every event as you've heard from my team and i think you've asked the team this question and they responded multiple time about how the process works. every event is different but no matter the venue set up we've always credentials as many reporters in the room as possible. that's what we've tried to do. i know you've been in many of those events and you've had an opportunity to ask the president to question multiple times and so you can speak to that for yourself as well, the

opportunities you had to be in these events, so we've also been able to substantially increase as you've seen us do these last two years the number of credentialed press and events on campus as covid has been used. so, that is something that we have been consistent about and something that we have done and so look, we want to continue to make sure that you have access to him, to the president. we think that's incredibly important and you've seen us take actions, you have come ovee past several months and you yourselves have had the opportunity to be in the room. ..

this is something that clearly as covid has weighed we had taken this very seriously and take it in the comments and requests have come from his room. i also went to enter james' question. an sd. over those requests were going to work without to make sure you guys have a transcript of those alright everybody thank you.

quorum call:

off author of the book why

congress to talk of the role of congress' return of the debt limit. welcome to the program. >> guest: thanks for having me back. >> the titles on the questions or misstatement what we trying to achieve with the book? >> about this apology for congress of sorts. congress is at the center of our constitutional system. this book is a briefer why we come to value it as to why it is the only place we can bring together the diverse elements from across american society, ask them up and get them to accommodate each other. if we try to run everything through the executive branch to make everything depend on presidential elections love is too much weight on one person's shoulders. we end up big boomerang anger. we need to rely more on congress to deal the nation's national problem. that said it was a lot of skepticism as congress is an institution these days. this book tries to hit address it head on.

why of the problems in congress start up where they have? or did they come from over the past half-century of evolution of the institution? what was start their price key problems it may be seeing of how congress works, what would those be? >> thing that pops everyone's mind first is the overwhelming bitterness of partisanship on capitol hill today. and i think that comes from a source outside of congress. but also is part of the culture of the place itself. part of this book is a plea or legislators to direct their energy toward solving the problems that face the american people rather than just trying to worry about the next election in framing their opponents the worst possible light. now closely along with that problem is leadership dominance. it's one the major themes of the

book. when that leaders in both chambers the speaker of the house and the senate majority leader are just incredibly powerful in determining what is on the agenda in each of the chamber. i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk, and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 3746, an act to provide for a responsible increase to the debt ceiling. mr. schumer: mr. president, i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 i object to my own request. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next ledges lative day. mr. schumer: mr. president, i

move to adjourn. until 10:11 p.m. tonight. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to adjourn until 10:11. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the senate stands adjourned the senate gambled out for the day working on this federal rule issued by the education department that suspends a federal student loan payments for this week the senate will take up federal debt limit legislation. while a 5% coverage of the return here on cspan2.

watch video-on-demand any time online at c-span.org try our points of interest feature timely tool that uses markers to quickly guide you to newsworthy and interesting highlights of our key coverage is points of interest anytime online mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 3746, an act to provide for a responsible increase to the debt ceiling. mr. schumer: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding. the presiding officer: objection is heard. it will be placed on the

calendar. mr. schumer: mr. president, there's been a very good vote in the house of representatives. i hope we can move the bill quickly here in the senate and bring to to the president's desk as soon as possible. now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned until 10: 0:00 a.m., thursday, june 1. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and 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 resume consideration of. further at 1215, the joint redd resolution be considered -- resolution be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding of

♪e presiding of ♪ c-span campaign 2024 coverage for short front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidate on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to

make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. c-span now are free mobile video app or any time online at c-span.org. c-span your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more including media. >> @media column whether you live here, or right here, or wait out in the middle of anywhere you should have access to fast, reliable internet for that is why we are leading the way. media cposition c-span as a public serce along with the other television providers. a front row seat to democracy. i am peter carmichael director