what kind of mood you entered there's actually a set of very distinct indicators that explain where the economy is in in that regard and have to do with personal income, with payroll employment, retail sales and so on, industrial production. so if you look where we are, as you said, these indicators are certainly not flashing anything close to recession. where we are going is a much tougher proposition. i said i said earlier when you asked me to forecast inflation, i think it's not, it's a tough business to be in these days given the uncertainty kind of embedded in this economy and some of the unusual forces that we are seeing the resort have been abe to bring down inflation by a great deal by two-thirds in fact, -- >> here on c-span2, break k away from live coverage now of the u.s. senate. pending

business? the presiding officer: s. 2226. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that the following interns from my office be granted floor privileges until july 28, 2023, shields armstrong, dia, don, christian fulture and baron liston. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you, madam president. let me say that in just a few moments we will begin voting on amendments that are subject to i ask unanimous consent requests, -- i ask unanimous consent -- unanimous consent requests and we will have votes tomorrow so that we can get the national defense authorization act voted on. this year's national defense

authorization act would help meet the dangerous moments and help equip our military with the tools necessary to help implement the national defense strategy. chairman lee will speak later about the way this bill will deter adversaries and reinforce our defenses. and it's been a pleasure to work with him and to advance our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. we do this every year, madam president. this will be the 63rd time that congress, the house and senate, have sent a national defense authorization bill to the president for his signature, and i know we will do it today. this is a testament to our commitment to our country and also to our servicemembers. our threats are much greater than they were 63 years ago in

1961, when the first ndaa was passed. today the united states faces the most complex and dangerous global security situation since world war ii. china is swelling its military might. xi jinping has directed his forces to be able to invade taiwan by 20727. he's actually -- 2027. he's actually said this is his goal. proclaimed it openly. a successful invasion of taiwan would spell the end of the global security architecture that has helped ensure peace and prosperity since 1945. russia is executing the largest european land war in over half a century, but vladimir putin's eyes are not only on ukraine and europe, he seeks influence

across the global south and middle east. amid of this surgence of great power conflict, iran and north korea are increasing bellicose bellicose, -- the president of israel mentioned this very effectively in a joint speech to congress earlier today. and, indeed, our own homeland is no longer a sanctuary, criminal mexican cartels have exploited our south best border, this has created a drug and human trafficking crisis that is killing thousands of americans each year. moreover, two decades after 9/11, our sovereign airspace is vulnerable. we witnessed that earlier this year when china flew a surveillance balloon over our

country. managing this complerks environment requires more resources and smarter approaches. senior national security officials have repeatedly told the senate armed services committee a simple message, american defense capabilities are spread dangerously thin. in fact, our military has not been spread this thin in 70 years. our industrial base began to hum on the eve of war with the axis powers, and since then, our worldwide military presence has underwritten our domestic tranquility. we have succeeded, because we followed the doctrine of peace through strength, we believe the best way to counter today's threats is to deter our adversaries from attacking at all. however, as today's threats increase, our deterrence capabilities have decreased, and they must begin to increase and

do so immediately. for the past few years, madam president, our defense industrial base has languished. anemic budgets created a brittle industry that cannot ramp production to meet the needs of today. this year's ndaa is an important step forward in our quest to rebuild our arsenal. ideally we would have an annual 3% to 5% boost to our topline above inflation, 3% to 5% boost above inflation to our topline. without that budget increase, our committee has managed to advance a strong bipartisan product that contains important provisions. let me summarize a few. our secret weapon has been our people, so supporting our military personnel is key to any successful ndaa. this bill authorizes a 5.2% pay

raise for our servicemembers and it includes a host of other quality of life improvements for our troops and for our families. the bill also contains provisions that will help the military solve its recruiting crisis. and i'm glad to note we included a massive expansion of junior rotc, the jrotc program, an initiative that instills values like citizenship and public service in our young people and no doubt increases interest in military service. a 19th century american navy captain said, whoever rules the waves, rules the world. our committee greece. this -- agrees, this year's ndaa supports our shipbuilding programs by fully authorizing lpd33, the marine corps' top

priority. the bill decisively rejects the biden administration's misguided proposal to retire several ships too early. we also included support for our submarine programs. the legislation addresses ongoing maintenance delays. we are sending more funds to our shipyards. it expands our deterrent capabilities with the sea-launched cruise missile and allows us to make good on our commitments to the united united kingdom, to australia. the ndaa also delivers a host of our powerful munitions. the bill makes six more munitions eligible for multiyear pro kiewrmt contracts, including the highly regarded tom hawk missile. this is one of the top

priorities for deterring chinese aggression in the western pacific. the commander said he needed this additional procurement and this committee bill gives it to him had these multi-year commitments send a clear demand signal to our industrial base. we've got to manufacture this ammunition. we've got to manufacture these weapons. they also allow us to replenish our stocks while securing victory for ukraine against our strategic adversary russia, and we'll produce these arms at home, equipping american troops with weapons made by american workers. our committee realize military competition in the 21st century will be dieded by our willingness to -- decided by our willingness to harness technology, so this ndaa

supplements artificial intelligence, hieber sonics and -- hypersonics. we intend to lap beijing and communist china. we are authorizing a pentagon authority. this bill establishes investments in space launch infrastructure to secure the high ground in the space race. as always partnerships with our allies acts as a force multiplier on all of the tools we are providing american soldiers, sail -- sailors, airmen and marines. i'm glad this bill enhances security cooperation with allies in every part of the free world from the baltics to the pacific.

the bill addresses the crisis at the southwest border, and it is a crisis. we do this by requiring the department of defense to develop a strategy for countering fentanyl, a dod strategy for countering the deadly drug of fentanyl. it also authorizes the department to act against criminal mexican cartels in cyberspace. today the department, unbelievably, pays rent to store previously purchased border wall materials. we don't put them up to protect our border, but we pay rent to landowners to store these border wall materials. this legislation -- on a bipartisan basis, compelles them to -- compels them to use or transfer that so wall construction can continue.

this focuses the pentagon on deterring real wars, not fighting culture wars. our ndaa sends a signal to the department of defense bureaucrats that congress intends to rein in divisive social policies. this bill limits the amount we spend on salaries of dei staff. it restores a culture of mer toc raisi and has us forming effective officers and not on hosting berke lip style seminars. time permits me from listing all of the provisions included in the ndaa. we have an all too rare chance to return the senate to regular order today and allow -- and it gives us a chance to avoid a

costly, wasteful continuing resolution for our military. for the first time in years the senate majority leader has put the defense bill up for consideration with months left in the calendar. still we must be mindful of the fleeting time, but we must take this chance to avoid another self-inflicted real cut to defense and that's what a -- a continuing resolution always does when we have to retreat to that. let's avoid that, and we are doing that today. we are going to take up five amendments that we've agreed by unanimous consent to bring to the floor. the managers' package contains 50 amendments that have been agreed to by the committees and the leadership, 25 amendments sponsored by democrats, 25 amendments sponsored by my party, the republican party.

and we have a chance to continue this with votes tomorrow, and i think we should proceed with dispatch, madam president, working into the night, if necessary, next week to get this bill done after having a full debate on ideas submitted from both sides of the aisle. let's work thoughtfully to deliver a bill to the president's desk that commits this congress to a national policy of preparedness. let me quote president need dor -- thee dor -- thee dor roos develops. he said that never in our entire history has the nation suffered because too much care has been given to the army, too many prominence given to it, too much

money spent upon it or because it has been too large many again and again we have suffered because not enough care was not given to it, because it had been too small, because there not sufficient preparation in advance for a possible war. we need to heed those words today and what president roosevelt was saying it would cost a lot to deter our enemies, but it would cost a lot more if we do not. we cannot wait a moment longer to consider this year's ndaa. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i would ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. i would also ask that unanimous consent be given -- that floor passes be granted to the following staff members for the duration of the consideration of calendar number 119, that's s. 2226. lewis king and john clark with the armed services committee and john keist and brendan gavin with the armed services committee. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. i rise to discuss the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2024. the armed services committee approved this bill by a broad bipartisan vote of 24-1 last month, the largest margin in

years. and i appreciate the opportunity to work with senator wicker and our colleagues to produce this bill. senator wicker has been supportive, cooperative, creative, and done so with great credit to the committee's traditions. and i thank him for that. i'm also obviously tremendously preerk tif of the work of -- appreciative of the work of the staff, liz king and john keist of the minority. this is a strong defse bill that's laser focused on the threats we face. it addresses a broad range of issues from strategic competition with china and russia to countering threats from iran, north korea, violent extremists and even climate change. the bill authorizes record-level investments in key technologies like hypersonics and artificial intelligence and makes real progress towards modernizing our ships, our aircraft, and our combat vehicles. most importantly, this ndaa

provides a historic level of support for our troops and their families, including the largest pay raise in decades. the bill makes meaningful steps forward at a critical time for our national security. in addition to authorizing $845 billion for the department of defense and $32 billion for the department of energy's national security programs, there are a number of important policy provisions that i would like to briefly highlight. to begin, we have to ensure the united states can outcompete, deter, and prevail against our near-peer rivals. china has emerged as our primary competitor, the only nation with the intent and capability to mount a sustained challenge to the united states security and economic interests. this ndaa fully invests in the

pacific deterrence initiative to improve our force posture and build the capabilities of our partners and allies in the indo-pacific. the bill also establishes the indo-pacific campaigning initiative to facilitate increased u.s. military exercises, freedom of navigation operations, and partner engagements in the region. and to help taiwan improve its overall readiness and defense capabilities, the bill establishes a comprehensive training, advising, and capacity-building program for taiwan's military forces. i want to emphasize, however, that our nation's ability to deter china cannot be based on military might alone. we must strengthen our network of allies and partners which will be central to any strategy in the indo-pacific region. to that epidemiology, the bill makes progress -- to that end, the bill makes progress in the partnership between australia, a the united kingdom and the

united states, known as aukus. this partnership provides a valuable blueprint that will help pave the wait for our regional networks. even as we shift increased attention to the indo-pacific, we cannot lose sight of our priorities in other theaters, like europe. this year's ndaa fully funds the european deterrence initiative and the ukraine security assistance initiative to support our european allies and partners. ukraine has fought with incredible skill and bravery to defend its sovereign territory from russia, but there is much more to be done. the united states must continue to provide training, humanitarian and economic assistance, weapons and military equipment to ukraine to help the nation protect itself and rebuild itself. as part of this effort, the ndaa includes significant support for america's industrial base to backfill our own munitions. this bill facilitates the

acquisition of defense stocks related to ukraine and authorizes the use of multiyear contracting authorities to help improve industrial base stability. specifically, the bill helps improve defense acquisition processes by enabling the department to invest in and rapidly field cutting-edge commerce technologies. by improving defense small business programs and partnerships with high-tech companies, the legislation would help meet the defense, industrial, and civilian kneads of the united states -- and civilian needs of the united states. indeed, america's capacity for technological innovation has long given us the strongest economy and military in the world. this advantage is not a giften. -- is not a given. however, it must be nurtured and maintained. to that end, the defense bill authorizes significant funding for game-changing technologies like microelectronics, hypeerson psyche weapons and unmanned -- hypersonic weapons, and unmanned

systems. it also facilitate the napsy2 program. it quickly uses automation, artificial intelligence and predictive analysis. when fully developed, this concept will help us acquire targets as soon as possible and rapidly deliver information to the best operator on the land, air, or sea. to accomplish the objectives of national security and the national defense strategy, our military service and combat commanders must have the resources they need. recognizing this, the ndaa broadly supports the procurement of naval vessels, combat aircraft, armored vehicles, weapons systems and munitions requested in the president's defense budget for fiscal year 2024. the bill provides additional funding for the navy and marine

corps to accelerate procurement of service vessels and submarines, which are critical to power projection and deterrence around the world. the bill also provides greater predictability and stability in our naval acquisition programs and improves the united states' shipbuilding efforts. it restructures parts of the fleet as it evolves to a rapidly changing security environment and it invests in the priority modernization efforts to include next-generation combat vehicles and air and missile defense. developing these air, land, and sea warfare capabilities will be fight vital to -- vital to our success and long-term strategic success. we must enable the department to operate successfully in space

and cyberspace. the bill helps strengthen the posture of the department and the defense industrial base by providing increased funding to adopt innovative and modern cybersecurity strategies, tools, and technologies. ultimately, the key factor that makes the united states military the greatest in the world is our people. we need to ensure that our uniformed personnel know every day how much we appreciate what they do and that we have their backs. importantly, this ndaa provides a 5.2% pay raise for both military members and the defense civilian workforce. as indicated, this is one of the largest increases in pay in many, many years. finally, as we now see increasing capabilities from china, the defense bill strengthens our strategy by helping to modernize the u.s. nuclear triad. and there are many, many other provisions in this bill that happen help equip the department

and our war fighters with the tools they need to succeed. this morning leader schumer introduced the substitute amendment to s. 226, the committee-passed ndaa. this substitute includes 51 amendments that have been cleared both sides including 21 democratic amendments, 19 -- 21 republican amendments and nine bipartisan amendments. again, i'm pleased that we brought the bill to the floor so the entire senate has an opportunity to participate in the process. we've worked tirelessly, and we will continue to do so. i know that chair murray is here because she has the first amendment and would like to speak with that. madam president, i would yield the floor. i ask unanimous consent that julia colter, detailee to the senate armed service committee,

have floor access. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i yield the floor. mrs. murray: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i call up my amendment number 300 and ask had a it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mrs. murray proposes an amendment numbered 300. mrs. murray: madam president, for my colleagues who don't know, during world war ii, the federal government established the hanford site in central washington state to produce the plutonium that our nation needed for nuclear weapons. to the this day, workers are on the job cleaning up that site. it is important but dangerous work. many and one of those dangers is bar reconcilum exposure that causes serious respiratory

disease. not everyone who needs these critical medical benefits for beryllium exposure can get them today. right now people have to jump through very costly, unnecessary hoops and even then they could be denied all because the statute is outdated. right now a beryllium blood test that is borderline does not count towards a diagnosis, even when you are experiencing the effects of beryllium exposure or when it is your third such result. that is not right and it is not consistent with the current science either. my amendment simply updates the statute and brings it in line with an osha rule finalized under the last administration so that more workers can easily get the care that they need. and it is a fiscally responsible measure. cbo estimates that it will cost less than a half a million dollars over ten years if

anything at all. but it will make a real difference for these workers who have sacrificed so much for our country. so i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. kaine: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: if i could ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. kane can i rise to discuss an amendment that we will vote on later. mr. kaine: it is one minute a side. i think it might take a couple

minutes to explain -- a vote on nato. a few minutes ago people were questioning the value of nato. with american leadership nato is stronger today than it's ever been. nato's capacity, nato's willingness to link arms and provide defense to ukraine in the midst of an illegal invasion by a human rights-abusing vladimir putin has been extremely powerful and the value of nato has been demonstrated to such degree that even nations that never would have contemplated entering nato in the past -- finland and sweden have sought sore accession -- sought for accession. there was as question about withdrawing from nato. the constitution is plain that to enter into a treaty you need a ratification vote by the senate. but the constitution is silent about withdrawal. and so the last administration,

a question came up about whether a president could withdraw from nato unilaterally. i have a bill that's bipartisan, together with senator rubio. we'll vote on it later this afternoon. it will specify that no president can unilaterally withdraw from nato and any effort to withdraw from nato would have to be either approved by senate ratification -- the two-thirds vote -- or by an act of congress. this sends a powerful message that congress, after these decades, still believes in the power of nato. our allies, who worry about different presidents, should the policy change depending upon every four years who is president, they would take this statement of the congressional support in a very, very powerful way. i'm happy to say it's an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill that came through the committee in the 117th congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. the administration supports it.

the question did come up in a supreme court case in 1979, goldwater v. educator, how do you withdraw from a treaty in the supreme court said it is a political question for the executive and legislature to work out. we will take a step today that when it's on the president's desk by his ratification will demonstrate in america, both the executive and legislative branch appreciate nato and we're committed to its success. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call: mr. reed: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i would ask for thate nullment of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i also ask that the vote commence. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reed: i yield back all time. mrs. murray: without objection, all time is yielded backs. the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. the question is on amendment number 300. mr. reed: could i have the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz.brendaicapósvc10

vote: vote: mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley.

mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey.

mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray.

mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden.

mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative. baldwin, durbin, grassley, hickenlooper, kaine, lujan, lummis, menendez, merkley, murray, reed, rosen, schumer, scott of south carolina, sinema, tester,,

whitehouse. mr. lankford voted in the negative. the clerk: mr. hagerty, aye. the clerk: ms. hassan, aye. mr. heinrich, aye.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. the clerk: mrs. feinstein, aye.

the clerk: mr. crapo, aye. mr. ricketts, aye.

mr. graham, aye.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, aye. mr. peters, aye. vote: vote:

the clerk: mr. cassidy, aye. the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye.

mr. brown, aye. mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. the clerk: mr. paul, aye.

the clerk: mr. cotton, aye. mr. warner, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mr. cramer, aye. mr. tillis, aye. mr. budd, aye.

the clerk: mr. thune, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. the clerk: mr. braun, aye.

ms. duckworth, aye. the clerk: mr. johnson, aye. mr. marshall, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye. mr. booker, aye. mr. vance, aye.

the clerk: ms. capito, aye. mr. sanders, aye. mr. young, aye. ms. collins, aye. mr. murphy, aye.

ms. hirono, aye. mrs. shaheen, aye. ms. warren, aye. mr. schmitt, aye. the clerk: mrs. blackburn, aye.

mrs. britt, aye.

the clerk: wicker, aye. the clerk: ms. ernst, no.

mr. markey, aye. mr. schatz, aye.

the clerk: mr. rounds, aye. mr. kelly, aye. ms. smith, aye. the clerk: mr. padilla, aye.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye. mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, aye. mr. casey, aye. the clerk: mr. romney, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. mr. moran, aye. the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye. mr. wyden, aye.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no. ms. klobuchar, aye.

mr. cruz, aye. the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. daines, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye. the clerk: mr. lee, aye. mr. mcconnell, no.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye. mr. rubio, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. the clerk: mr. welch, aye. ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. hawley, aye.

the clerk: mr. mullin, aye. the clerk: mr. lankford, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye. the clerk: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 2.

under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: could we have order, please. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. schumer: just for the information of members, we're speeding up the vote process. there's the whitehouse picnic tonight, and we're going -- two of get things done by then. so there will be 10-minute votes and we're going to call questions quite strictly. okay? thank you. thank you. mr. rubio: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, i call up amendment 429 and ask that at that be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: mr. kaine proposes amendment numbered 429. mr. kaine: i ask that there be six minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. kaine: madam president, this is an amendment dealing with the power of the nato alliance. we have seen since the february 2022 invasion of ukraine that nato allows the democracies to link arms and stand courageously against an illegal invasion of ukraine by the dictator vladimir putin. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. kaine: some had questioned the value of nato, but nato has demonstrated its power to protect democracy against this invasion since february 2022. there had been an issue raised in the last few years about whether any president could unilaterally withdraw from nato, which was approved by the senate in a treaty. the constitution of the united states indicates that the senate must ratify treaties but is silent about how to exit treaties. the united states supreme court in 199 said that is a political

question for the legislature and the executive to resolve. what this amendment would do would make plain that no one could withdraw from nato, the united states from nato, without either a two-thirds vote in the senate or an act of congress. we've received a green light for this in the goldwater v. carter decision. and i think all the treaties that the u.s. has entered into, right now at this moment, in lithuania and during in war in europe, this congress should send a powerful message to our allies in nato that we stand with this historic alliance. the administration supports this amendment. i would reserve the remainder of my time. the presiding officer: senior senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i'd like to speak for a a few seconds in opposition to this amendment. it is absolutely unnecessary. i cannot think of any currently

serving elected official of significance who's calling for suspending or withdrawing from nato. if i didn't know better, i would think that this amendment might be aimed as a slap at former president trump, but surely that is not the case. if it is, however, we should be reminded that the former president was concerned about some of nato's members not meeting their obligations to spend 2% of gdp, but that he was fully committed to article 5 of nato. you'll be pleased to know that this bill, ndaa, addresses the concern of the 2%. we adopted an amendment at markup sponsored by senator sullivan that would require the secretary of defense to prioritize nato members who are meeting or exceeding the 2% gdp

defense spending target when the dod is making decisions on basing, training, and exercise. i yield the balance of my time. mr. kaine: mr. president, how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: is the senator opposed to the amendment? a senator: yes. the presiding officer: 1 minute and 40 seconds. mr. kaine: could i have unanimous consent to have one additional minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the senator from kentucky is recognized. mr. paul: it is unconstitutional for the legislature to change the constitution. while the constitution provides a role for both the president and the senate when entering a treaty, it is silent regarding how to exit a treaty. when the question of treaty termination first arose in 1793, president washington and his cabinet endorsed the view that the president's executive power included the ability to unilaterally terminate a treaty. withdrawal from a treaty

obligations permitted the u.s. to maintain neutrality in a war between france and great britain, and it was done unilaterally by president washington. the power to enter treaties is found in article 2, which vests the president with the executive power. unlike a legislative body, the president can act with unity and dispatch, precisely the qualities kneeledded to negotiate a treaty, so the founders grounded this authority in article 2. passing this amendment is tantamount to altering the constitution, because the amendment would authorize the senate to infringe upon the executive powers of the president. the senate has no voice when exiting a treaty. this would amend the constitution and is unconstitutional, and that's a good thing. the founders wanted it to be difficult to commit the u.s. to international obligations and easy to get out. we should follow the constitution and vote no on this amendment. mr. kaine: mr. president, i ask how much time i have remaining.

the presiding officer: 1 minute, 17 seconds. mr. kaine: on the constitutional argument, my colleagues, this very question came before the supreme court of the united states in 1979. president carter terminated a twon-related -- taiwan related treaty and was sued by senator goldwater and others. the case went to the u.s. supreme court. the court said because the constitution on exiting a treaty is silent, it is a political question that the legislature and executive can resolve for themselves. the supreme court refused to overturn carter's action. that is a clear green light that if congress, the legislative and executive branch agree that on this particular treaty that silence does not dictate but can be the source of legislation, we would be able to undertake this beings. finally, i note this is widely bipartisan, and i thank senator rubio and many other democratic and republican colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment to stand strong at this moment

with me. with that, i yield. mr. wicker: how much time is left on this unnecessary and extraneous amendment. the presiding officer: 1 minute and 11 seconds. mr. wicker: i urge a no vote for those reasons. proipt question is on the amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered, but the senator will state his inquiry. mr. wicker: i understand this will be a 10-minute vote, and those senators who arrive after 10 minutes and a brief grace period will not be allowed to vote. is that the position of the chair? the presiding officer: 10-minute votes have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin.

vote: the clerk: mr. barrasso, mr. bennett, mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd.

ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz.

mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly.

mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders.

mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker.

mr. wyden. mr. young.

the presiding officer: senators voting in the affirmative. band win, bennett, booker, brown, carper, casey, coons, cortez masto, cruz, duckworth, graham, kaine, kennedy, king, lummis, manchin, mash can i, mer -- markey, murray, ossoff,

reed, rosen, rubio, sanders, schatz, schumer, sinema, smith, stabenow, tester, warnock, warren, and whitehouse. mrs. feinstein, aye. mr. menendez, aye. senators voting in the negative blackburn, cotton, ernst, nish cher, grassley, hawley, hoeven, lankford, lee, commonly -- mcconnell, scott of florida, thune, vance and wicker. mr. marshall, no. mrs. britt, no.

mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. lujan, aye. ms. hassan, aye. mr. kramer, no. mr. padilla, aye. mr. carper, aye. ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye. mr. young, aye, ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, no. mr. cassidy, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye. the clerk: mr. hirono, aye. mr. durbin, aye. mr. risch, aye.

mr. braun, no. the clerk: mr. crapo, aye. mr. daines, aye.

mrs. hyde-smith, aye.

the clerk: mrs. capito, aye. mr. cornyn, no.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. the clerk: mr. romney, aye.

the clerk: mr. boozman, no. mr. johnson, no.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye. the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. mr. van hollen, aye.

mr. hagerty, aye. the clerk: mr. budd, no. mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye.

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 65, the nays are 28, under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: again, i'll remind members, we closed the vote before everybody came. we're going to keep doing that. let's stay here and get as much done as we can this afternoon. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i call up my amendment, 222, and i ask unanimous consent that the debate be four minutes and equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes amendment numbered 222. mr. paul: could we have order? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. senators will take their conversations out of the chamber. mr. paul: my amendment reasserts

that article 5 of the nato treaty does not supersede congress's power in our constitution to declare war. according to our constitution, we resort to war only after the people's elected representatives deliberate and determine that it is in our best interest. my amendment is also consistent with the nato treaty. article 5 of the treaty commits allies to respond to be an attack, but allows each ally to determine whether to engage in hostilities. article 11, states that each is to be -- we cannot delegate our responsibility to nato nor are we expected to. let us reaffirm that article 5 does not supersede congress's responsibility to declare war. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey.

mr. menendez: i rise in opposition. senator pawfl's amendment is both entirely unnecessary but worse than that, it's dangerous. there's no question that like any other treaty, the nato treaty does not supersede the constitution. however, specifically calling out article 5 of the north atlantic treaty, he erroneously implies that there is a tension between it and the constitution. this sends a damaging message about the u.s. commitment to the alliance at a time when support for nato is as critical as ever given russia's invasion of ukraine. further, by only referencing the nato treaty, senator paul's amendment erroneously implies that other treaties may supersede the constitution, a proposition that no senator would accept. because senator paul's amendment is both unnecessary and harmful at a critical time of our

engagement in ukraine, i urge all senators to vote against it and i reserve the balance of the time. mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: how much time do i have remaining. the presiding officer: a minute remaining. mr. paul: i think it should be an easy vote to affirm the constitution. to vote against affirming the constitution actually places doubt in the constitution. the power to declare war is the most important power and the most important vote that any legislator will ever entertain. why is this important? because in 2001, people voted to go to war and this body still thinks that that vote binds us to war with no further vote. we do need to reaffirm the power and the necessity of declaring war because we are ignoring it by continuing to be involved in military activity and war around the globe without ever having voted on it as we are mandated by the constitution.

mr. reed: mr. president, is there any time remaining. the presiding officer: 53 seconds remaining. the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i will be very brief. my understanding of the war powers act, the president initiate -- a limited time until congress can act. this proposal, a sense of congress, would come into question what the war powers act authorizes and that is a constitutional provision. it's been held constitutional. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet.

vote: the clerk: mrs. blackburn. the clerk: mr. blumenthal.

mr. booker.. boozman. mr. braun. the clerk: mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd.

ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein.

mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley.

mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance.

mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- braun, cruz, hagerty, johnson, lee, paul, rubio, schmitt, and tuberville. mr. kennedy, aye.

senators voting in the negative -- baldwin, bennet, blackburn, blumenthal, boozman, brown, cardin, coons, cornyn, cotton, crapo, duckworth, durbin gillibrand, graham, heinrich, hickenlooper, hirono, hyde-smith, kaine, kelly, king, klobuchar, cliewn, markey, menendez, merkley, moran, mullin, murphy, murray, padilla, peters, reed, risch, romney, rosen, rounds, sanders, schatz, scott of florida, shaheen, sinema, smith, tester, thune, tillis, warner, warnock, welch, whitehouse, and wicker.

mr. budd, no. ms. lummis, aye. mr. lankford, aye. mrs. fischer, no. mr. wyden, no.

ms. collins, no. mr. grassley, no. the clerk: mr. cassidy, no. mr. manchin, no.

mr. ricketts, no. mr. mr. marshall, aye. mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. carper, no. mr. young, no. mr. vance, aye.

mr. ossoff, no. ms. warren, no. the clerk: mr. mullen.

mr. van hollen, no. ms. hassan, no. the clerk: mr. hoeven, no. mr. fetterman -- mr. fetterman

no. ms. stabenow, no. mr. hawley, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. mrs. capito, no. the clerk: mr. casey, no.

mr. schumer, no. mrs. feinstein, no. mrs. britt, no. mr. mcconnell, no.

mr. daines, aye.

the presiding officer: ms. ernst

, no --. the clerk: ms. ernst, no.

the clerk: mr. booker, no.

the presiding officer: all right, on this vote the yeas are of 16, the nays are 83, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: we made some good progress this afternoon. we're going to have our fourth vote now, the last vote today. the cruz manchin amendment number 926 will be the first vote tomorrow morning. we're going to continue to work on additional roll call votes and amendments tomorrow. members should be aware we'll

probably have a nice chunk of votes tomorrow if we can work everything out. we want to move as quickly as we can. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for four minutes equally divided prior to the next roll call vote. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i call up amendment number 838 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the clerk: the senator from ohio, mr. vance, for mr. haul and himself, proposes an amendment numbered 838. the presiding officer: senators will take discussions outside the chamber. the senate will be in order. the senator from ohio. mr. vance: i propose senate 838 for the simple reason that as we spend resources to support the ukrainian war efforts against the ruins, we need to be honest with ourselves and the american

people about what we're spending and how much we're spending. we saw recently in a $6 billion department of defense accountingerror which gives to give the american people -- the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. senators take conversations outside of the chamber so the senator can be heard. mr. vance: thank you, senator young. what our amendment does is simple. it forces the department of defense to use an accurate accounting method when the president sends weapons systems to ukraine, how do we account for it? is it accounted for with old costs with appreciation or do we count it with the cost to the american taxpayer. i think this allows us to more adequately count and account for the resources we are giving to ukraine and other resources as well. mr. president, i ask to reserve the remainder of my time.

the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the senator's amendment. this amendment actually changes a long-standing definition related to the president's use of drawn down authority to provide critical military support to our partners in times of need. it would artificially inflate the value things on items like military items or technical data. we supply to our allies result in the administration hitting the cap on the authority. that means less aid to ukraine, taiwan or any ally who needs assistance in the future. this would undercut our your current -- our country efforts to support the ukraine limiting them with the articles they need to defend themselves. if this amendment passes, it will be a loss for our ability to support our allies. i urge a no vote.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio has 47 seconds remaining. mr. vance: the department of defense clarified that it has not used the proper accounting methods in ukraine. i don't think this this is a change to a long-standing policy. the more important point here is a $6 billion accountingerror is approximately the amount of aid that the united kingdom has provided to ukraine. if we're not using an accounting method to that allows us to properly account for this stuff, we are missing gaping numbers weeks can't have a cost-benefit debate if we don't know the cost of the resources or weapons we're sending to ukraine. i ask that it be called up for a vote. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there further debate?

mr. reed: is there time remaining? the presiding officer: a minute and three seconds remains. mr. reed: mr. president, the army recognized its mistake, they revised their policies, they use something known as net book value which is consistent with the foreign assistance act said that department uses and the bottom line here is we adopt this amendment, we will lower the amount of equipment we required for ukraine which is critically needed. i urge a no vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. the yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. and the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal.

the clerk: mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. the clerk: mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven.

mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen.

mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- britt. budd, kafd, cornyn. cruz, fischer, graham, haul, shined.

marshall, mullin, paul, ricketts, rounds, rubio, schmitt, thune, tillis, tuberville, vance, young. senators voting in the negative, bennet, blumenthal, brown, cardin, carper, casey, collins, coons, crapo, duckworth, fetterman, gillibrand, hassan, heinrich, king, kelly, klobuchar, manchin, markey, menendez, murray, padilla, peters, reed, risch, romney, rosen, sanders, schumer, sinema, stabenow, tester,

warner, war knock, warren, welch, whitehouse, wyden. mr. scott of south carolina, aye. the clerk: mr. scott of florida, aye. mr. grassley, aye.

mr. sullivan, aye. mr. wicker, aye. mr. murphy, no. mr. merkley, no. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. cortez masto, no. ms. baldwin, no.

the clerk: mr. braun, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. hagerty, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, no. the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye.

mr. moran, aye.

the clerk: ms. ernst, no. mr. lee, aye. mr. lujan, no.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, no.

mr. lankford, aye.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye. mrs. feinstein, no.

the clerk: mr. cramer, aye. the clerk: mr. van hollen, no.

the clerk: ms. smith, no. mr. booker, no.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, aye. ms. hirono, no.

the clerk: mr. schatz, no.

the presiding officer: the yeas are 39, the nays a 60. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. bennet: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the vote on the cruz-manchin amendment, number 926, be at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the republican leader on thursday, july 20, with all provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc -- calendar numbers 46 through 52, number 82-107, number 110 through 113, number 130 through

139, number 180, through 205, number 224 through 226, number 228 through number 234, number 236 through number 246, number 248 through number 249. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. marshall: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: madam president,

i am certainly honored to be here and stand beside my colleague and friend, coach tommy tuberville, as we work through a very, very challenging situation regarding our military nominations. i tried to listen to the arguments from my colleagues across the aisle, and one thing i want to just point out, a very simple solution is to bring these to the floor and give us a vote on them. i'm happy to stay here tonight and vote, happy to come in early tomorrow and vote as well. it is certainly something within the power of this body to do that. so that's one simple solution. next, i want to point out that the pentagon is on -- is the one that picked this fight. they're the one that changed the policy. and in my opinion, this is an unlawful policy, that they're violating the hyde amendment, that they're using federal funds to aid and abet abortions. and i dug a little deeper in

this. i was shocked to find out that the pentagon's policy allows more time off for an abortion than for a person who needs to attend to a family funeral or to a parental. and i might add -- or to a marriage. and i might add that the military is not paying pour the travel back home to attend a funeral. there's lots of arguments why we think this is right. and i think the ultimate argument is why coach tuberville and i are here is that weigh believe in the sanctity of life, that we believe that life begins at conception e -- conception. i think if my colleagues across the aisle would set and listened for a second, if you truly believe that life begins at conception, i don't see how you could support abortions, let alone using federal dollars to pay for these abortion,s. i remember my second year of medical school and i was

assuming i was going to be a family practice doctor. we'd been married for about a year and a half, had our first baby. the second that little girl made her first crisis and i saw that -- her first cries and i saw that bond between my daughter and wife, and every time i delivered a baby since then, i have a always been just amazed at that bond between a baby and mom, that agapi love that a mom shows a baby. it was at that moment that my daughter was delivered that i decided that was what i wanted to do for a living. and as an obstetrician, a person who believes that life begins at conception, that's requests this issue is so important to us. that's why this is such an important issue that we're willing to hold up these nominations. the presiding officer: i think what we're asking is a simple solution.

mr. marshall: i think turnpike those on and let's -- i think we can take those on and let's do them. if not, we're asking the pentagon to go back to the previous policy to stop their unlawful use of american taxpayer dollars, violating the hyde amendment for these abortions. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. tuberville: madam president. the presiding officer: the mr. tuberville: madam president, reserving the right to object. last night i spoke on the phone with secretary of defense lloyd austin. i also spoke with him last thursday. both conversations were very cordial. we had a good conversation, respectful, but they were very brief. they were absolutely no offer. there was no offer of a compromise. it's their way or the highway.

thus far the pentagon has done nothing but attack me, and i keep repeating the same claims over and over. since i spoke with secretary austin on thursday, a few things have changed. one is that the house of representatives has now passed their annual defense bill. the bill contains an amendment that would explicitly repeal the memos which implemented the pentagon's new abortion policy. it wasn't in the base text of the bill. it was added on the floor by the majority of the house members. the majority of the house of representatives have spoken out in opposition to this policy. it was a bipartisan vote. senator bennet, secretary austin, president biden need to realize this. i am not alone. our team is building and

growing. 60% of the country is opposed to taxpayer funding for abortion. that includes democrats, republicans, and independents. 60%. the pentagon's new abortion policy is even worse than that. it is a taxpayer-funded abortion that nobody, and i mean nobody in the house or here voted for. and it gets worse. this morning the pentagon staff who is in charge of putting this together gave a briefing to the members of the senate armed services committee. to be honest with you, it was a complete debacle. i thought they would be prepared. the briefing confirmed a few things we know about this policy. first of all, there are virtually no restrictions at all on the use of this policy. none. the briefers confirmed that the

policy could be used to facilitate a late-term abortion for enlisted members and their dependents. pentagon officials confirmed that this policy would facilitate abortion up to the moment of birth, depending on the state. at the moment of birth. late-term abortion is opposed, madam president. late-term abortion is opposed by about three-quarters of the american people. to be clear, the dod has the authority to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. that was passed on this floor in 1984. and what we're talking about with this new policy that no one in this building voted on is taxpayer funding for elective late-term abortion.

this is radical, its extreme, it's downright wrong. third, the briefers essentially confirmed that the policy was not, was not based on facts. it was based on an extreme political ideology. i asked the briefers for evidence that abortion improves readiness. they should have seen this coming before they walked in the building this morning at 9:00. they knew they were going to be asked this. i've been asking this question for a year. pentagon officials still have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it impedes readiness. when the administration was touting this policy, they said it could lead up to 4,000 taxpayer-funded abortions a year. let me explain this. when i got a briefing last year from the pentagon, we asked them how many abortions is

this, does this consistent of. well, now we're doing two dozen a year. when this policy is put into place, rand, their polling group out of the pentagon, said it will affect probably around 4,000. now this came from the pentagon. this wasn't made up by my team or anybody else in my party. this came directly from the pentagon. i want to say this, 4,000, and that's not including dependents. not including dependents. so you're looking at a lot more. now they're backtracking and accusing me of inflating that number, well, that's fine. they've got a short memory. that argument cuts both ways. democrats need to explain why 2,000 abortions are necessary for a military of two million people. they can't explain it because it has nothing to do with

readiness. we're talking about elective abortions. we already had in a policy, an abortion policy for rape, incest, and health of the mom. this policy was in no way affected by the alabama law or any other state law. it's got nothing to do with the dobbs decision. this is a taxpayer-funded abortion that nobody, and i mean nobody voted for in this building or the other end of the building. democrats say my hold is unprecedented. well, i will say this, their abortion policy is unprecedented. we are here to make the law, not the pentagon. anyone who calls himself pro-life needs to stand up and be counted right now. that's my party included. democrats' media machine is throwing the kitchen sink at this hold.

it doesn't bother me. i've been called everything anyway. it just makes me that much stronger to hear people complain about this, knowing that deep down somewhere there's a soft part in their heart for 4,000 to 5,000 unborn babies that will never breathe life on this earth. so the more joe biden attacks me, the more i'm convinced that i'm doing the right thing. it seems like my colleagues on the left will do anything to change the subject and distract from this issue at hand. recently even the white house attacked my football record. my wife did the same thing at times. it's absolutely ridiculous, though, how this thing has gotten out of hand. there has been very little conversation, very little dialogue, and that's what this place is supposed to be about. the only dialogue we've had is senator tbhent and several other senators coming in and we

discussed this in a u.c. but the people that change and have an opportunity to make a difference in this could sit down and talk. so i hate that we have to do this, but we're going to stick with it. let's stick with the facts. and after today's briefing, it's clear to me that the pentagon doesn't have any facts. so for that reason, madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. bennet: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. i'm sorry that the senator from alabama has objected tonight again. i think this is the seventh time that we've been out here having this conversation when i've been trying to move ahead the promotions of our defense department, and he has in an unprecedented manner opposed it. for 230 years nobody in this chamber has done what the

senator from alabama is doing, put a hold on the military promotions of people in uniform, the flag officers of our department of defense that ordinarily come through here in a customary way to get approved by the senate for obvious reasons. because we need them there for our national sciewmplet they have sacrificed -- national security. they have sacrificed their entire adult lives, sacrificed time with their family. they have sacrificed everything for this country. and now they have been promoted, or they have been put on a list to be promoted, and the senator from alabama has put a hold on them, which has never happened before in the history of the united states. for somebody who has put this, the senate to a grinding halt month after month after month, he has picked an odd argument to

defend his position, madam president. he has said time and time again that what he's doing actually doesn't matter. what he's doing, in the face of democratic -- not that it matters because the secretary of defense shouldn't think of themselves as a democrat or republican. but people who have served in democratic or republican administrations have said over and over again that he's compromising our national security, which is of course exactly the conclusion that anyone looking at this with common sense would believe. that our generals and our admirals actually make a difference. the head of the joint chiefs of staff actually makes a difference. if that's not the case, if that's not the case, we're in worse trouble than i thought. and if it is the case, if what he's saying is right that it doesn't matter, it doesn't make any difference, then how can he claim to be acting on this incredibly important principle since it doesn't matter?

as he says, these military positions are being fulfilled by acting officials, by acting officials. he says the generals, as i say, aren't important. the admirals aren't important. they can be filled by acting officials. we don't need a marine corps commandant, madam president. in his mind, it doesn't matter. we don't need an army chief of staff. we don't need a chief of naval operations. we don't need a nominee for the joint chiefs of staff, madam president. all of those positions are up for promotion right now. every single one is being blocked by the senator from alabama and by people in this chamber that are supporting him on this unprecedented hold. by the way, i haven't talked about this in the seven times that i've been out here, but i have heard from people about this since. let me just mention the incredible unfairness of this hold to the families that are working, that are supporting

and serving with and living with these members of the armed forces, many of whom spent their entire career working to get to the point that they're in right now to be promoted to a position of the most significant responsibility they have ever held. the decisions that have been made on the way here to miss soccer games with their kids, to make a decision to accept a promotion that takes you to a foreign land distant from your family, distant from your community, the disruption in people's lives who now don't know where to put their kids in school because the senator from alabama has put his blanket hold, which he says doesn't matter. these are people who wear the uniform of the united states. they're not politicians. not that that matters either. but they are people that wear the uniform of this country, who have given their life and

their career to this country. and he says holding up these promotions doesn't matter. that is, by the way -- i'm not going to get distracted by this and i'm not going to criticize his coaching career tonight or his football record, as he said. the senator from kansas i know won't let me get away with that, so i'm not going to do it. but i would even say the senator from kansas would have to admit, i hope, that this is an odd position for a coach to take. that the coaches don't matter in our military, and our admirals, our generals, people that rally the troops don't matter. this is like a little bit like saying the denver broncos didn't need mike shanahan to win two consecutive super bowls in 1997 or 1998 or the denver nughts this year didn't need mike

malone to win the championship. or to not criticize his record or the university of alabama didn't need nick saabin to win eight sec championships. of course it matters. leadership matters. leadership matters probably more in the armed forces than it matters anywhere else. and that is the reason that we're here. he knows exactly what he's doing. he understands the damage that he's inflicted. and there's a reason why he is the only senator in 230 years who has done this. what is it, madam president -- what is it that he wants to bring the country's attention to? what is he asking the country to pay attention to?

he is saying that he's standing up for the sanctity of life. he said that tonight. he's claiming that in these policies, and it's easy to describe these policies as, you know, the woke biden administration, distorting the defense department to serve their, you though, woke policy goals. and what he wants the american people to believe is that he's stopping the government from paying for abortions, and that's simply not what he's doing because that's not what's happening. that's not what is at issue here. he says that the dobbs decision doesn't have anything to do with what he's doing or with this case. and that's totally wrong.

last year, as everybody in america knows, the supreme court of the united states, for the first time since reconstruction, stripped the american people of a fundamental freedom, a fundamental constitutional right. that has not happened in this country since reconstruction, but it happened this year. it happened this year in the dobbs case. it happened when justice alito, writing for the majority, said if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it's not a freedom today. and that was the most glorious, i way, inglorious, but he would say deploreus -- glorious expression of his judicial ideology of originalism that we have ever seen on these -- on

the court. and it came after 50 years, it's worth going through this history because he blew it off so quickly. after 50 years of a concerted political effort to overturn a woman's right to choose in this country, to run elections based on taking that freedom away, that right away, to pack the courts with judges that would take that freedom away, to create a judicial ideology that barely existed, the ink was barely dry on the law review articles that justice alito -- attorney scalia was writing when i was in law school that they were claiming that these originalists had a fundamental

understanding of what the founders' perspective and understanding was when they founded this country when they wrote the constitution. and now we've seen it manifest in this opinion by justice alito when he says if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it's not a freedom today. i don't want the pages or anybody else that's here tonight to be fooled just because they used the word originalism. that is the most brilliant political name, the most brilliant political label that's ever been attached to any ideology probably in the history of humankind, certainly in the history of our country, because it claims that they though what the founders actually wanted in this when they founded this country, which, of course, is ridiculous on its face for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the founders had fundamental disagreements with each other about all kinds

of things, and anybody who has studied our constitutional history to any degree knows that and knows that the constitution was a product of compromise and consensus and agreement and disagreement. some of the founders, i'm sad to say, owned slaves and fought they hard for the protection of human slavery in the united states of america, and their legacy will be with us until the end of our days because of what they did at the founder. there are other founders who fought, who were be abolitioniss who said this is wrong, we should get rid of slavery and the constitution is littered with -- is littered with those kinds of compromises, some of them are ones that are glorious and some of them are ones that

are inglorious. but i dwell on this, mr. president, because it's important for people to understand this didn't come from nowhere. it's important to understand that we are at a moment when they have achieved their 50-year ambition, which is to create an originalist majority on the supreme court of the united states to reverse roe v. wade, among other things, but that is clearly the most important thing to them. and in a moment of, you know, of maybe political distress, realizing that they had actually succeeded in their wildest dreams succeeded something i can tell you, mr. president, in my advanced age that when i was in

law school would have been unimaginable, which is that in the united states we would reverse roe v. wade in the year 2023. that i would travel the streets of colorado with my daughters and we'd look up at the billboards advertising certain stuff in colorado and realize that we lived in a country that was legalizing marijuana on the one hand and making abortion illegal at the same time. that is something we couldn't have imagined. that is something we would not have forescene, but nobody -- foreseen, but nobody when i was in law school would have dreamed you would get five justices of the supreme court with the logic that if it's not a freedom in 1868, when women didn't have the right to vote in this country,

that it's not a freedom today, and it's as simple as that. it's as straightforward as that. and when that opinion was reached in dobbs, then you started to hear people say, well, don't worry about it. that's just the -- a state's rights issue. you don't needer wore -- worry about that. laboratory of democracy, we're just going to see what the states decide to do. the first problem with that is, of course, we're talking about a fundamental freedom, we're talking about a fundamental right, we're talking about, in my judgment, a civil right. so that's the first issue. that's something that shouldn't be decided state by state by state. but it turned out that they actually meant what they said. this wasn't just an experiment in democracy, this was an

attempt to ban abortion in the united states of america. since dobbs was decided, 21 states, mr. president, have banned abortion or restricted access. last year -- last week iowa passed a six-week abortion ban. most women don't even know they're pregnant at six weeks. the leading candidate for president, on their side of the aisle, who is not named donald trump signed an abortion banning his state, the state of florida, that 65% of floridians oppose that bans abortion at six weeks, and he did it at 11:00 o'clock at night. why do you think he did that at 11:00 o'clock at night?

maybe because he knew what seemed like the thing to do on right-wing radio was going to be a lot less popular with the voters in florida. and i would say the voters across the united states of america who are deeply concerned about protecting this civil right, who are deeply concerned about protecting freedom and a woman he a right to choose and all of the implications for a quality that exists that come to the fore forefore -- to the fe when you're facing questions like this and those are the questions that we're facing now. in the wake of the defense department in good faith trying to grapple with a change in the law brought about by the majority of the supreme court

stripping away this fundamental freedom and stripping away this fument right. -- fundamental right. mr. president, there was a time when women serving in our military would have some assurance that they were going to have minimal access to reproductive health care no matter where they served. that was the law of the land before dobbs. that is what roe v. wade said. but now they don't have that minimal access. and the department of defense, in the wake of the decision in dobbs, not a decision i assume they would have wanted, but is trying to grapple with that in ways that makes sense for the men and women who serve in our military. and they're basically trying to

say, let us treat women the same as everybody else who's serving in the military. and in response to dobbs, the pentagon issued three policies. let me tell you something -- let me tell you something. we are going to have a debate in this country about what dobbs means when it comes to access to a woman's right to choose and the consensus that exists around here for be a long time has been upset by that. we're going to have a debate about that. i'm sure about that. but i just want to say it is absolutely false that the defense department has created a situation where they are suggesting that they're funding taxpayer abortions. that's what the senator from alabama says. i hope that people that are

supporting him on this floor know that's false. they know that's not true. that is not what the defense department did. the defense department has not violated the hyde amendment. the defense department, faced with this decision in dobbs, did three things. they said if you need reproductive health care or if you need an woorgs -- an abortion, we will pay for your travel to go from a state like alabama, where you can get jailed, i guess, up to the 9 years if you're a doctor that performs an abortion, to a state like colorado that has enshrined roe v. wade, that will -- that we'll pay your way. that's not special treatment. that is it the treatment that everybody gets for a medical service that's not provided near their base.

the second thing they said was, they were going to allow paid leave while you are getting your reproductive health care, just like everybody else who is going to get a medical procedure gets, and we're going to give you a little bit of additional time on this -- what can be a very difficult subject for the reasons everybody here knows to talk to your commanding officer and inform them that you're pregnant. that's it. that is it. this -- that is it. it is not more than that. and so what i would ask everybody in this chamber, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice or something else, where everybody across america who is suffering now because we're not able to promote the flag officers in the u.s. military, what which would ask you to consider, please, is what

senator tuberville will win if he wins. what will senator tuberville win if he wins? he will assure that women are going to be treated worse than men. in the department of defense. he will assure that women will be treated differently, unequally, and unfairly. because, unlike anyone else who needs a medical procedure, they will have to pay for their own travel out of, let's just say, alabama or other states that have banned abortion, to be able to access an abortion.

unlike everybody else, unlike everybody else, they will have to take unpaid leave while they're trying to undergo that medical procedure. or a medical procedure that could lead to an abortion. i don't think most people in this country that are pro-life would think that women should be treated differently in that respect. discriminated against. i think they would take the view that if you are serving in the united states armed forces, and you are serving in a state that has banned abortion, and you are pregnant, and you have decided, you have made a judgment on your own or with your family or with your doctor, that the right answer for you and for your family is to go to another state and have an abortion, i think

most people would say that you ought to have the right to do that, that you shouldn't be discriminated against, if that's your judgment. that doesn't mean you're pro-choice or pro-life. it means that people can make that determination, and that people shouldn't be discrim naped against. i are -- discriminated against. i have to say, mr. president, it is lnl as if -- it is almost as if he's punishing them for the rule that the department of defense has promulgated. you know, and that he wants to try to make this case of the biden administration overreaching, distorting the department of defense, bending dod to its will, infusing the department of defense with some sort of woke strategy. i think it's really important for the american people to understand what's at stake here.

this is not a game. this is not a game, when you're holding up every promotion of every single flag officer at dod. this is not a game when all you're talking about is whether we're going to have a country that discriminates against people or whether people are going to be treated equally. this isn't a game when the question is are you going to have the ability to pay to have your -- to have your leave paid for, your travel paid for, to have a little extra time to talk to your commanding officer about the decision that you're going to have to face. why in the world would we want to make life more difficult for people who are in that condition or circumstance? why are we blaming them for a rule that they had nothing to do with writing, and that the dod had the ability to promulgate, the department of justice has made that clear?

it defies common sense. it defies common sense. and tonight we heard him say, you know, that he's here because he's trying to defend the sanctity of life. that's what he said. i've said out here, and i will say again, that i believe people in this country have strong differences of opinion when itdoms to a woman's -- when it comes to a woman's right to choose and when it comes to abortion, and i think it's really important that people respect that. the presiding officer and i have had this conversation over the years about that, and i believe it. i think that people could have very different moral points of view here. i think people can have very different religious points of view about this. i have concluded, for myself, that i think this is a decision that is much better left, partly

because it is such a difficult decision, it is a much better decision to be left to a woman herself, consulting with whomever she wants to consult with, her doctor, her family, than it is for michael bennet to impose myself on that decision. or for senator tuberville to impose himself on that decision. i mean, tonight i heard him say that he thinks that dod, that somehow this money could be used to pay for late abortions in this country, and who wouldn't be for stopping late abortions in america? everybody would want to stop late abortions, i would think, if you studied the matter, if you asked the question what is a late abortion in america, what does happen. what you discover, mr. president, not surprisingly, that 1% of abortions in america, or less than 1%, are late

abortions in america, and they are situations where women, moms mostly, moms have made the decision to -- because it's going to be moms and dads, but often mostly mom, made a decision to have a child, to pick a name, to pick out the furniture for a bedroom, and then something has gone terribly wrong, something nobody in this chamber would ever wish on anybody they knew. and sometimes those are circumstances where, against all expectations, against all promise, against all hope, against all joy, somebody has to make a decision to have a late-term abortion. is that really the moment we want senator tuberville helping make that decision? is that really when we want the

federal government helping make that decision? i don't think so. but i think we shouldn't be surprised that we're here, with this extreme measure that he's taken in the senate, the reflection of what is an extreme ideology. he's called abortion infanticide, he's called abortion this generation's holocaust. he won't be satisfied until he subjects women in his state to the draconian measures that alabama has legislated. no exceptions for rape or incest in alabama. if you're a doctor and you perform an abortion, you can go

to jail for up to 99 years in alabama. just today, mr. president, just today we found out that the alabama attorney general, like the attorney general from mississippi, i think it was, wants to record information and is demanding that information be supplied to the government on women who have traveled out of state to seek abortion services. that's a pretty dystopian view of where we are as a country. i don't understand how you could say you're on the side of freedom and be trying to hunt the information down for american citizens that are making a decision that's in

their interest or the interest of their family, to collect information on a lawful medical procedure, to try to prevent women from traveling across state lines in this country, in this country, this democracy, this republic. how do you say that you're on the side of freedom when you refuse to allow women to have the same opportunity to travel for medical procedures as men, unless you think that somehow women don't -- aren't entitled to the same freedoms as men? how do you make the case, i don't know, that you stand for freedom? you might stand for something else, but to stand for freedom, when you say that you're in a better position, as an elected politician from a state, to make

judgments about a woman's pregnancy than she is? this is a freedom do discriminate, mr. president. this is a freedom to oppress people. we're in a tough place tonight because of what the senator from alabama has done. i acknowledge that his state is really different from mine. colorado really values freedom, and colorado really values privacy. by the way, i'm sure the people of alabama do too. i can't prove it here tonight, but i'll bet you there are a lot of people in alabama who think it's wrong to be holding up these flag officers, and who if they knew that this really was

about paying, for example, for paid leave, not taxpayer-funded abortions, which is what we've heard again tonight, which isn't true, that they'd say, man, this doesn't sound like the right battle that we're taking. it's like the 65% of people in florida who are saying, what? our governor signed a bill at 11:00 at night to create a six-week abortion ban in our state? when there are women in florida all the time who don't even know they're pregnant at that time? colorado's taken a different view. we're a libertarian state, in some respects, a libertarian state, a western state. we believe a decision about a woman's health belongs between a woman and her doctor and her

family, if she chooses to involve them. we were the first state in america to decriminalize abortion before roe v. wade was even decided. we were the first state, colorado, to codify a right to choose after dobbs. and that's a totally different view of the world than alabama has, and i accept that. but the reason why we're here is we got to figure out what to do in a post-dobbs world where that minimum threshold, that constitutional freedom on which so many generations of americans, especially american women but americans, have relied, and it has been stripped away. and in my opinion, in the meantime, we ought to be willing to say that this is a decision that should be left to women to

make this decision in their interest and for themselves. it's not my job or the senator from alabama's job to substitute his position, his decision, to effectively say that we're going to reward your service, your willingness to serve in the department of defense, when you've been sent through no fault of your own or decision of your own to a place like alabama that's banned abortion in this country, we're going to not only allow you to make that decision, but we're going to say you got to pay your own way out of here. that unlike any other person, you can't take paid leave.

i think that's an extreme position, mr. president, and i think it is a -- it is an absurd position to believe that we're not hurting our national defense by not confirming these generals and these admirals and these other people that are up for promotion, that it doesn't somehow degrade our military readiness when it obviously does, and every single person in this chamber knows that it does. at a time when niewb is in -- at a time when putin is in ukraine and china is saber rattling in the pacific, this is the last thing we need to do. there's a reason why, there is a reason why, mr. president, our friends in ukraine are working so hard to try to take out the

leadership in putin's army, for god's sake. because it matters who's in command, as a matter of your national defense, as a matter of your national security, as a matter of your willingness or your ability to be able to effectively fight. so i'm at the end tonight, mr. president. i apologize to the floor staff once again for keeping us here as late as i have. i apologize to the young pages that are here, in particular, and not just for that fact but because we've -- they are coming of age at a moment in american history whether we are coughing up fundamental rights instead of extending those rights to people. but that's what this battle has to be about. that's what this battle is

about. it's why it's so important that when something like this happens, that we call it out. and that even people that are natural allies or otherwise would be natural allies of a particular political position might in this instance say, man, that tactic is really self-defeating. or might in this instance say please at least tell the american people candidly what it is you're doing. and i think the american people if they understood that would say we should do our job and approve these nominations. i think the american people in the years ahead and the decades ahead are going to fix the decision that the dobbs court just did. there's no doubt in my mind that

the american people are not going to stand for sam alito's -- justice alee toe's -- justice alito's america where if it was not a freedom in 1968 it's not a freedom today. we've come too far for that point of view. we owe too much to this next generation of americans and even the generation that's coming after them, believe it or not, for that to be our point of view. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call:

^

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: is the senate in a quorum call. the presiding officer: we are. a senator: therefore i ask, mr. president, the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you, mr. president. we are contending with china which is undergoing the largest peacetime expansion of military power in history. this morning congress and the american people heard from israeli president isaac herzog and i rise today to remind my colleagues ever the ongoing threat posed by iran to peace in the middle east and beyond. iran is exporting more oil today

than it has since 2019 despite the sanctions that were overwhelmingly passed by this congress and that remain as current law. recently the navy's fifth fleet intervened to prevent two commercial oil tankers from being seized by iran in the gulf of amman and today -- and iran was recently granted membership in the shanghai corporation which fosters deep political and economic cooperation with russia, china, india, and other members. all of this is taking place while iran continues to enhance its nuclear program, provides russian with weaponry to use in ukraine, funds proxy fighters throughout the middle east, holds u.s. citizens hostage and vows to kill former american officials in revenge for the death of soleimani. despite the retakenment of diplomatic ties with saudi arabia, it appears we're far from, quote, de-escalation.

the dees came laix that the biden administration says it seeks. instead all evidence points to an iranian regime intent on aggressively pursuing its aggressive objectives. i agree that we should avoid a crisis that would be triggered by iran enriching uranium weapons beyond 90% grade or iran-backed militia killing u.s. servicemembers in an attack. but my concern is what behavior the president is willing to accept short of these red lines. while i can only speculate on the content of the biden administration's reported talks with iran, press reports suggest a possible agreement would permit iran to maintain nuclear enrichment at 60%. this level cannot be justified for peaceable purposes and agreeing to it could have serious consequences. in addition, the biden administration's persistent outreach to iran undermines its stated goal to degrade the russian military. henry roam and another are two scholars that follow the program

closely. instead of laying the ground work for a deal that reverses tehran's nuclear program, this strategy risks -- iran status as a nuclear threshold state all while shaking off its economic and political isolation. in other words, it gets a lot of what it wants without any price to pay. normalizing 60% enrichment level may threaten more nuclear proliferation, particularly in the middle east. other countries contemplating nuclear programs will take note and demand the same treatment. another element of reported deal is iran's pledging not to harm american servicemembers in the region. ensuring the protection of americans abroad is the president's first responsibility and it is to be commended. however, turning a blind eye to havoc wrought against our partners in the region only sows greater instability. at the same time iran's oil exports were revealed earlier this month. israel was waging a military operation against iranian-backed

palestinian militia groups, hamas and islamic jihad. in iraq, in addition to tehran-backed militia that remain beyond government control, iran is gaining ground in the iraqi government. scholar michael knights observed last month, and i quote him. iran's allies have achieved unprecedented control of iraq's parliament, judiciary, and executive branch. washington's complacent attitude toward these events is only setting it up for costly involvement later. the regime's ability, the irgc to fund such efforts comes directly from the failure to enforce sanctions. "the wall street journal" reports oil exports are double what they were a year ago. the highest as i said since 2018. oil revenue is the regime's lifeblood and reducing the cash stream's is a critical component to getting iran to negotiate.

i call on the administration to strictly enforce sanctions on iran's oil exports and pressure countries that help to facilitate the sale of iranian oil. in a bipartisan letter, i joined with 25 of my colleagues just recently. we wrote the president last month. it is crucial for the administration to remain aligned with congressional effortses related to iran's nuclear program and not agree to a pact that fails to achieve our nation's critical interests. in the face of a regime that is -- in which hard liners have solidified power, president biden's narrowly focused approach merely kicks the can down the road. but this may be iran's -- to iran's advantage. in fact it most likely is. current trends indicate that iran will use the time to refill its coffers and deepen its diplomatic ties better positioning itself to withstand pressure to make any significant concessions. the administration must pursue more than the bare minimum in

its diplomacy. keeping a problem from developing into a criefers is good but solving the problem is much better. i recognize the obstacles that must be overcome and that we will have to provide some concessions. to believe otherwise would ignore history. the history of diplomacy. but in accord with the will of congress and acceptable -- an acceptable agreement can be reached. president biden has the tools we have provided through that legislation. and he must use them. mr. president, i yield the floor.

democracy depends o , their trust in democracy will begin to erode. and we need democracy to insure that working families have a seat at the table when their aspirations are at stake. madam president, as a young person, i was the beneficiary of the fruitses of democracy. i grew up in the 960s, one of six kids in an irish catholic family in springfield, massachusetts, stable and secure. i was given the name of hi -- my

holy catholic parish. the sense of community was paramount. helping a neighbor is what you did reflexively and always. and when i was a boy, my mother did something that only later did i realize what a profound impact it had on me. she taught me what small d democracy meant in practice. when i was in grammar school, i didn't know what abortion was. i did know my parents, church-going catholics, were against it. it was also illegal at the time, and a neighbor across the street actually went to jail for performing abortion with. my mother made dinner every night for our family of eight, and every week she sent me across the street with another hot dinner for our neighbors while their parent was away for a while. when i think about what my mother did, i really hope i can follow her example. instead of vilifying a neighbor.

.. the community stronger if we give a right to the post office, for some needed a hand even if we disagree to them. madam president, later i attended holy cross college like my father and my three brothers. in those college years, two great issues captured my attention. the war in vietnam and civil rights. and as i was finishing up my second year at holy cross i learned of a community organizing project in the neighborhood on the west side of

chicago. it was led by a jesuit seminarian that was affiliated with martin luther king jr.'s southern christian leadership conference. i was really interested and i hitchhiked 900 miles from springfield, massachusetts to springville, illinois. it really changed my life. he was ignored by city hall. we students went door to door asking about concerns and the lack of sanitation emerged as an issue. we got together with neighborhood folks we say it you would not pick up the trash we would bring it to city hall. it caught the mayor's attention. the next week there is it caravan of chicago sanitation trucks that worked. but our fight did not stop at

trash pickups. before i was to return my junior year, we discovered unscrupulous folks in real estate were brutally exploiting black families moving in your practice we now know as redlining. they were doing it with the active help of the federal housing authority and with the downtown big banks. i was really shocked at the injustice. what was most shocking to me then as an i owe disc idealistic and eager young person who was accustomed to being treated fairly this immense infliction of suffering on those families, it was legal. it was legal for banks and to deny mortgages on the basis of the color of that person's skin. so i had to make a decision at

that point. it was time to return to holy cross church. that would come with a cost neighborhood folks who we hopes raised they could get relief from these oppressive contracts. that felt wrong. or i could drop out of holy crotch cross and continue my organizing work. losing my student deferment and being drafted as many of my classmates from high school had been to go to vietnam a war that so many of us opposed it felt right to stay and continue my work. and i stayed in chicago during that next year we successful cold contract buyers league. rip off contracts demonstrated in front of the big downtown banks the federal housing authority we picketed and the

serene north shore neighborhood on the contract exposure that was long overdue. in short madam president we were trouble. but we succeeded. and yet to help us renegotiate contracts and substitute them with legitimate mortgages that folks should have had in the first place. it made a big difference in the lives of many differences. i made a difference of my life. i saw the power of a community coming together and i saw how democracy was affected when people cooperated. when they did work together. seeing how much of that injustice was actually legal is when i made a lifelong commitment to two things, the

law if i became a lawyer i could use the legal system to help people hurt by bad laws. and politics, if iran for the legislature i could work to change laws. to address injustice and create opportunity and strengthen communities. in my years of service as acuity organizer in chicago, as a state senator in vermont, as a member of the house of representatives, has taught me democracy is more than idea we strive for. it is the tool that we used to make meaningful differences in the lives of people we love and in the lives of people we may never meet. madam president, we must preserve our democracy. so hard-working americans can finally gain economic security,

the ability to pay those bills and have a little left over. and the ability to build stable communities. and hopefully these communities will grow, and thrive so that one day if their kids decide to stay or they leave in return they can do so with a decent job and promising opportunities as u.s. senators, each of us has unique and urgent opportunity to revitalize democracy and improve prospects for our constituents. now let me acknowledge we have within this body and within this country very substantial differences in many ideological issues. but we also have many areas of agreement.

the folks in alabama, and john fetterman's pennsylvania, and the folks that in my state of vermont they need and deserve the same things. affordable childcare so parents can work. they need affordable homes and apartments. they need the security that when they drop your child off the u.s. senate should debate. it said that the u.s. senate is the greatest deliberative body. that is something we know is very much now in dispute. but we do have the power to make it so. and in doing so we can help restore democracy. we can debate those issues and others on the senate floor.

should social media companies have for anything their algorithms promote? should we work for sustainable budget the talk about spending and revenues? is it acceptable we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world, that leaves so many people behind. how do we act immediately and effectively to stop climate change from burning up the planet? the senate can deliberates and it can and should debate. but madam president, deliberation should be in service of making a good decision. it should be in service of achieving an outcome. it should not be a device which the delay is endless and the resolution nonexistent. every senator i know is

genuinely honored to be serving in this body. every senator takes her and his responsibility very seriously. but every senator i know realizes the honor of service is hollow unless we get good things done. that is our job. as a senator i will use the valuable lessons of democracy that i have learned from my parents, the importance of helping a neighbor you may agree with. from my time in chicago the power of democracy in action. and from vermont, struggling today with the onslaught of the flood, the strength of community.

madam president, i yield back. [applause]

next here on washington journal we're joined by dan new house member of the house appropriation committee also a member of the u.s. competition member to washington state for some five terms. congressman newhouse thanks for being here on washington journal

this morning. >> good to be with you brian, good morning to you too. >> let's start with the, spending side of things, things your work on appropriation committee so i had online recently that a collision course over government funding has a sense of where things are with the 1 annual spending bills that have to pass the hogs and senate this year. >> when it's the appropriation process. the good thing is by the end of today we should have -- at least ten of the appropriation bills ten out of 12 passed through the full committee. and then two more, i believe, will be next week and so we will have all of that committee work done, ready to move bills to the floor of the house. also doing a great job moving forward is i think on track to

get their work done and good order so i'm feeling -- confident if we can get bills to the floor and pass senate does the same that welcome meet and campus setting to be able to come together between the two chambers and provide the legislation for each body to consider so that we can avoid either a continuing resolution or a shutdown. >> release for i end of may i announce supporting fiscal responsibility act, the agreement between house republican leadership and the white house on spending levels. tell us how that has affected your debate your considerations in the appropriations process. >> absolutely. well, i think that underlies one thing underlies the whole process, and that's the fact that we're currently at about a 32 trillion dollar -- debt, everybody recognizes at

least on our side of the aisle that that is -- an unsustainable position for the country to be in that we have to curb our spending. we have to be able to get a handle on our -- on our spending versus our revenue, and be able to reduce over time that debt. that's unfairly putting the huge burden on top of our children, our grandchildren, future generations of this country. particularly we see that playing out with interest rates have been increasing in interest on our national debt is becoming huge part of our spending, and so it's unsustainable, and so that -- under, i think is underneath all of the conversations that we're having in our appropriations process. we are looking for ways to be able to do exactly that, curb that spending so that doesn't come without some consternation

and debate and pushback. a lot of things that we've been funding over the last several -- have been things that people want. some people, there have been positive things that we have been funding. but we just are on a course in order to be able to curb that federal spending. so that -- that has been i think, one of the biggest things that i see is a positive thing of this appropriation process. that we are actually from a first time in a long time position to spend less this fiscal year than last fiscal year. as you look with that fiscal responsibility act with that framework where do you see potential sticking points in the appropriations process? >> potential sticking points? >> in terms of agreement on spending levels? >> yeah. well there's been some -- some debate about what those spending levels should be, obviously, whether they are a floor or ceiling.

we have taken the position that those agreements that were come to in that legislation, we can still find more savings, and we should. i think the american people are expecting us to be as smart about our spending as possible. to utilize taxpayer dollars in the most efficient way and we should continue to be looking for ways that we can -- we can save. so i think that's a continued part of this process as we move forward. certainly there's going to be collisions with that kind of approach. not only with our friends across the aisle but i'm assuming also with senate as they move forward they're taking a little bit different tact and so -- that's what this process is all about. being able to put our two positions on the table and work out our differences and be able to move forward. >> congressman dan newhouse welcome your calls that's the

democrat line 202-2 -- and independent 202-748 002 on u.s. and china competition what that has that committee been up to lately what's been its focus? >> let me say that it's a huge honor to be a part of this select committee to look at the challenges that we are facing from the communist chinese party it's an area of huge concern for people in this country. to recognize, and i think, in fact, i might say and i'll include myself in this, that -- most of us have been relatively ignorant as well as as to the threat that china face -- proposes to this country. so being able to be part of this committee to see firsthand from many of the expert witnesses that have provided testimony -- what's happening in this relationship that we have with

china and the communist chinese party. that's been eye opening it truly has. so we have been looking at -- as a matter of fact just we had a hearing last week on risks of doing business in china for american companies. we've been looking at some of the potential military threats that china poses particularly as it relates to taiwan, southeast asia all of the countries on the pacific rim and -- what that means to us as a nation as well as the rest of the world. we're going to be looking -- tomorrow, in fact, we'll be having a hearing bringing in some of the officials from the biden administration to really try to get an understanding of the strategy that the administration is working on, and putting forward as it relates to our relationship with china whether militarily, economically, many different ways. we -- we are in a position with this --

with china. you know, two largest economies in the world. we have our economies are intertwined. we found during the pandemic that in some areas, we are actually too reliant on china for some of the things that we need so that was an eye opening -- thing that we have learned as part of our supply chain issues. we're learning some of the threats about the interest of china in controlling many of the natural resources and food production around the world. we're seeing that impact here in the united states as well. so there's a long list of things that i think -- have been really important for us to look into and learn about and also share with american people. >> but to your point about the two largest economies the levels of trade between the u.s. and china in 2022 imports and exports between the two countries totallying 691 billion

dollars just imports rose to 537 billion last year. as american spent more than in chinese made goods and i that same period the u.s. exports to china rose to 154 billion. i want to ask you congressman, about lead editorial in "the new york times" this morning, headline that says that american, america can't build a green economy without china. pointing out that the u.s. cannot build a competitive renewable or electric vehicle industry from scratch. and saying that the country of china nation of china is the world's number one manufacturing of electric vehicle batteries, for example. >> yeah, and that's -- we've become dependent on them for many things, lithium-ion batteries that go into electric vehicle that's a great example some of the things that are utilized in the -- solar electricity generation area. also -- are many of that, many of those things originate from china as i said -- one of the things that became

obvious very apparent during the pandemic was becoming too dependent on foreign sources for many of these earl its but particularly on country of china. so that has led to many of us coming to the conclusion that we need to utilize our own resources in this country. so that we can reduce our dependence on china for many of these things that are important to our economy and to our future. and so that, again, one of the many important things and issuings that we are uncovering in this effort in this select committee. >> committee look at all of the state of the diplomatic between the two -- >> well that's one of the things that wool be looking at i think in-depth tomorrow. when we bring in the -- some of the officials from the biden administration to talk about some of the efforts that are going on in the

administration towards that relationship. you know interesting thing about china and i think most people recognize this -- it's probably due it our forms of government which are much different. but they have a system that allows them to into the future. they have strategies of 10, 15, 20 years where we -- conversely in this country much shorter time whether it's to the next election two, or four years from now and that's proven to be a disadvantage to us. because they're truly building a fast lane to accomplish their objectives where we're at best, at best putting up guardrails to try to protect us as we bounce back and forth in those lanes so that's something i think we would behoove us try to think more long-term to be more straw

strategic and in order to be successful competitively with china. >> let's hear from callers go first to shawn. in st. petersburg, florida, good morning. >> good morning, gentlemen. to the subject i worked with the solar energy research institute and golden, colorado in the mid-1980s and the federal government was actually working in opposition to them. but that is not the reason for my call this morning. the reason is gentlemen, you are mr. representative newhouse you have mr. trump going around stating that he has right to the information that he has stored in mar-a-lago but my question is do his attorneys tweal know what the presidential records act is? are they telling him because it doesn't seem it's getting threw to him and if you have yo knowledge on that, sir, i would appreciate that. president good morning -- >> thank you very much. i appreciate the question.

and i can't tell you what the president's attorneys know or adopt know. i would think he -- brings in very high quality respectties to help him through his legal battles so i would assume that they have some knowledge of what it is you're speaking of. but i couldn't tell you one way or the other whether or not they have that information or if hay do whether they share it with the president. >> caller from washington state on the independent line. mary, hello there. >> oh, good morning. good morning mr. newhouse. i was curious i've been staying away from the news because it was getting me too stressed -- [laughter] but i've been hearing, no seriously not being smart. but i've been hearing so much and because i know you're real popular here in washington.

state -- are the chinese buying a lot of our state or is it just mostly in the plains? or in the midwest? and then who do you think, who do you think might become -- not the president, but the governor since jay will be moving on? >> well thank you for that question, mary and good morning to you. there have been some instances of chinese purchases of farmland in the state of washington. it's similar to around the country. we have, you know, very as you know -- mary, very strong agricultural, industry which is attractive to a krpght country like china has a huge task in front of it providing enough food for its large population. the fact of the matter is that

the overall number of acres that have been purchased by chinese concerns in the united states is compared to the total number of farmlands acres isn't huge. however, the trend that we're seeing over the last decade, those purchases have increased by a factor of 10 and it's not just agricultural land either. it's property that could be situated near a military installation, infrastructure that is important to national security. and so this is a situation where we're -- we're trying to be proactive so that we prevent what we see happening in other countries where china has been so aggressive in controlling natural resources of a huge infrastructure projects, agricultural land and countries even in our own hemisphere. we don't want to wake up one day ten years from now said we

should have done something about this. we want to be proactive on this and stop it before -- it becomes a huge problem. and then, you're asked about our governor race in the state of washington. i think that after 12 years of governor people are looking for a new direction and democrats have been in control in our state. we have an elected republican governor since 1980 in the state of washington. i think that's a longest of any state in the country that we've had -- one party control. with the recent announcement of dave riker running for governor i think that gives washington a great alternative and for our state and would be positive. >> about china jenny from california asks you what threat does the chinese communist party actually pose.

aren't we partners with them? >> it relates to agricultural land do you think she's talking about? or -- >> kind of touched on that but maybe she's referring to particularly and we briefly looked at this, military threats -- >> oh. wow -- well that's an area where the chinese have been particularly aggressive. they're, they have been putting a tremendous amount of effort into building military and they have more naval ships than the united states does now. their presence throughout the pacific rim and the arctic area, for instance, is growing and much more prevalent. threats that they pose particularly with taiwan it's raising concerns from countries throughout the pacific rim. and the rhetoric that we hear from china leads us to believe

that this is something that they're seriously considering doing is invading taiwan. so that's a huge threat that should -- should concern all of us. are we partners with comien? we certainly are business partners like we talked about. the two largest economies in the world. we do a lot of trading back and forth they buy a lot of agricultural products from the united states. we certainly buy a lot of consumer products from china. but as we talked about before, we have found over the last several years is that we have become too dependent on some of the things that we -- that we need if particularly -- and a natural emergency situation as we've found out during the pandemic and that all ties together in -- for instance, in the issue of farmland being controlled by china. we want to make sure that they don't have a control over any

length in the supply chain as it relates to our food supply that could put us in a vulnerability position if, in fact, they do take action whether it is in taiwan straights or other parts of the world. >> jasper on democrats line. >> yes. good morning to you. >> good morning, jasper. >> okay. i just have a question about the -- why people keep bringing up russian collusion. when -- with two of putin -- oval officing by themselves an mr. putin -- but lady reporter asked what did you and mr. putin asked about he turned around said that's none of your business. now by you being in --

i don't know if you're what but you -- do you know what they talked about or explain that. thank you have a good day. >> thank you jasper. you know, i think i think that meeting was i believe five years ago. obviously, i wasn't in the room and just the reports that i've heard i can't tell you specifically what those conversations were about. and i'm not sure that i fall into either one of those categories or maga. but i try to do the best i can to represent the people in central washington state. >> next up is steve on the republican line in finland, yanked. hi, steve. >> yes. here's my question, what did you expect to happen when the legislative branch outsourced an offshore manufacturing in the

united states of america? and in doing so -- of course we became dependent and reliable on china for everything from our drug compounds to our mask to we can go down the list because -- it amazes me the covid -- four or five years old we're still behind eight ball and it's too late now is the problems. 20 years plus of outsourcing and offshoring our manufacturing base out of the country, of course, we're going to be reliable and dependent upon china. that's not even a question anymore. now it's about decoupling from china so china has us over a barrel. and i don't understand whatever comes to farmland or when it comes to cuba or south america. whatever happened to the doctrine where we're not supposed to have communist party in the territory of the western

hemisphere? could you explain that to me? so we are -- we are our grandchildren i'm 60 something i have two grandchildren. all of our kids and grandchildren are going to be the next set of uighurs for the chinese party. you have a nice day, sir. >> newhouse. >> you're absolutely right. we have the policies in our country have caused a lot of our manufacturing to move overseas. and we have made efforts over the last several years to -- to bring those businesses back onshore to make it more advantageous to produce in the united states to be more cost competitive to provide some of incentives to bring those investments back to the united states and we're starting to see that with the uncertainty and chinese, whole dynamic of china -- with the economy that, in china,

we're going to see more of that and we need to look at more ways that we can incentivize businesses to do what they do in the united states of america. you're absolutely right. so many different things that we found we depend on on china for. it shouldn't be a surprise but exactly it's the businesses responded as we should have expected them to over the last couple of decades. and so we need to find more ways to bring those jobs back to the united states bring that manufacturing back to the united states and -- and be more self-reliant as it relates to whether it's all of the things that you mention even our energy production. we have to be able to rely on those things that we can do best here in the united states so we don't find ourselves in such a vulnerability position in the future. congressman i'm not sure -- i'm not sure if benton city washington is in your district but -- >> absolutely it is testimony >>

suzanne writes and asks you this question what's his plan for the fentanyl crisis plaguing our communities. >> very good. well -- absolutely. benton said he's in my district just maybe 30 miles from my home so it's good to hear from you suzanne thank you for bringing up the fentanyl crisis this is something that's plaguing communities throughout the country whether large urban areas or small communities like benton city. i put together a -- a fentanyl task force recently. that we're looking at, we're bringing together experts and different aspects of this issue. from treatment centers to judicial side of things from organizations that are working hard to keep young people from getting into elicit drugs. many different aspects of this we're even looking to bring in and this was at a suggestion of

a caller at one of the radio programs that i was on recently. bringing in a recovered addict from drug abuse. so we're trying to find all of these bring all of the people together to find solutions that we can utilize to bring an end to this crisis that is plaguing so many communities and you know, this is like i said this is a problem in central washington state. i would say it's a problem throughout the country, and i'm hopeful that work that we can do can be used as solution that we come up with can be used not only in our area but throughout the country. and thank you for bringing that up because one the things i have been asking for is ideas from other people around the country. and in the wheel here, and we want to be able to take in and ideas from people all over the country. so what is the best way that people have ideas that want to reach out to your office e-mail,

address or phone number what's the best way to reach your office can be congressman? >> we can certainly provide my congressional website that's available for people to be able to contact and happy to take that kind of -- >> newhouse fifth term from the four the state of washington. central washington -- congressman thanks for being on the program this morning. we appreciate it. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it and thank you for all that you do through c-span to keep the american public informed about what's happening. around the country -- >> i appreciate that. [silence]

later this morning it will be my honor to join congressional leaders and welcoming president of israel to the capitol for a joint address to congress. since the powngtding of the nation of israel 75 years ago she's been one of america most important ally and fiercest friends, the u.s. was the first country to recognize israel as independent state and today our bongdz remain strong and partnership essential. while we have our differences, the u.s. and israel are united in the most profound ways two nations could be. america's support for israel must never waiver. because israel will be an essential partner for the u.s. in the 21st century. i look forward to meeting with president herzog this morning and i join congressional leaders in welcoming hmm to congress. now on the ndaa last night senate began process of floor consideration of the annual defense build on a bill this morning we locked in agreement

to begin consideration of amendments on the floor. we'll begin voting this afternoon and we want this process to be open and fair without being dilatory. we want both sides to have input and neither side derail a bill and we should avoid chaos we saw last week in the house. that greatly hindered their mdaa process so far we have avoided that the process in the senate has been construct i-and move along at a good pace. i'm pleased to say that manufacture package has 51 amendments, 21 from republicans, 21 from democrats and nine bipartisan. and i hope there will be a second manager package from both sides.

both sides keep working together we can pass the defense bill to move forward. most of us would like to see that happen for there is no justification for letting it spill into the fall. we have a lot of work to do before we get there but we are on track to get it done. we have every reason in the world to finish the bill quickly. there is a lot both sides can celebrate in this year's bill. many of the nda provisions might typically fly under the radar because they seem incremental part in their totality they make a huge difference in our country. we make it much either process on the new areas like outcompeted in the chinese government. we will take our first steps on ai legislation. we boost resources in a major way to tackle the fentanyl crisis i will strengthen the bond with the allies around the world. especially uk and australia. hope we have a vote on the full package soon. competing against the chinese government i'm pleased will have

over a dozen amendments and thee managers packet. on the fentanyl crisis, an amendment by tim scott and brown when hence the federal enhance l government's ability to disrupt illicit opioid supply chain and punish those who facilitate fentanyl tracking. this is a major piece of legislation that would give the president more power to stop in the country china, mexico, from sending the precursor materials that are made into fentanyl and kill our children. here is what it does it declares international trafficking of fentanyl on a national emergency, a national emergency. it requires the president to sanction criminal organizations will enhance the administration's ability to enforce sanctions and violations. take special to combat money laundering and much much more.

proofing art fentanyl act of a huge win in the battle against opioids. one of the worst public health crises in the country. i think german brown, ranking member scott, for champing this measure. finally this year's will take important steps on artificial intelligence. create a bug bounty program ethical hackers -- mick ethical hackers find us vulnerabilities or defenses and much much more. the senate process of the mr. present the senate process on the nda stands in sharp contrast was on the house the senate democrats and republicans of work together mindful of the importance to preserve our national security, while the process in the house unfortunately were sadly delayed in times derailed.

by wildly partisan and irrelevant hard right amendments have nothing to do with defense played we should keep it that way. so, for all these great reasons for getting it done we hope we can get it done as soon as possible. we begin voting today on amendments and i hope we can keep the process moving along. >> yesterday president biden welcomed unfortunately some of theleftist anti- israel force voices to call the world's only jewish state racist and house democrats left wing boycotted presidents joint trust to congress this morning. these activist theatrics are

unbecoming of elected american officials. they are a distraction to the real threats is the arab friends face in the middle east bird i hope these threats were the focus of the conversation between the two presidents. of course, threats to our shared interest have grown in large part to the biden administration's naïve approach to the world's largest state sponsor of terror. iran. over the last two and a half years iran has dramatically increased its nuclear activities. and even rebuffed the administration's repeated begging for a return of

president obama's flawed deal. it has consolidated influence in iraq, syria, and lebanon. funds and equips terrorist groups dedicated to israel's destruction. the deadly arm of the gc extends right up to israel's borders. in the arabian gulf, iranian military vessels have target or seized commercial vessels offshore nearly 20 times since 2021. on the arabian peninsula, iranian weapons have rained out on americans, saudi and other partners.

at our rack to rod works directly with sheila paramilitaries that threaten direct sovereignty as well as direct neighbors and u.s. forces. and as bala, and other terrorist groups channel massive flows of iranian support into increasing attacks on israel and american lives. violent along the border with lebanon earlier this month have israelis forces on particularly high alert. but as our friends face a growing threats they deem more e bipartisan solidarity from washington. not performative or lectures from politicians in glass houses. earlier this year the president warned ominously israel could ct

continue down this road. in its efforts to pass the judicial reforms. according to reports it is a message she continues to deliver to the israeli prime minister in the weeks to come. mr. present, no inherent congress seems to like inform politicians weigh in on american domestic politics and tell us how to do our job. so i try to stay out of the domestic politics of fellow democracies. i have confidence in the israeli people and their democratically elected leaders who is welcome to the capitol today and prime minister netanyahu who will travel soon to washington. the democrats who quote about

boycotting the present historical address are the ones who could benefit the most from his perspective. i'm fighting a coalition government and a diverse nation to a greater security, prosperity, and peace. his remarks were a reminder to anyone willing to listen that even in the face of growing threats, israel and its arab neighbors continue to offer tremendous opportunities to actually promote peace. i was in the region earlier this year end i can assure any skeptics that the promise of the abraham accords is real. it is changing the geopolitical and economic climate of a region that remains extremely important to the united states. we hope president biden will seize on this progress and help israel in saudi arabia improve

their relationship, and achievable and transformational goal. here in congress we have a tremendous opportunity before us to demonstrate our commitment to israel by prioritizing americans with the nda. i hope our colleagues will continue to work swiftly to finish this essential. on another matter while democrats like president biden may not like the israel government attempt at judicial reform, their obsessed with doing it themselves here in the united states. for the past several months when they are not rubberstamping radical nominees for the federal bench come senate democrats have been laser focused on pusher coequal branch of government to their political will. to do so, our colleagues plan to steer the judiciary committee

from finish on constructional hikes for this week that committee will markup what democrats are calling supreme court ethics recusal and transparency act. but in the interest of actual transparency, let's discuss order colleagues intentions here actually are. for months now the justices of the court have been these subject of an uptick in pearl clutching and hysterics from the political left and their media outlets. we have been told we should be outraged that the justices and take vacations. that they speak at universities and write children's books and their spouses dare to pursue careers of their own. as i have said before i believe

in the integrity and honesty of each member of the court and the injustices and their families should continue to ignore desperate attacks peddled by democrats and the elements of yellow journalism. but no matter which headline is chosen as a pretext on any given day, the intimidation campaign by the left to undermine the courts their own example senate democrats have repeatedly told the american people that the entire federal judiciary exists for no other reason than to fulfill their changing political whims. they have threatened justices by name on the steps of the court and threaten the institution itself and unkindly briefs. in each instance the democrats have signaled their open disdain

for about eight that refuses to interpret the constitution through the lens of their party's platform. they have shown how afraid they are of a court that upholds our laws as they were actually written. they have expressed their the profoundmisunderstanding ofe court's purpose in our republic. now this week same senate democrats originally threatened to strip the court security budget would like us to believe they are driven by nothing more in the pursuit of ethics and transparency. the same democrats who warrants nominally about defending democracy would like to shatter the independence of her coequal pillar of our government. the parties before the judiciary committee this week deserves a thecourt's cooperation nor any

senators support. i would urge each of our colleagues to reject it. >> mr. president, just about every week now we learn something new and deeply troubling about the justices serving on the supreme court. the highest court in the land in the united states and their conduct outside the courtroom. from unreported luxury getaways with billionaire benefactors who have business before the court, to donor funded teaching positions that double as all expense paid vacations, to a political make a donor buying a home that belongs to a justices relative and then allowing that relative to continue living there rent free, we have learned all of this in just a few months. and last week another troubling report britt according to the associated press just just used her taxpayer-funded court staff to help sell copies of her book. in particular by pressing

laborers, community colleges and other public institutions to buy additional copies of her memoir and children's books in conjunction with her speaking engagements. let me tell you, if i or any member of the senate failed to report and all expense paid luxury getaway, if we as our government staff to help sell books we would be in big trouble. the same would be true for members of the house or cabinet officials and any presidential ministration. that is because all of us are subject to enforceable codes of conduct that prohibit us from using taxpayer funds for personal gain. but the same sadly is not true for the nine justices across the street. unlike every other federal official, supreme court justices are not bound about a code of ethical conduct. let me repeat that. unlike every other federal

official of the nine supreme court justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct. they are the most powerful judges in the entire nation and yet they are not required to follow even the most basic ethical standards. it is time for that to change the highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards. tomorrow the senate judiciary committee, which i chair, will consider legislation on a joint single white house and introduce note as he supreme court ethics and records will transparency act. our legislation would require the supreme court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct. it would also add new recusal and transparency requirements to federal law. these requirements would apply to every justice no matter which president of which a political party appointed them. whether ideological views with standing. i wish this legislation were

unnecessary. the fact is the chief justice of the united states supreme court john roberts could clean up the supreme court ethical challenges on his own. and it for years i have encouraged him to do just that. it was more than 11 years ago, more than 11 years ago i first urge the chief justice in writing to adopt a binding code of conduct. but he did not accept my suggestion. i what has happened in the years since? i will tell you sadly the american people's confidence of the supreme court has cratered. public support for the court is an all-time low. so, if we are set to restore the public trust in the nation's high court must begin by enacting legislation that's introduced to senator whitehouse. i thank him for his leadership

on this issue for many years. i hope every member of the judicial committee on both sides of the aisle will vote tomorrow in support of supreme court ethics and recruiters will transparency. and mr. president i would like to address statements made earlier on the floor by the republican leader. it was his analysis in his comments on the bill which i have just described, which he said take this out to the thinnest constitutional ice. the relationship of the legislative branch, congress, and the supreme court is unusual. the supreme court is expressly created by the constitution. other courts are created by statute. and they become important to us in so many different ways. and the relationship between congress and the supreme court is somewhat unique. we have nine members of the supreme court. that is not required by the

constitution. the number of supreme court justices is established by congress. it was established in the middle of the 19th century. it is nine today it was other numbers before that. congress has the power to choose the actual numbers of the court. when it came to issues like televised court proceedings for the supreme court, there was a bipartisan bill which i am authoring now, cosponsored inc. with the senator grassley a republican from iowa to deal with the actual conduct of the proceedings before the supreme court. we also handle the annual budget. congress passes the annual budget for the supreme court as well. as you can tell it is a relationship that is intertwined. we do not have the authority nor do we have tried to exercise the authority to influence a judgment that is up to the court itself. when it comes to the administration of the court and the rules of administration

congress is played an important role. senator mcconnell described our concern about the ethical situation in the court as an uptick in pearl clutching and hysterics it's a colorful term belies the fact the things i have described here are very basic and concerned americans of all political base. to think were told we should be outraged at the justices there and sell property and take vacations. court he misses the point want to buy and sell property that is their business. that is relevant for the public to know the person buying the property has any business before the court or any impact on the judgment of the justice. it is a same old intimidation campaign by the left according to senator mcconnell to hold this hearing and consider a bill dealing with the ethics of the supreme court.

he conveniently ignores is the fact the first letter i sent to the court on the subject was 11 years ago. the court has changed dramatically in that period of time but my message has remained the same for the court is dominant by liberals, conservatives, or something in between. that makes quite a difference in this argument. he calls the effort open disdain for body refuses to interpret the constitution through the lens of their party's platform. i was not open disdain it is a recognition that what is going on with the court is unsustainable. but they have done, the conduct that has been disclosed already three serious questions about the ethical standards of the court. we want to make sure that change is for the better. to maintain independence i still to struggle to understand the logic of those on the republican side of the out when it comes to ethics and the supreme court. they seem to think it's partisan if we raise this issue. it was not that long ago, just

last year 2022 we considered the issue of disclosure of stock transactions. a bipartisan bill cosponsored by senators and it went to the supreme court. they adopted it as their standard of conduct. apparently, when it comes to those ethical considerations cooperation between the two branches is acceptable. why is it acceptable to her thatwe set out to do. the first thing we would set to do was to contact the supreme court let them know we were sending a letter to the chief justice inviting him to come testify and appear. and described the situation at the court and how it was being handled he respectfully declined that invitation and responded with his own defense of the current situation. but we tried from the beginning not to make this partisan and tried to make it respectful under the constitution. i am sorry the chief justice did not accept our invitation we tried in several different ways

to engage him and the court and found the best way to move forward is to consider this legislation tomorrow before the committee. i think it's a step in the right direction to stay tuned nine supreme court justices will always be held to the same standards of ethical conduct as every other judge in the federal system. that is not an unreasonable requirement and it's one i think will start to repair the image of the court which is in badly need of repair i yield the floor mr. president.

mr. hickenlooper: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. hickenlooper: i ask unanimous consent that 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. hickenlooper: i i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions introduced earlier today -- senate resolution 303, senate

resolution 304. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding en bloc? without objection the senate will proceed en bloc. mr. hickenlooper: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be greapped to, and that the mentions -- be agreed to and the motions to be considered be -- be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hickenlooper: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, july 20, that following the prayer and pledge the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, 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 the uhlmann nomination.

further dprks that -- further, at 12:00 noon the senate vote on confirmation of the uhlmann nomination. further, that upon disposition of the nomination, the senate resume legislative session for the consideration of calendar number 119, s. 2226 and vote on the cruz amendment, number 926, with the previous provisions remaining in effect. finally, if -- that if any nominations are confirmed during thursday's session, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hickenlooper: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

the senate today continued work on the 2024 defense programs and policy bill. earlier lawmakers pause their day to hear from israeli president. who addressed a joint meeting of congress. mort live's senate coverage when senators returned here on cspan2. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage you can find at any time online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on unselect videos. this timeline told makes it easy to get an idea what was debated and decided in washington for his colt scroll through spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. ursday robert f kennedy jr. and others testify on censorship and free speech before the hse judiciarsuommittee on the

weaponization of the federal government you can watch the hearing live starting at 9:00 a.m. eaer on c-span now are free mobile video app or online@c-span.org. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view of government. offended by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ buckeye broadband support c-an as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front receipt to democracy. >> next the house oversight and accountability committee hears testimony on allegations of politicization and misconduct at the justice department and irs.

regarding the investigation of hunter biden. irs agents garrett shatley and joseph ziegler testify political interference led to protocol not being followed in the investigative process. also played a role in charges filed against hunter biden. [background noises] [background noises]