he has attacked free speech by banning opposition media and increasing his governments regulatory power over journalists. hardly sounds democratic to me. earlier this year he signed into law a bill that allows ukraine state broadcasting council to regulate all media in ukraine. the counselor can impose mandatory orders, fines, restrict content from search engines and even outright to spin media outlets without a court decision. hardly sounds very democrat to me. if you wish these actions that sound like the actions of authoritarian regime, if you suspect of these do some like an authoritarian reason, , regime, you're right. this past july a swiss intelligence report observed quote authoritarian traits in zelensky as he tries to push -- out of contention for ukraine's

2024 presidential elections. citing. citing marshall law zelensky stated that those elections will not take place. martial law, no elections, banning opposition party. this is where your $100 billion has gone and they are not done. we don't have the money. the money is being borrowed. we borrowed the money from china to send it to ukraine. in 2021 zelensky fired multiple government officials including his prime minister for investigating a ukraine oligarch who just happened happy backer of zelensky's presidential campaign. the united states place sanctions on his oligarch for involvement in significant corruption and earlier this month he was finally arrested. clearly, ukraine and the regime are not paragons of democracy. but this is not just about what ukraine is or is not with respect to government. this is about american interests in our national security.

every day this work continues is another spin of the roulette wheel with another chance of it stopping on armageddon. and we are paying for the privilege we cannot continue with business as usual. we cannot continue to put the needs of other countries about our own. we cannot save ukraine by dooming the u.s. economy. and we certainly cannot save ukraine by fighting a war with russia. navarno caraboc, a humanitarian crisis is unfolding. azerbaijan's block aid has -- blockade left over 100,000 ethnic albanians cut off from the world, deprived of the food, the water, fuel and medical care that they need to survive. last week, one resident made a plea. she asked, quote, how many more people will have to die before

the world takes notice? today, that question carries new meaning as the armenian people not only confront dwindling resources, but heavy bombardment. on september 19 azerbaijan violated a fragile peace and began attacking navarno caraboc. while a ceasefire was announced this morning, we cannot ignore the violence and must stand with the citizens of navarno caraboc. this conflict systematically targets the armenian people. it's cruel. it's calculated and inhumane. further demonstrating that the armenian people are facing an existential threat. experts from the international criminal court say there's reason to believe it amounts to an acts of genocide. that word would always sound an alarm, but it creates a particular weight with the

armenian people and evokes a devastating chapter of their history. the government of azerbaijan has orchestrated a humanitarian disaster, only to further their political and their territorial claims. blockade of the corridor has kept essential supplies out of the renalon since june -- region since june. pregnant women are forced to walk miles to a medical clinic. fuel shortages shut down schools and sidelined emergency vehicles. people get sick from untreated water, then visit pharmacies with empty shelves. food shortages run ramp and. officials in nagorno-karabakh estimate 95% of residents suffer from malnutrition. starving citizens line up for bread in the streets, wondering how they'll find their families' next meal. the use of military force by

azerbaijan will only further endanger citizens who have already endured so much. the biden administration has provided some crucial assistance, and the azerbaijani government announced a theoretical agreement to open the corridor once again. that is yet to bring the armenian people out of harm's way. the bombardment began after it was reached and this increasing military aggression has only deepened the humanitarian crisis. the regime demanded that the government be dissolved. the government made it clear their goal is to erase the historic present of armenians in this region. until it is proven that this cruel campaign has ended, we must be vigilant. until the penal of nagorno-karabakh have what they need to survive and to walk freely in their home once again,

we cannot stand to the side. in the midst of these unthinkable conditions, residents have taken to the streets, calling for an end to the blockade. we must join their chorus. shedding a slight on azerbaijanis' actions and the immediate threat of ethnic violence. i encourage the biden administration to remember these crimes against humanity, when considering where to send aid and to apply diplomatic pressure. if we continue to let this crisis devolve, then we are complicit in the violence. i call on my senate colleagues and the biden administration to stand against the cruelty of the azerbaijani government and stand by the side of the armenian people. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i would suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> welcome back now, henry cuellar. you have been in congress ten terms now. you've seen the shutdown fights before. at this point do you see a path to avoiding a government shutdown come september 30? >> first of all i want to make sure we avoid everything we can. i seen shutdowns. there's really some options we need to look at. first, the speaker can either just go further right to meet the freedom caucus demands instead of past something even though, he will send something to the senate that will pass over there and then we might be getting close to deadline. number two, he can work with us biggest been done in the past with a bipartisan cr and then

get it done. that's number two. number three, do nothing, maybe wait for the senate to send that over to us but if something comes over about the origination clause or a spending bill should start off in the house, so there's three different options up there but in the history, i think people have pushed to the left have pushed to the right but history shows us that the bipartisan approach is a way to go. >> host: on those three different paths, what should our viewers look for today when the house comes in at 10 a.m. eastern? would be a signal today that would tell us which one of those paths they might be taking? >> guest: you know, a lot of it just depends because we're running out of time. if he tries again and i know he has been meeting with the caucus and try to go as far right as he

can, then we'll see if they put up that rule or try to get the rule up again to get it done. but keep in mind that i think we all understand what's happening. he's trying to appease the right, but the problem is if you look at the history of some of the folks there, have they supported an appropriations bill in the past? i think without counting the new ones, you can see some of the folks have not supported an appropriations bill in the past. so why negotiate with people that ultimately might not be voting for the final product? >> host: that cr the republicans tried to fail to move yesterday a speaker macarthur said he will try again perhaps tomorrow, there's a lot in there but there's a big focus in their onboard security, funding for restarting the border wall construction, restricting asylum eligibility, reinstating family detention. your thoughts on those

provisions in the assessment of congress as our c-span viewers know works and lives on up border district. >> guest: the best approach is a bipartisan approach. as you know my colleagues, republican side, pushing their version of what they think border security should be without consulting democrats. and again look, there's a lot of things that they want to do that i think we get support but there are some things that just don't work. for example, they keep saying that a border wall which is a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem, they think that's going to strop the drugs from coming in. but if you look at most of the drugs they are come through ports of entry. so we need to do more to make sure that the good products come in and the bad things don't come in. mexico is one of those neighbors

that we need to understand them better. last year there was more than $863 billion of trade between the u.s. and mexico. almost reaching $1 trillion in the next four or five years. we're going to hit $1 trillion, so it's a trading partner and at the same time it's complicated. we've got to get them to do more than what they've done. the current president has been doing some things that lead some of the scratching, for example, after independence day just a few days ago, who did they have marching there? they had russian soldiers, they had chinese soldiers. they had people from venezuela soldiers. cuban soldiers. those type of messages doesn't rub the right way. mexico is a neighbor. they can be complicated but we have to engage them to help us

stop the drugs and the migration issue we're facing right now. >> host: so what is one or two provisions that you think democrats and republicans to join together and support on border security? and/or any of those in this proposed cr? >> guest: i look at a picture some things we've been doing in the appropriations for so many years. i am the ranking member on appropriations for homeland. there's things are adding more money for border patrol, more money for ports of entry, technology, drone, counter drone technology. i've always said this, and i said this to both democrats and republicans. when you play football, why do we keep playing defense on the one yard line, the u.s.-mexico border border? why do we extend the perimeter to the 20-yard line for we can play defense before they get to the border works because look let me give you an example.

i had a heat map and i'll be happy to share that with you that i showed to the appropriations. they want to talk about building a fence. they call it a wall. it's a fence. they talk about building a fence but in the valley of south texas when you have a river, you cannot put the fans right in the middle of the river where the international boundary is. you can't put in the river bank because it would get washed out also. so they put it about a quarter, maybe a mile away from the fence so the people are coming in are not trying to evade their quote asylum-seekers. when i say quote asylum-seekers because 90, 89% of them are going to be rejected but they come in, they touched the riverbank. they walk half a mile or a quarter-mile to the fence, way that the cameras and say here i am. so a fence doesn't show them stopping them. in fact, the heat map that i

showed most of the activity the last couple of years have been in areas where there are fences. so again we got to think about their strategy because what we've been doing we've been adding billions of dollars and democrats the last couple of years with the majority under biden, we added 15% more of an increase to homeland. that's about $2.4 billion more money into homeland. my thing is let's rethink our strategy because what we are doing right now is throwing money at it. it's networking. >> host: congressman henry cuellar a democrat from texas with us until the bottom of the hour. phone numbers for you to join in the conversation, democrats 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. congressman, , as folks are calling in you mentioned you hope kevin mccarthy will take a middle path here when it comes to funding the government, find

a way to work with democrats, get democratic votes and republican moderate votes. some questions about whether he does at whether the would be a motion from his right flank to vacate the chair to remove him from his speaker position. if that were to happen, you would get a vote on that. would you vote to remove a kevin mccarthy as speaker if he took the path of reaching out to democrats and doing exactly what you just proposed? >> guest: we will answer that question when that comes up. i will leave it like that. i think that's what my leader hakeem jeffries said also. but i will tell you this. as speaker cannot operate with threats from people every single time there's a vote. and that's what we're seeing with speaker mccarthy. every time there's a tough vote, then the far right flank threatens him with the job, motion to vacate, and he cannot

operate in an effective and efficient way with a small group of people because as you know their numbers are very thin. there are some members who are out for medical reasons. so we are seeing a daily thread, and it's one of those sayings that he's got to just all the band-aid. either he does it slowly or he just doesn't, call their bluff and see what happens. to answer your question, again, we will answer that when we reach that point. >> host: a lot of calls for you already. this is a joe in shepherd texas, republican. good morning. >> caller: yes. mr. cuellar, i live in the valley in your district, and i know that the people down there are putting a lot of long days of work. i've got a solution that if they would solve the problem of shutdowns. that if you people, if you don't

have your 12 appropriations done by the fourth of july, you start putting in six days a week, 12 hours a day until it's done. and then take your break. and if it's not done by labor day, then you work until it gets done. waiting until the last minute to do things is no way to get any kind of a problem solved. >> guest: yeah, and i know that put in a lot of dates and i agree with you. i put in a lot of dates working as a member of congress. and i agree, we need to do that, but the problems we've been facing is that there are certain agreements that of inmate in congress as you know some months ago. we reached an agreement with the house and the senate voted that was an agreement as to what the level of spending will be.

then after a while the far right said oh, we want another one and now they're talking about doing some cats. and again i a conservative democrat. i believe in reasonable rational counts but we also have to look at, i think you are a republican for taxes that have to look at, this problem has been piled on by both democrats and republicans. i'll give you an example. i don't know if you know when president trump was come during four years he added $7.3 billion in four years. obama -- a little over a trillion dollars. trillions of dollars. trump added 7.3, $7.4 trillion and obama a little over nine so that almost did the same except trump did it in four. the problem is sometimes my

republican colleagues say anything with his republican look up to me doesn't matter whether it's a democrat or republican. we've got to make sure that we look at what we need to spend, conserve what we need to do and irrational and how we do the caddy and the spending. i just don't like when people they look when there's a democrat, it is a democratic and republican issue. we need to address it in a bipartisan way. >> host: wisconsin, mary, independent, good morning. >> caller: good morning. there's a shortage in the last year to therapeutic drugs, and there's all these people come into our country. we as as a u.s. citizens migt be able to have the chemotherapy drugs which is data which is of such disgrace that instead of putting all this money into climate change we should be learning how to make, have companies make the drugs here and not some of them that are coming through china or other countries.

when donald trump was in office he was going to start to do that to start making drugs manufactured drugs here in the usa. it's a sad sad situation that they have to give only a certain amount of drugs for certain people and have to like scrounge for enough drug for the person that week. i just think u.s. citizens are so important and that should be the number one priority right now. we already had trouble with the baby formula. that's a disgrace and we are in the usa. instead of giving all this money to ukraine we should start building companies. there's many people that will work. i would work for 20 hours a day in a company like that. so bless you and hopefully you can spread the word. >> guest: yes, ma'am, and thank you so much and i appreciate your comments. and i agree, look, america has been great because we've had a strong manufacturing,

agricultural base training area. we need to do that and we need to make sure that our companies are not over there in china producing over there. we need them here in the u.s., or at least nearshoring to one of our neighbors like mexico and canada. certainly i say -- have those cup racer and also we need to do. have our companies grow well and i think our pharmaceutical companies have done well. we all remember what happened during the pandemic. usually a vaccine takes seven, eight, ten years to produce. we did in one year. that is because we have the smartest, brightest civilian and military minds both public private sector working together to make sure that with vaccines and boosters to do that. our american industry is strong and we need to make sure that we

do that. and again, we need to understand that if we build it here in america, that is good for our jobs and want to see more production here in the u.s. >> host: the caller brings up ukraine. what do you hope to hear from ukrainian president vladimir zelinsky? he said to visit capitol hill tomorrow. >> guest: you know, it's basically what your view is. are we going to be isil is the say we don't care what happens to the rest of the world? do we play a role, at least a limited role in making sure that democracy is strong across the world itself? are we going to stop the aggression of what russians doing? i've been to ukraine before the war. just recently i was in germany with some of my colleagues where we are watching american

military train the ukrainian tanks, commanders there. so i see that so i'm one of those that i understand about how much money we spend outside and i would rather have the money spin here in the u.s. i think once in a while we need to stand up for what's right and spend money because if we don't do something over there, somebody is going to fill that vacuum it's either going to be russia, iran, china depend on what part of the world. i think the u.s. working with nato should take a stand. >> host: as you making these comets a text message from tony in florida. will mr. cuellar tells how he voted on the motion to advance this defense spending bill for debate yesterday? was what he shares rationale s vote? >> guest: yeah, i voted no on the rule because again it goes

back to it, in the appropriations we, everything would try to work together in a bipartisan way, we were left out. and keep in mind i know the chairman, the subcommittee chairman, he's a good, good man. remember what my partner did back in january to make several deals, that those deals and those agreements are coming to roost right now. one of the things that he did was he added some of the folks from the freedom caucus and that appropriations became more, , more, more of a culture committee instead of an appropriations committee. i told one of my freedom caucus friends, i was joking, you do understand we're not in a -- where is the appropriations committee. one of the things i'm saying is that in the past we used to have a say, you've got republicans, you've got democrats, and you've got appropriators. we are seeing the appropriators,

the bipartisan taking that away for us. i support the military. i had been on defense appropriations. i have stood on military construction and va as the ranking democrat for homeland so think i've got some of -- but again, when we talk about the military, it should not be a partisan issue. that should be a bipartisan issue. we do have the ndaa and to think that one is more balanced and i think the democrats and republicans pushed that so we can get them into conference committee. that's an example of the way we have done this, but keep in mind, it's the republicans wanted to pass that rule yesterday, which is the procedure, their own people ruled out. it wasn't the democrats. we are the minority. we are the minority so republicans and those who are in the majority, are the ones that

did that yesterday. >> host: henry cuellar is with us at 8:30. this is ross in forest hills new york independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i wanted to bring this up for a lot of the c-span viewers. you ask why so many migrants are coming across the border and how we stop them. we deliver so many guns to mexico and central america. i was just wondering what the congressman thought about this gun store in mexico? just one for the entire country, that's it. and it sells only up to 38 caliber weapon. how is it that they are awash in just sniper rifles, 50 caliber sniper rifles, a our 50s, the ar rifles as well.

and basically what it is we're just allowing our weapons to go straight into mexico and we are reaping what we sell. so they don't want to be shot down through the drug gangs done in which all of the drug to can appear which we are buying. i'm wondering, senator, or congressman, held you feel about this and how would you best stop the iron pipeline from the united states down into central america to stop the flow of migrants who are being shot to death down there who are trying to escape the situation? how would you best rectify this? >> guest: yes, sir, and begin very, very, very good point. a lot of people don't talk about guns going south. they talk about drugs coming north. i can i want to complement you on that good point. look, let's start off on the very beginning. yes, supply and demand. the demand in the u.s. for drugs is just out of hand.

i'm one of those of a think we need to go back to what nancy reagan used to say and teach our kids, just say no. because there are several ways we can address this. we can either do the education, the rehab, make sure young kid stay away from drugs and then do law enforcement. it's not one or the other. i'm a big law enforcement individual but i think we've got to do both of that, number one. so you have a supply and a demand. certainly in the old days in colombia the use to be the ones that would supply the cocaine and the mexico and mexican gangs would be the transit system, then one day the mexican said why do we need the colombians? we can do this ourselves. so now you have a strong mexican cartels are playing the role. what they do is based in drugs up here to the u.s. and then what we see is what goes south is guns and cash from the sale

of the drugs. you get either cash or drugs back here what we need to do is not only have personnel acknowledging, facing north but we also need to make sure that we do our work of guns going south. we don't do enough. i added some money and resource but i think we need to do a lot more to make sure we don't feel those criminal organizations with money and with guns. you mentioned the different type of rifles and assault weapons that they do get, and that's what makes those criminals very powerful because of the weapons that they have. the cash and the weapons that they have. the other thing is talking about drugs, a lot of people say build a fence and it should stop the drugs from coming in, number one. and number two, put those buoys in the rio grande. keep in mind the buoys that they

put down there in the rio grande, there were less than a quarter-mile, less than a quarter of a mile for a 1200-mile river. less than a quarter of a mile for more than 1200-mile river. so we've got to look at how we can address this issue. by the way, that no that kill so many people in u.s. side, that are -- coming from china going to to make mexican ports and they get insulated their advocate since the u.s. pirg most of those drugs in fennel, cocaine, meth, 90-94% will come through the land ports so we need to put more technology more personnel going there stopping that. if you look at the u.s. census, 86 -87% of the people that stop at the ports are at the checkpoints are u.s. citizens and not undocumented. we've got to be smarter on how we stop the drugs from coming in

and, of course, the cash and the guns going south as you make it a very good question. >> host: when made to the house in at 10 a.m. eastern, noon business. one of the high-profile hearings on capitol hill today is the attorney general will be before the house judiciary committee. we will be showing that to viewers today. that's at 10 a.m. as well. that's on c-span3. we will go to the house when the house gavels in on c-span. viewers can watch that. i know you're not admit of the judiciary committee, you are appropriations but if you had the chance what would you want to know from the attorney general? >> guest: what role does the department of justice play in homeland and also the part of the department of defense that help stops the drugs, making sure that we address the issues at the border. again, we've got to be smarter on how we address the threat that we have to our homeland, and there's different agencies that play a role.

the department of justice also has the immigration judges. we need to have more immigration judges, and i have added hundreds of them but we have to have them at the borders of people can decide, the judges can decide when somebody comes in a goes out. if you have 100 people and asking for a silent, a lot of them are going to be rejected at the end of the day because 89-90% because i'll tell you why, the asylum law says it's got to be persecution by the state. so if they're looking for a better way of life, that doesn't qualify. if it's poverty or drought or hurricane, it doesn't give them a a silent. or even if it is -- i feel bad for people that come from places where there's criminals that are just causing havoc in their community. trying does not that give ya right to come into the u.s. we need to understand what the

asylum law is it's got to be persecution by the state. if you remember how the asylum law billy came in after world war ii because what we saw in germany, it's got to be persecution by the state based on religion, unbelief, one of those outages. otherwise, they come in and at the end of the day, we are talking about in the future, the judge is going to say no and we end up with over a million final deportation orders and our laws don't will become much at the end of the day. the department of justice deals with the immigration parked it we need to figure out how we can get those courts more efficient and more effective working with the asylum officers to address the issues. do we play defense on the one yard line call a u.s.-mexico border, or we play defense outside of the u.s. border a lot more and extend the perimeter out? i think all those departments i

mention can play a role, a busy day. we will let you get to it. henry cuellar democrat of texas member of the appropriations committee, we always appreciate your time on "washington journal."

>> address by his excellency, vladimir zelensky, president of ukraine. i request protocol to escort his excellency. our behalf of the general assembly i have the honor to welcome his excellency, vladimir zelensky, president of ukraine. [applause]

thank you very much. i welcome all who stand for, effort and i promise being really united for all nations. what's more unity -- force? ladies and gentlemen, mr. secretary general, mr. president, fellow leaders. so many, many words but not effective against the aggressors. in many cases the field more, the final war for the loudest here, the war after -- gather in the general facility hall again. this war was seen as a nuclear war, conflict between states on

the highway to nukes. other wars seem less scary compared to threat of the so-called great powers firing their nuclear stockpiles. so that 20th century thought the world -- taught the world to restrain for the use of the weapons of mass destruction, not to deploy, not to proliferate, not to threaten with and not to test but to promote a complete nuclear disarmament. frankly, this is a good strategy, but come but it should not be the only strategy to protect the world from the final war. ukraine gave up its third largest nuclear arsenal. the world then decided russia should become a keeper of such power.

yet, history shows it was russia who deserved nuclear disarmament the most, back in 1990s. and russia deserves it now, terrorists have no right to hold nuclear weapons. no right. but truly not the nukes are the scariest now. while nukes remain in place, the mass destruction is gaining its momentum. the aggressor is weaponizing many other things and those things are used not only against our country against all of yours as well. fellow leaders, there are many conventions that restrict weapons but there are no real restrictions on weaponization. first, let me give you an example. the food.

since the start of the full-scale war, the ukrainian ports in the black and unsold seats have been blocked by russia until now, our ports on the danube river remains a target for missiles and drones. and it is a clear russia's attempt weaponized the food shortage on the global market in exchange for recognition for some, if not all, of the captured territories. rush is launching the food prices as weapons. the impact spans from the atlantic coast of africa to the southeast asia. and this is the threat scale. and i would like to thank those leaders who supported our black sea green initiative, and program grain from ukraine. thank you so much.

[applause] united, united we made weapons turned back into food again. or within 45 nations saw how important it is to make ukrainian food products available on the markets, from algeria to spain, to indonesia and china. and even now when russia has undermined the black sea green initiative, we are working to ensure food stability, and i hope that many of you will join us in these efforts. we launched a temporary see export corridor from our ports. and we are working hard to preserve the land routes for grain exports. and it is alarming to see how some in europe, some our friends in europe play out solitary in a

political theater, making thriller from the grain. they may seem to play their own role but, in fact, they are helping set the stage to a moscow actor. second, weaponization of energy. many times the world has witnessed russia using energy as a weapon. kremlin weaponized oil and gas to weaken the leaders of other countries. when they came. and now, now this threat is even greater. russia is weaponizing nuclear energy. not only it is spreading its unreliable nuclear power plant construction technologies, but it is also turning other countries power plants into real dirty bombs. look, please, what russia did to

our zaporizhzhia power plant. sheldon, occupied it, and now black males others with radiation leaks. is there any sense to reduce nuclear weapons when russia is weaponizing nuclear power plants? scary question. the global security architecture offers no response or protection against such a treacherous radiation threat, and there is no accountability for radiation blackmailers so far. the third example is children. unfortunately, various terrorist groups abduct children to put pressure on their families and societies. but never before the mass kidnapping and deportation would become a part of the government policy. not until now. we know the names of tens of

thousands of children and have evidence on hundreds of thousands of others kidnapped i russia in the occupied territories of ukraine, and later deported. the international criminal court issued an arrest warrant for putin for this crime. and we're trying to get children back home, but time, time goes by. what will happen with them? what will happen with them? those children in russia are taught to hate ukraine, and all ties with their families are broken. and this is clearly a genocide. when hatred is weaponized against one nation, it never stops there.

each decade russia starts a new war. parts of moldova and georgia remain occupied. russia turned syria into ruins. and if not russia, the chemical weapons would have never been used there in syria. russia has almost swallowed belarus. it is obviously threatening kazakhstan and other baltic states. and the goal of the present war against ukraine is to turn our land, our people, our lives, , r resources into a weapon against you, against the international rules-based order. many seats in the general assembly hall may become empty if russia succeeds with its? >> guest: and aggression. ladies and gentlemen, the

aggressor scatters of death and brings ruins even without nukes, but the outcomes are alike. we see towns. we see villages in ukraine wiped out by russian artillery, leveled to the ground completely. completely. we see the war of drones. we know the possible effects of spreading the war into the cyberspace. the artificial intelligence could be trained to combat well, before it would learn to help the humanity. thank god people have not yet learned to use climate as a weapon. even though humanity is failing on its climate policy objective objectives. this means that extreme weather was still impact the normal global life and some evil state will also weaponized its outcomes. and when people in the streets of new york and other cities of

the world went out on climate protest, we all have seen them, and when people in morocco and libya and other countries die as a result of natural disasters, and when iowans in countries disappear underwater, and when tornadoes and deserts are spreading into new territories, and when all of this is happening one unnatural disaster in moscow decided to launch a a big war and kill tens of thousands of people. we have to stop it. we must act united to defeat the aggressor and focus all our capabilities and energy on addressing these challenges. as nukes are restrained, likewise the aggressor must be

restrained and all its tools and methods of war. each war now can become final, but it takes our unity to make sure that aggression will not break in again. and it is not a dialogue between the so-called great powers somewhere behind the closed doors that can guarantee us all the new no wars era, but open work of all nations for peace. last year i presented the outlines of the ukrainian peace formula at the u.n. general assembly. later in indonesia, i presented a full format and over the past year the peace formula became the basis to update the existing security architecture. now we can bring, now we can bring back to life the u.n. charter and guarantee the full power for the rules-based world order.

and tomorrow i will present the details at a special meeting of the u.n. security council. the main thing is that it is not only about ukraine. more than 140 states and international organizations have supported the ukrainian peace formula fully or in part. the ukrainian peace formula is becoming global. its points offer solutions and steps that will stop all forms of weaponization of russia used against ukraine and other countries, and may be used by other aggressors. look, for the first time in modern history, we have real chance to in the aggression on the terms of the nation which was attacked. and this is a real chance for every nation to ensure that aggression against, against your state, if it happens, god forbid, will end not because

your land will be divided and you will be forced to submit to military or political pressure, but because your territory and sovereignty will be fully restored. relaunched the format of meetings between national security advisers and diplomatic representatives. important talks and consultations were held in hiroshima, in copenhagen, and in jeddah of the limitation of the peace formula. and we are preparing a global peace summit. and please, i invite all of you, all of you who do not tolerate any aggression, to jointly prepare the summit. and i'm aware of the attempts to make some shady dealings behind the scenes. evil cannot be trusted.

ask prigozhin if one bets on putin's promises. please come here, but you do decide everything openly. while russia's pushing the world to the final word, ukraine is doing everything to ensure that after russian aggression no one in the world will dare to attack any nation. weaponization must be restrained. war crimes must be punished. deported people must come back home. and the occupier must return to the own land. we must be united to make it. slava ukraini. [applause] [applause]

>> on behalf of the assembly, i wish to thank the president of ukraine for a statement. >> i think confidence comes from seeing enough the data that you feel like it's okay, this feels like we can for now the site that this a right level and just agreed to stay here. we're not primly deciding not to go higher but let's see if we get to the level. of course the questions how do

you stay at that level? s-hole of the set of questions. for now the question is trying to find that level where we think we can stay there. we haven't gotten to a point of confidence about that yet. that's the stage where at though. >> looks like there was because the wasn't cost of wardrop in court cpc for this year and even then it seems possible the court inflation could come in even more than an begin at 3.7%. would use a case to raise rates still if it turned out you were going to achieve the same real rate this year because the decline inflation proceeds somewhat better than you currently anticipate? >> the decision that we make at each meeting and certainly at the last two meetings this year, a 20 pin on the totality of all the data. so the inflation data, the labor market data, the growth of data, but the balance of risks and other events are happening out there. we take all that into account. i can't really answer

hypothetical about one piece of it. it will be trying to reach adjustment over whether we should move forward another rate hike over all and whether that would increase our confidence that yes, this is an appropriate move and it will help us be more confident that we've gotten to the level that we need to get to. >> following up on that question actually. john williams the new york fed president obviously has said things to the effect of next year as we see inflation kind of again as we see inflation coming down we're going to need to reduce interest rates make sure we're not squeezing the economy harder and harder. i would've that is a logic you apply? is that how you think about it? i also wonder in the last press comfort you said something to the effect of itself for your outcome of the discussion that people interpreted that to mean you didn't see the possibility

for be cut in the first half of next year. and i wonder if that was what you meant by that or whether, how you're thinking about that tiny? >> no. so an answer these questions about hypotheticals about cutting, i never am intending to send a signal about timing. i'm just entering them as a expressed. so please i would want to be taken -- sorry, the first question -- as a going to next year, that's the question will be will be asking is taking into account lags and everything else we know about the economy and everything we know about monetary policy. that time will come at some point and in not saying when, that it's appropriate to cut. part of that may be that real rates are rising because inflation is coming down. part of it may be that it will be all the factors that we see in the economy. that time will certainly come at some point and what you see is as writing down your head. estimates of what that might be.

so much uncertainty about that. in the moment we will do what we think makes sense. no one to look back and say hey, we made a slant. it's not like that at all. these are estimates made a year in advance are highly uncertain. that's how it is. >> thanks so much, chair powell. neil with axios. wonder how do you think about the question of whether the strong growth we've been seeing is driven by demand versus supply-side, labor force growth? related if gdp keeps coming in not in the absence of inflation resurgent with that the reason to consider more tightening? >> so on your first question, i mean, we're looking at gdp very, very carefully to try to understand really what's the direction of it. what's driving it. it's a lot of consumer spending. consumer has been very robust in spending.

that is, that's how we are looking at it. sorry, your second question was. >> with gdp stays hot without inflation. >> i think the question will be gdp is not a mandate. maximum employment and price stability of the mandates. the question will be, is gdp, is the heat that we seem gdp isn't really a threat to our ability to get back to 2% inflation? that's going to be the question. it's not a question of a of gdp on its own. you are expecting to see this improvement continue rebalancing in the labor market, and inflation moving back down to 2% in a sustainable way. we have to confidence in that, you know, we would be look at gdp just to the extent that it threatens one or both of those. >> victoria bell with "politico." there are multiple external factors that are playing out

right now. we see rising oil prices here we see autoworkers a striking with a looming very real possibility of a covert shutdown and i i was wondering for each of those things could you talk about how your thinking about how that might affect the course for the fed and the economy? >> so there is a long list and you hit some of them but it's the strike, it's government shutdown, resumption of student loan payments, higher long-term rates, world price shock, a lot of things you can look at and so what we try to do is assess all of them and handicap all of them. ultimately though so much uncertainty around these things. to start with the strike him for small we absolutely don't comment on the strike as we have no view on the strike when we or the other. we do have to make an assessment of its economic effects to do our jobs. the thing about it is, so uncertain. economic effects.

it could affect we look back at history, it could affect economic output, hiring and inflation but that's really going to depend on how broad it is and how long it is sustained for an also depends on how quickly production can make up for lost production. so none of those things are known right now. very, very hard to know. you just have to leave that uncertain and we we learning i think over the course of the next antonine. much more about that. the same is true for the others. undocumented shutdown. i think apologies of being on the list. we don't comment on that. it isn't traditionally have much of the macroeconomic effect. energy prices being higher, that is a significant thing. energy prices being up can affect spending, can affect over time, assisting time of higher energy prices can affect consumer expectations. ..

ultimately you are coming into this, there is significant momentum. >> frank torres from bloomberg news. i was surprised to hear you say a soft landing is not a primary objective. this economy see added supply and away to create long-term inflation stability, labor force participation moving up, workers want to work, got a booming manufacturing construction, and a state of homebuilding. they have higher productivity. all are good for the fed's

longer run target of low-inflation but if we lose that in a recession, aren't we opting to what we had in 2010. if we are taking this into account? >> a soft landing is a primary objective and i did not say otherwise. that's what we are trying to achieve for all that time. the only point is the worst thing we can do is fail to restore price stability. the record is clear around that. we can have a long period where the economy is very uncertain and this will affect all kinds of things that can be a miserable period to have inflation coming back. the best thing we can do for

everyone is restore price stability. today, we have a ability to be careful at this point and that is what we are planning to do. we fully appreciate the benefits of being able to continue but we see rebalancing and inflation coming down without seeing an important increase in unemployment which is typical of other cycles. >> when you look at the disinflation that has taken place so far is it mostly a result of what some economists call low hanging fruit, since the unwinding of supply chains and other pandemic disruptions or is it more broad disinflationary trend that involves most across the economy?

>> i would say it this way. i think we knew from before, to take as i call it the unwinding of distortions to supply and demand because of the pandemic and the response. monetary policy was going to come up to supply by cooling demand off. to align with supply, is important. to pull them apart. we worked together. both of them have work now and they are at work, shows the progress we are seeing. >> you forecast 5.

6% median fed funds rate and since then you more than doubled your growth forecast, lower your employment forecast significantly so what would justify that? it is for lower inflation, given the known unknowns that you face how much confidence can investors have or the american people have in the forecasts? >> forecasting is very difficult. to get to your question, what happened is growth is coming stronger than expected and that required higher rates. unemployment, you also see the ultimate unemployment rate is not as high but that's what we see in the labor market, more and more progress in the labor market without higher unemployment so we continue that trend. in terms of inflation, the last

three readings, very good readings, we are well aware of that bun when you look at june, july and august, looking at a significant decline of core inflation largely in a good sector, to some extent in housing, those are the 3 buckets. headline question comes way down to lower energy price some of which is reversing. people should know economic forecasting is difficult in these uncertain forecasts but these are our forecasts. we have high quality people working on that and they stand up against other forecasts but the nature of the business, the economy is difficult. >> what justified not moving

today and what could justify moving in the future. if inflation is coming down. >> i think we've come very heart very fast. it's important we move quickly. as we got closer to the rate we think the stance of monetary policy is appropriate, 2% over time. the risks become two sided and the risk of over tightening and under tightening becomes more equal and the common sense thing to do as you approach that, you move a little more slowly and you get closer to and that is what we are doing. we are taking advantage of the fact that we've moved quickly to move a little carefully now as we find our way to the right level, that we need to get inflation back down.

>> with your focus on pce isn't it true these affects are huge, it is more likely you have a low number that would make you feel more comfortable. how would a lack of key indicators, the jobs report impacts your approach in coming meetings if we had a government shutdown. >> what factors? >> face factors. okay. are we looking at, you can look at monthly readings and what the impact was for the prior month. when you go back 3, 6, 12 months, we can adjust for that. in terms of not getting data, we

don't comment on government shutdowns, possible if there's a government shutdown and it lasts through the next meeting, it was possible to get the data we would ordinarily get and have to deal with that. hard to say how that would affect the meeting. it depends on other factors but it is a reality, a possibility. >> as those titles fall out of it. >> you know, yes. if you are looking, we can tell how much inflation has gone up in a given month and that is what we are looking at, month by month, what is the reading. what we are really looking at, there's a tendency to look at shorter and shorter maturities but they are incredibly

volatile. that is why we look at 12 months. in this situation, we have a turn in inflation in june, looking at 6 months and 3 months. that is the right way to go. we don't need to be in a hurry about inclusion of what to do. >> edward lawrence with foxbusiness. let me focus on oil prices. to see oil prices move up, that's pushing the price of gas, how does that factor into your decision to raise rates, overall inflation? >> energy prices are very important for the consumer, this can affect consumer sentiment. gas prices are one of the big things that affect consumer sentiment.

it helps how sustained these energy prices are. the reason we look at core inflation which excludes food and energy, energy goes up and down like that, energy prices mostly mostly don't contain how the economy is an don't tell you much about where inflation is going. we are well aware they stay high, that will have an effect on spending and may have an effect on consumer expectation and things like that and things we have to monitor. >> on the consumer they are putting more of this on the credit card. the consumer seeing record credit spending. how long can the consumer manage that debt at a higher interest rate now? you are concerned about a debt bubble related to that. >> i was saying that is why you look through energy moves that we can see.

turning to consumer credit, we watch that carefully. consumer measures of distress among consumers at historic lows quite recently during and after the pandemic moving back up to normal, watching that carefully. at this point these readings are not at high levels, moving back up to typical pre-pandemic era. >> yields along the treasury curve have risen to the highest in years. what's the fed view about what's driving that in recent weeks and how much can be attributed to technical factors? >> you are right. rates of moved up significantly. always hard to say precisely but

most people do it decomposition of the increase and it is not mostly about inflation expectations. it is mostly other things, real yields, hard to be precise about this. every one has models that look at a precise answer but give you different answers. essentially they are moving up because not because of inflation but probably it will probably have to do with stronger growth, more supply of treasuries. it kind of makes sense. >> kyle campbell, american banker, thanks for taking the questions. on housing, shelter cost growth in the pipeline and will deflect inflation reading this.

there is also questions out there about how housing costs are measured particularly rental equivalents which are estimates from homeowners about what homes would rent for in the rental market. my question is how much effort to tame inflation as measured and felt by the public hinges on supply, but as far as a constraint housing supply exacerbated by a blocking affect, higher than they were at recent historic lows. how does that impact future thinking about piquing interest rates to the lower bound in the future? >> on the supply point, supplies important in setting house prices and rents and supply, structurally constrained. in terms of where inflation is going in the near-term as you know, a lot of it is lisa's

running off and released at a level that is -- won't be that much higher. would have been higher than it was a year before, it may be below or at the same level. as those leases are rolling over we see what we expect which is measured housing services inflation coming down. your second question was the lock ins. how is that affecting things really? >> potentially bring rates to the lower bound in the future creating that bubble of buying at a lock in stagnating the housing market. >> i would look at the idea that people in low mortgage or low rate mortgages and even if they want to move it would be hard because the new mortgage would

be so expensive. that explains one of the explanations for what is happening in the labor market. would that play a role in our future decisions in a future type future loosening cycle about whether we would cut rates? i don't think it would. we would be looking fundamentally at what rates the economy would need to. in an emergency like the pandemic or the global financial crisis. you have to cut rates to the point you do what you can to support the economy. i wouldn't think that would be a reason not to do that, not something worth thinking about at all but down the road. >> chair powell, you mentioned several things that would probably way on consumer confidence, cut back consumer

spending, government shutdown, high gas prices. would love fed welcome a decrease in consumer spending? would that help you get inflation closer to a 2% target? >> i wouldn't say it that way. we are not looking for a decrease in consumer spending. it is a good thing the economy is strong and that the economy has been able to hold up. the labor market is strong. the only concern, if the economy comes in stronger than expected we do more in terms of monetary policy gets to 2%. %. we will get back to 2%. does that answer your question? >> on the other hand would you worried that could contribute to an economic slowdown or recession? >> that the concern. concern number what is restoring priced ability. in the long run that is something we have to do so that we can have the kind of economy

we want which is sustained period of tight labor market conditions to benefit all of that. >> mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 3:30 p.m., that if cloture is invoked on the brown nomination, all postcloture time be considered expired at 6:30 p.m. finally, if any nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today to discuss the urgent need for congress to provide relief for recent agricultural disasters.

i appreciate the circumstances around the appropriations process has changed somewhat since we prepared these remarks, but what i really want to do this afternoon is to highlight the devastating experiences of new hampshire growers this year and explain why it's so urgent for them, for congress to provide disaster relief. in new hampshire, our growers have faced an unprecedented difficult year. a late frost the evening of may 18 caused enormous damage to fruit crops across new hampshire, but especially to our apple orchards. these photos really depict what happened to most of the apple crop in new hampshire . you can see these, these almost look like chestnuts. they're so small and stunted and brown, and this you can barely

make out is an apple. and you can see the size of them, based on the impact from the frost. this event followed an extreme freeze in february that wiped out virtually 100% of our peach crops and other stone fruits. my office has been hearing from apple growers who lost 80% to 100% of their crop this year, as well as from new hampshire growers who lost up to 100% on other crops such as peaches, pears, plums, brewburis, strawberries, -- blueberries, strawberries, grapes and cherries. if you think you don't have that many orchards in new england, we have the largest apple orchard in new england in new hampshire. this is a big concern for our farmers in the state, and they make up a considerable percentage of our small businesses. what we have seen is total crop

losses for some growers, and near total losses for others. the business impact of such catastrophic damage goes way beyond the direct cost of damage to the crops, because in new hampshire we have a strong tradition, as i know they do in other states, of families who visit their local orchards every year to pick your own apples and other fruit. for local farms, these visits aren't just about that actual apple picking, but it's an opportunity to showcase everything their farms have to offer, to display other products for families to purchase -- vegetables that have grown during the season, baked goods, apple cider, apple sauce, all of the -- everything that can be made from apples are available at those farm stands. apple picking marks the start of autumn in new hampshire.

we're currently well into september, and what should be apple-picking season. this past weekend should have seen billsy -- busy crowds, with families apple picking, eating cider donuts, sipping apple cider. sadly, this was not the case. you heard from growers like trevor harding from brookdale fruit farm in hollis who called his counterparts at meadow ledge farm in loudoun, poverty lane orchards in lebanon, and other other charts to learn it wasn't just about his farm that lacked the usual bustling energy of children and families on the farm. local growers across the state, like windy ridge orchards in north haverhill, are concerned that families won't come this season for their annual farm visits, and the total resulting revenue losses will be enormous. for a lot of families, my family is no exception, going to the local pick-your-own orchard to

get, whether it's apples, pump cinls, or veg -- pumpkins or vegetables, that's an annual event. my daughter and her four children have pictures taken in the pumpkin patch in the nearby farm every year those kids have been home. i had a cans to -- a chance to meet with a number of farmers last friday, and one of the things they talked about was concern that they have longtime customers who are not going to be able to enjoy their farms this year, because of the impact from the frost. new hampshire growers are estimated to be facing as much as $20 million in disaster-related effects from these freeze events. this estimate doesn't even include the ongoing impacts to vegetable growers and forage crops from flooding and excessive moisture. the total cost for that is still being tabulated.

this is brookdale farms, the biggest orchard in new hampshire, in hollis, the biggest other clard in new england. this is a rain -- orchard in new england. this is a rainstorm from two weeks ago. you can see the water cass dating through the orchard because of the flooding and the impact that's having on next year's crop, on vegetables, is really still being tabulated, but is excessive across the state. i'm hearing from longtime new hampshire growers they've never seen crop damage this bad before. last week, when i visited with farmers, i went to andle hill farm in -- apple hill farm in concord, with a number of growers from regions in the state. chuck and diane souther, who own the farm, showed me the severe losses their apple crops have suffered this year, and they showed me apples that looked very much like these.

they told me about the devastating effects of the late frost on their orchards and how they stayed out all night on mad temperatures, to try and protect their crop, to save as many trees as they could. they told me, in heartbreaking detail, about the impact on their businesses and how disappointed they are not to be able to provide apples to their annual customers. now, i hope that families in new hampshire will still visit their local orchards. some still have some apples to pick. they still have other products to buy and other activities for kids to enjoy. in a year like this, we need to support our local farmers more than ever. before i close, i want to read some comments from a letter that was shared with my office, from ken merrill, an apple grower in londonderry, new hampshire. his family owns and operates oliver merrill and sons, a fifth-generation farm in

londonderry. they specialize in growing apples and other fruit, as well as other products. i think his comments here really show the experience of so many growers in new hampshire this year. ken says, and i quote, i'm writing you this letter on labor day 2023. labor day weekend is usually a busy time on the farm. the farm stand is packed with people buying apples, peaches, and other fruit. some years pick-your-own apples is beginning, and people are coming to the orchard for outings. not this year. i'm sitting in my office writing this letter because there are no peaches or other stone fruit, pears and few apples. at least 95% of the apple blossoms were killed by acy veer frost on -- a severe frost on may 18. the peaches and stone fruit were killed by an unusually cold night in february. the consequences of these

weather events are dramatic. the farm stand is operating at a reduced level, selling the few vegetables we grow. most years we hire three to five people for the harvest season to pick, pack, and help sell the crop. this year we have to tell the people that have worked for us for many years thal there were not jobs on the farm. we've had to cancel all of our wholesale contracts with supermarkets. no apples. we've had to stop selling to other farm stands we've sold to for years, as well as telling the new hampshire food bank that we had nothing to sell them this year. this is the first time in more than 50 years, since i've been associated with the family business, that we have not had an apple crop. ken's experience reflects that of almost all of our growers in new hampshire. in july, the secretary of agriculture declared a federal disaster for new hampshire

growers as a result of the frost. however, for agricultural disasters, as the presiding officer knows, there is no federal relief that's automatically triggered, even after the secretary of agriculture has declared a federal disaster. instead, congress must specifically appropriate funds. there's plenty of precedent for this. in 2023, congress provided $3.7 billion for agricultural disasters that occurred in calendar year 2022, and in 2022, congress provided $10 billion for agricultural disasters that occurred in 2020 and 2021. federal disaster relief is particularly urgent for farmers like those in new hampshire, who are underserved by existing federal agricultural programs. in fact, many of our apple growers don't have crop insurance because they've found it doesn't really work for their businesses, the way it's currently structured.

i hope we can come together to support appropriations bills, but i hope we can also come together to provide the urgently needed relief funding for our farmers, those who have been so affected in new hampshire and in new england. i urge my colleagues to support this effort and to ensure that agricultural disaster relief is enacted promptly. thank you very much. ma'am chair, i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. durbin: madam president, i ask consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 282, general charles q. brown jr. for reappointment for joint cheat of staff to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, section 601, to be general, signed by 19 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of general charles q. brown jr., for reappointment as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and appointment in the u.s. air force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10us

c-sections 152 and 061 to be general, shall be brought to ka close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. the clerk: mr. barrasso.

mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman.

the clerk: 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.

the clerk: 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.

the clerk: mr. risch. 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.

senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, bennet, budd, collins, durbin, fischer, hassan, hirono, kelly, king, lummis, manchin, moran, murray,off, ricketts, rounds, rubio, shaheen, smith, tester, tillis, warner. mr. van hollen, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, aye. mr. scott of florida, aye. mr. johnson, aye. senators voting in the negative negative -- blackburn, marshall.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye. mr. cramer, aye. mr. cassidy, aye. mr. kaine, aye.

mr. lankford, aye.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye. the clerk: mr. schmitt, no.

the clerk: ms. sinema, aye. mr. blumenthal, aye. the clerk: mr. hawley, no. ms. duckworth, aye. mr. young, aye. mr. thune, aye. ms. cortez masto, aye.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye.

ms. stabenow, aye. the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye. mrs. blackburn, aye. the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye.

the clerk: mr. menendez, aye. mr. romney, aye. mr. sanders, aye. mr. wyden, aye. ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye. mrs. capito, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. braun, no. mr. welch, aye. mr. schatz, aye. the clerk: mr. wicker, aye.

the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. graham, aye. the clerk: mr. boozman, aye. mr. mullin, aye.

the clerk: mr. lee, aye. ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. lee, no. mr. murphy, aye. mr. crapo, aye.

the clerk: mr. daines, aye.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

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

the clerk: mr. cotton, aye.

the clerk: mr. barrasso, aye. mr. tuberville, no. mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. mr. lujan, aye. the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye. mr. kennedy, aye. mr. padilla, aye.

ms. rosen, aye. mr. mcconnell, aye.

the clerk: mr. preerts -- mr. peters, aye. mr. hagerty, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. vance

vote:

the clerk: mrs. britt, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. :

vote:

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 89. the nays are 8. the motion is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: mr. president, two hours ago senator schumer announced that we will be voting on the commander of the marine corps, army chief of staff, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. it's about time. i've called for individual votes on these nominees for almost six months. instead of voting, democrats have spent months complaining about having to vote. they want us to use floor time for things like liberal judges like the one we confirmed a couple of hours ago. senator schumer could have confirmed these nominees a long, long time ago. we have had more than 80 days off this year in the senate, not including weekends. yet senator schumer is outraged

that we are voting on these nominations. as i've noted before, the current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was giving a floor vote in 2018. the current nominee for that position, general brown, was given a floor vote for his current position not long ago. despite what senator reed and others have said, there is nothing wrong with a floor vote on these nominations. i ran for senate so i could vote on behalf of the people of the state of alabama. i didn't come up here just to outsource my job to the pentagon or the white house. yet, that's exactly what democrats want to do. that is the current position of senate democrats. the constitution says we make the laws here in congress, not in the pentagon and not in the

white house. this is not about me. it's about the senate and the constitution. this is a win today for the legislative branch of government. voting gives all senators a voice for their constituents. the constitution says that the senate is to advise and consent to the president's nominations. over the last six months, democrats in this chamber have actually complained that the senate has too much power. senator schumer made reference this afternoon to proposals by democrats to make the senate weaker. senate democrats have been more than happy to go along with oveh

when a democrat is in the office. democrats spent the last six months attacking me for standing up to an illegal and immoral new policy. many of these attacks have been wrong on the facts. first, they said i was leaving important jobs open. that is false. then they complained that we have acting officials in many important roles. they claimed that generals and admirals just can't do the job as an acting official. senator reed came to the floor two weeks ago and said we have no effective military leadership in several branches of the military right now. one member of the house said the military is paralyzeed. i don't even think the pentagon would defend these accusations. democrats still have never shown me one fact to show that we were behind on readiness. it's just not true.

just last week general charles flynn and our top navy general in the pacific said he hasn't noticed any challenges because of the hold. not any. over the weekend the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general mark milley, said our readiness is better than it has been in years. this hold is not affecting readiness. if democrats want to complain, then they should look in the mirror. i don't control the senate floor. the democrats do. in a typical week, we work three days. those aren't the kind of hours people are working back in my home state of alabama. this is one of the least productive senates in our lifetime. democrats can't have it both ways. either they can confirm these nominees through regular order or they can stop complaining about acting officials.

democrats say this is a large backload of nominees. they say it will take a long time. well, i agree, it's been a big backlog. but again, chuck schumer allowing the backlog to build up over six months, it's his fault. we could have been confirming one or two a week for the last 200 days. it would have taken us just four hours of voting each week. but we didn't do it. we took another angle of just sitting back and watching. chuck schumer refused again, again, and again. we don't have a lack of leadership in our military. we have a lack of leadership right here in the united states senate. despite the lack of leadership, senators are perfectly capable of voting. voting is our job. that's why we were sent here. so to be clear, my hold is

still in place. the hold will remain in place as long as the pentagon's illegal abortion policy remains in place if the pentagon lifts the policy, then i will lift my hold. it's easy as that. that's been my position from the very beginning. i'm not afraid to vote on these nominees or on all of these nominees. i came here to this chamber to vote, and i reserve the right to seek another cloture position on the nominees in the future. so that's where we stand today. i yield the floor.