making all kind of, all kind of comments about democratic policies in spending, and yet the democrats just out there and didn't respond.d usually there would be jeering and that type of thing but yesterday they didn't. they were very disciplined and then let this process play out. but to your question about who do we, who do i think personally would make great speakers. again, i think we have a deep bench in our conference. the two names had been mention this morning on the show have been steve scalise and jim jordan. i think both of those would be outstanding choicesth for speak. and then we have others. tom emmer is obviously, we do an outstanding job. they're just, the list goes on and on of outstanding leaders that we have within our conference who i think could step up and handle this job. >> host: from miami -- let's go to june, june is in

california, california, independentt line. >> caller: hi. my name is judy and am actually a republican but i but i t through on that line. >> host: let me stop you there only because we ask our folks to call in on the right like to make sure that everybody gets a chance to do so. our next call, some of your plea comes from your district in georgia. democrat's line, go ahead. >> caller: mr. carter, you supported mccarthy. mccarthy had no respect for nobody because he didn't keep his word -- >> the use and has been in a recess. we now return to live gavel to gavel coverage. 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. butler. 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. 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. senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, duckworth, graham, heinrich, murkowski, peters. senators voting in the negative -- britt, budd, cornyn, cramer, hoeven, kennedy, lummis,

marshall, paul, remove any rounds scott of florida, sullivan, tillis and tuberville. mr. menendez, aye. the clerk: mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: mr. grassley, no. the clerk: mr. lee, no.

mrs. fischer, no. the clerk: mr. casey, aye. mr. fetterman, aye.

mr. coons, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. reed, aye. mr. kaine, aye.

mr. bennet, aye. mr. warnock, aye. ms. hassan, aye. ms. cortez masto, aye. mr. daines, no. mr. thune, no. ms. capito, no. mr. welch, aye. ms. stabenow, aye. ms. hirono, aye. mr. kelly, aye. mr. murphy, aye. ms. warren, aye.

mr. ossoff, aye. mr. carper, aye. mr. barasso, no. mr. wyden, aye. ms. smith, aye.

ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. warner, aye. mrs. blackburn, no. mr. durbin, aye.

the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye. the clerk: mr. braun, no.

vote: the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. blumenthal, aye. mr. johnson, no. mr. cotton, no. ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye.

mr. vance, no.

the clerk: mr. wicker, no.

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

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

vote: vote: vote: the clerk: mr. risch, no. mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. mr. moran, no.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no. the clerk: ms. ernst, no. mr. schatz, aye.

the clerk: mr. lankford, no.

mr. young, no.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. boomple, no. the clerk: mr. boozman, no. the clerk: mr. hagerty, no.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no. mrs. murray, aye. mr. padilla, aye. ms. butler, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. mullin, no.

mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no. the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the ayes are 53, the

nays are 44, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. 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 264, susan kim declercq, of emission mirk, to be united states -- of michigan, to be united states district judge for the eastern district of michigan. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of susan kim declercq, of emission mirk, to be united states

district judge for the state of michigan. 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. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin.

the clerk: 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. 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.

the clerk: 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, brown, collins, brown, hirono, murkowski, reed, rosen, schatz, sinema, stabenow, tester, warner, wyden. senators voting in the negative -- boogz, cruz, daines, grassley, lankford, mcconnell, mullin, risch, rounds, rubio, scott of florida, young, boozman. mr. tillis, no.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, no. mr. heinrich, aye.

mr. budd, no. clark mr. marshall, no. mr. lujan, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye. mr. braun, no.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. mrs. murray, aye. the clerk: mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye. mr. paul, no. mr. cotton, no. mr. king, aye. mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: mr. welch, aye.

the clerk: ms. smith, aye. mr. cardin, aye. mr. coons, aye.

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

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

the clerk: mrs. fischer, no. mr. barrasso, no. mr. weicher, -- mr. wicker. no.

ms. klobuchar, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. durbin, aye. mr. kaine, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, no. mr. ricketts, no. mrs. shaheen, aye.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no. mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye.

mrs. hyde-smith, no. the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. mr. moran, no.

the clerk: mr. padilla, aye. ms. butler, aye. mr. hoeven, no. mr. vance, no.

mr. romney, no. ms. ernst, no. mr. blumenthal, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no. the clerk: mr. hagerty, no.

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

mr. ossoff, aye. the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye. mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: ms. hassan, aye. the clerk: mr. lee, no. mr. cassidy, no.

the clerk: mr. thune, no.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no. the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye.

the clerk: mr. menendez, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mr. sanders, aye.

the clerk: mr. comer, no. -- mr. cramer, no. vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 54. nays are 44. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, susan kim declercq of michigan to be united states district judge for the eastern district of michigan.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: mr. president, i rise today to answer a simple but a

complex question. mr. coons: and in doing so, to acknowledge and to honor the work of one of the most dedicated, gracious, thoughtful, decent public servants i have ever known. my chief of staff jonathan. the question i am answering is who is this man, this jonathan staller and why was i so blessed to have the years i've enjoyed to serve alongside him and what has his impact been on my office, my state, this senate and me? after close to 18 years in the senate, five years with former senator bye of indiana and nearly 14 in my officer, jonathan is embarking on a new journey. he's headed to the north to serve at the united nation, as chief of staff to our ambassador there, and his last day with this institution and my team is

fast approaching. i have given other floor speeches about other departing, dedicated and talented staff. jonathan hired nearly all of them. jonathan uniquely among those i have thanked and honored has played an absolutely central, essential role. in shaping my office, in transforming the culture and delivering a harmonious, productive, supportive team. he hired, mentored, and motivated great leaders. my team is immeasurably better because of jonathan's values, his commitment to public service, and his focus on others. let's take a biographical tour first. jonathan is from newton, massachusetts, from a blessed state in new england, not delaware but still a wonderful state that's produced many talented members of this body.

he received his degree from an outstanding institution, washington university in st. louis where he studied political science and government. and informed by the boundless optimism and idealism, the dedication to make right what is wrong about our nation and to improve our world that his mother gave him as an animating spirit. he moved here 20 years ago to work for the children's defense fund, a remarkable organization led by a talented woman known as one of washington's most effective and tireless antipoverty, antiracist, oriented towards progress, data driven change organizations. having arrived here 20 years ago to begin that work, he then decided he was in love with this institution and started just a few years later initially as a legislative corn dent for senator evan bayh. he rose to be an l.a. and deputy l.d. and was a well trained,

well prepared legislative team leader when i arrived here late in 2010. having won a special election, looking for someone who could help shape my then ill informed legislative ideas. i was fortunate enough to recruit andislative director. it's one of the best choices i've made in my entire career. as l.d. john was famous for having an open door policy for welcoming anyone who needed time and a listening ear, comfort, direction, reassurance. he built relationships across the aisle. he listened to and often acted on some of my brilliant and inciteful and talented legislative initiatives, and he also tolerated and often delivered on some of my whacky or whimsical insights or ideas. in 2018 after five years in which he shaped and led and inspired my policy team, i was

grateful he accepted my offer to become my chief of staff. and he realized that my world was more than just legislation. it was delaware and washington. it was international and domestic. it was personal and political. and i am so grateful for the contributions he's made. to better understand why i think it's best to know the family that shaped him and the values that anchor him. his stepfather harold, a lawyer in boston, said that for jonathan it was always a thrill to be involved in the work of the senate. this is one of his great traits. he never lost a sense of wonder and enthusiasm about this job. no matter how late the night or inconvenient or grinding the schedule, no matter how concerning the antics in the other chamber or even occasionally here, jonathan never lost that sense of wonder at this place. stepsister lizzy suggested that a passion for politics might have started before he arrived here. in fact, in high school she

recounted jonathan had a life size cardboard cutout of bill clinton in his room. perhaps the earliest indication of where his career might head. jake, his step brother, said that jonathan is also in addition to passionate about politics, in the personal is dedicated. he is an incredible uncle who keeps his promises, taking a niece to disney world and going to enormous lengths to deliver on a kindergarten speech. jonathan's remarkable, big hearted mother dale was a powerful force in his life, kind and giving, someone who listened and made folks feel like they were the most important person in the room. a counselor and a guide. she was an important presence in our office and i know a central feature in his life. and we all miss her. dale had a way of making every single person she met feel like they were the center of the

universe, a characteristic, lizzy said, that jonathan has mastered. his aunt barbara shared with us that dale was immensely proud of the work jonathan was doing. dale was passionate about politics, too, and as i said, cared about making things better. she would be so proud of jonathan's service and legacy here. as are we all. let me also give some feedback if i can about his colleagues in the office, those who he served with for years and what they had to say about their boss, their chief of staff. jonathan, one colleague said, is one of the most self-ef facing, humble individuals not just in washington but in our world. his dedication to supporting others, his endless supply of empathy and energy is remarkable. i'll ratify this one. he was here for the right reasons. he wanted to serve. and he saw each day as a chance

to solve problems. another said jonathan was always willing to provide chain momentum by chiming in on an e-mail threat in order to ensure we moved towards the desired outcome. i regret i have rarely provided chain momentum. another former colleague said that jonathan is the rarest of specimens in d.c., authentic, empathetic, smart, funny, and a great softball player, the proverbial five-tool player. as another trusted colleague said, jonathan has a keen ability to know what a person needs before they themselves know it. whether that be laughter and cheering up strategy or guidance or a full cone of silence, apparently to listen. and i would say that jonathan fights harder for others than he

does for himself. that is the very definition of servant leadership. as we were talking through family and colleague memories, i was reminded that you've never seen jonathan more focused and determined than when asked by his niece to present about government to a fifth grade class. he went supersonic. he had a whole series of conversations with her to discuss his vision -- this is a fifth grade class, imagine -- he browshed up on policy knowledge and put together an interactive power point for 10-year-olds and held several practice runs with staff to ensure his delivery was the best possible for his niece. while i may make light of it, that sort of intensity, that sort of heartfelt dedication to family is one of his most charming qualities. trinity, one of his most beloved colleagues, our deputy chief, whenever a niece or nephew of trinity's would visit our officer, jonathan would

inevitably offer some fun or unexpected behind-the-scenes experience in the capitol complex. and he was not just serious and heartfelt but also fun. dedicated to team building through things like paint ball competitions or trips to the d.c. car show, apparently without the senator. he also has some quirks. jonathan is fond of asking about what the dew point is rather than the temperature in order to assess the proper attire for an event, something with which i was unfamiliar. although incredibly unsafe and unwise, he prefers frequently to use a scooter whenever possible and never missed a chance to connect with the most infamous of delawareans, one james francis payola, a denson of the star board in dewy and jonathan gradually through gym's tutelage has become not just tolerant of but a true fan of the orange

crush friday morning breakfast. jonathan was a superhero. he used his chief of staff powers for good. whether it was an urgent passport matter to save a family vacation or someone who needed access to lifesaving medical care, he always made time to do the little things that make a big impact for staff and constituents and sometimes the big things that can literally change the course of a life. he enjoyed sharing everything from embassy events to literally tours of the capitol dome conducted in person. as i mentioned before, his mother was a trained therapist and from that jonathan has gained really important tools, one well-known to the practitioners is the meyers briggs test. he is a meyers-briggs expert. he uses it as his decoder ring to better understand his colleagues and even, on

occasion, me. jonathan is an infp -- i am an enfp. to those of you who have endured the riggers of the meyers-briggs testing, you know that is enough in common that we are diplomats. i hope it will serve him well in new york. jonathan knew that i get nrc by talking to -- i get energy by talking to people and i make decisions about issues by talking to people. as his family and friends will tell you, jonathan is someone who prefers text messages and rarely, if ever, answers a ringing phone. in fact, you would often find him with noise-canceling headphones on in this office. a very polite but very real do not disturb signal. we often say, he isn't always there when you call, but he's always on time. jonathan also has exceptionally

good taste in whiskey, something we've enjoyed together on a few occasions and i hopefully look forward to enjoying again tonight. we went through many different periods; many different chapters here in the senate, in my home state and in our lives. we'd comfort each other on the loss of our parents. we scold each other when a bill failed, and we celebrated together when legislation made it to the president's desk. in the very long period that was the pandemic, when so much of the offices of the senate and so much of the work, the busyness that happens here, the steady parade of constituents and the constant noise in the halls dimmed and quieted, jonathan and a small group gathered day after did a after day dedicated to be that 224-a team that carried us through the pandemic. and i will never forget some of those long but very good days. some say being a senate chief of

staff is the highest calling of any public servant here. being a chief, frankly you is a very demanding, often thankless job that requires 24 hours a day, seven days a week tending to the demands a of constituents, the needs of staff, and, yes, the whims of members. and the challenges that they so often create sometimes daily. jonathan has given so much to our team, to our office, to his colleagues, and to me. he is and has been the ideal chief of staff. i have been incredibly lucky, jonathan to have your guidance and support for 13 years together and to work through together times that were interesting, grave, genuinely scary, sometimes fun, sometimes hysterical, and certainly historic. we've had times of concern and alarm, of hope and optimism, and

overall of accomplishment. it has been a long and sometimes strange trip together, but, jonathan, you should be confident that the team you have built, the culture you have cultivated, the l.d. who you have helped mentor and bring along to succeed you, and the remarkable legacy of achievement you are leaving behind. the heartfelt idealism, the overbrimming optimism, the determination to make a difference that first brought to you this, our nation's capital, you leave this place with those qualities undimmed. that capability strengthened and that forward trajectory made more sure. as juliet says to romeo in shakespeare, i think it is act ii, scene 2, parting is such sweet sorrow. it is an ancient but modern way

to remind us that goodbyes are painful, that this is not goodbye. this is good luck. this is know that you go with my thanks and the blessings of my office and my family and my state for your next chapter of public service. our ambassador in new york, linda thomas-greenfield, and the entire team at our u.n. ambassador's office, will be blessed to have you. and i am excited for your new add have en signature to serve alongside another great public servant. my office, my state, our senate, and our nation are immeasurably better because of your kindness, your generosity, and your dedication to public service. and i cannot thank you enough. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. durbin: today the republican leader of the senate came to the floor to give a speech relative to the issue of crime in america, and he was fairly specific as he outlined examples of violent crime that were taking place across the nation. he, of course, included in his litany the city of chicago, talking about the car thefts that were owe ccurring in that city, and other felonies in the city. he included in his remarks, the republican senate leader, america's families deserve to feel safe in their homes. it shouldn't take another assault or carjacking or whom homicide to convince left-leaning to start doing their jobs. i come hereto once again to

discuss the -- i come here once again to discuss the senate's need to confirm two pending u.s. attorney nominees, reback can a lutzko in the northern district of ohio and april perry to the northern district of illinois. i have come to the floor three times in the past weeks to request unanimous consent for the senate to take up and confirm these pending u.s. attorney nominees who are being stopped by one injure senator from ohio. keep in mind that both of these nominees before the state of ohio and for the state of illinois have gone through extensive vetting and extensive efforts to determine whether or not they are prepared and qualified for the job. and it is a big job. they would it be the leading u.s. criminal prosecutors in their area and have responsibilities that we know are substantial. each time i've come to the floor to ask to give the opportunity

to have these two young people lead the u.s. attorney's office, senator mcconnell has come up with two different reasons. he is not earn in his mind on a daily basis. as i stated last week, almost 50 years ago the senate has confirmed u.s. attorney nominees for both political parties by either a voice vote or unanimous consent after they've been reported by the judiciary committee. just look back to the previous trump administration. in the 115th and 116th congress, 85 of president trump's u.s. attorney nominees moved through the judiciary committee and senate democrats allowed all 85, every single one of them, to be confirmed by a voice vote, by unanimous consent. why? why would we automatically give to a president of the united

states their u.s. attorneys, their representatives in the department of justice and the nation? because we understand the critical role that u.s. attorneys play in our justice system. just take a look at the law, title 28 of the u.s. code, section 547, it states, and i quote, each u.s. attorney within his district shall prosecute for all offenses against the united states of america, end ever quote. leader mcconnell regularly comes to the floor to assert that republicans are really tougher on crime than democrats. the obstacles that senate republicans have created to confirming federal prosecutors and especially senator vance's actions shows what an empty argument that is. senate republicans are literally moving the goalpost in the senate blocking the confirmation of law enforcement officers who lead our nation's efforts to prosecute violent crime and protect our communities from drug traffickers, gun violence,

terrorism, and so many other crimes. is it important in the state of ohio for the junior senator hails from as it is important in illinois to deal with fentanyl deaths? it most certainly is. we understand that thousands of americans are dying each year because of this deadly narcotic. who is fighting them? leading the fight is our federal government and department of justice. we're dealing with an international drug cartel hailing out of mexico. we're dealing with an effort to take over drug narcotics control of the united states, europe, and beyond. certainly we need more than local law enforcement to deal with it. so who do we put on case? the department of justice. why is that important? it's important because we need to have the men and women serving in that department of justice who are doing this job every single day. earlier in year the senator from ohio explained why he is doing this.

why he is stopping the appointment of well-qualified and vetted criminal prosecutors in the department of justice. here is what he said. i will hold all department of justice nominations ... we will grind [the justice department] to a halt. grind the justice department to a halt. really? is that what you want to leave as your legacy in the united states senate, that somehow you manage toddy minutish the department of justice's effort to -- you managed to diminish the department of justice's effort to stop the spread of narcotics? is that something you brag about back home? i don't think so. the average american hopes and prays that someone in washington is working late at night, lights on, trying to make sure that there's less crime in america. they trust us to do our job, and one of them is to make sure that the department of justice has the men and women they need to

be led properly and to be effective. the junior senator from ohio campaigned for this job in congress, in the united states senate on the fact that he was tough on crime. he said, quote, americans deserve safety. they don't get it if politicians keep attacking police officers instead of violent criminals. i would think that he would recognize that u.s. attorneys are too important to be used as political footballs to make some headline, or make some tweet or whatever it happens to be. i would think he would recognize that he is blocking highly qualified nominees who have significant experience as federal prosecutors and who have the qualifications and leadership abilities to serve with distinction. according to the senator from ohio, the junior senator, the justice department has been, quote, weaponized -- a favorite word of the right -- simply because former president trump

has been indicted for multiple felonies. so this is retribution. in order to punish the department of justice for any part of it, prosecuting or indicting the former president, the senator from ohio wants to stop prosecutors, criminal prosecutors, from going to work in chicago and cleveland. what is he going to do about the pending case in new york? there's got to be a way for him to stop the department of justice, work by the state of new york, work by their attorney general. the former president is being sued -- i could use the term prosecuted, but sued in court for his business dealings in new york and he has a case pending in georgia. what does the junior senator from ohio going to do to punish georgia for having the temerity of indicting the former president as well? there is simply no basis in reason, fact, or law for what he is doing. the justice department under the

biden administration has made a point of demonstrating its independence, focusing on investigating and prosecuting criminal activity regardless of an individual's political affiliation. attorney general merrick garland even appointed special counsels for the investigations of the president and former president. last year senator vance stated, my objection is not specific to the qualifications of the particular individuals that have been nominated. he said this in reference to both these nominees. so he's not questioning whether they're qualified for the job. he's angry that the former president has been indicted by the department of justice. in response, i offered the junior senator from ohio the opportunity to end his obstruction and to keep hiss promise to support law enforcement by allowing us to schedule confirmation votes on the four pending u.s. attorneys, exactly what he said in the

congressional record he wanted. he agreed to it. he released his objection to all four nominees, on the condition that we hold roll call votes on them. he did this publicly in the congressional record and privately. he said while he couldn't speak for his colleagues in the senate who may object to some of the four, he no longer would object. last week we held votes on two of the u.s. attorney nominees. then senator vance changed his mind again. overnight he decided he does object to holding a confirmation vote on the two nominees, rebecca lutzko and mr. perry to be the u.s. attorney in chicago, illinois. senator vance offered explanations of doing what he promised not to do when he ran for office. he promised he would fight the criminals, not the cops. is introduced a resolution to the senate that is called all

levels of government to ensure that all law enforcement officers receive the support and resources they need to keep all communities and the united states safe. now he has the chance to support law enforcement. instead he comes to the senate floor three times to undermine the u.s. attorney's office, even one in his own state that he represents here in the senate. these are offices responsible for prosecuting drug cartels, sex traffickers and other violent criminals. senator vance him said americans not be safe if politicians keep attacking our law enforcement officers. i fear he is proving that is right. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc, calendar number 314 and 315. that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate. that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. vance: thank you, mr. president. reserving the right to object. i want to address just a few points that my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from illinois, made. and i will restate a a few of the things i said. first of all, he made much about my hold policy being focused on donald trump, and of course i do think it is pro post terus -- preposterous, but this isn't just about donald trump, this is about a pro-life father of seven who was harassed and arrested in front of his children, this is about parents investigated by the fbi for dpolg -- this is about a department of justice that is far more interested in politics than justice. as long as that it true, senator,ly certainly continue to implement my hold policy. i want to say a second thing

which is all i'm asking for is that my distinguished colleague from illinois or any other senator invoke cloture for -- force a cloture vote and then force a vote on the senate floor. i understand that is not easy for a senate that votes one to four times a day, but most people have harder jobs than woe do, i think sticking our thumbs up in the air or down to the ground are not too much. as my colleague said, we worked hard for this job, to vote for these nominees on the record is not too much to ask. third point i will make. i've come to really appreciate and look forward to these exchanges with my colleague from illinois. i will say this. that i think that his criticism, and i think that his concern comes from a very legitimate place. he's made this argument a number of times. an argument that there is

something unprecedented about what i'm doing. what is it 85 nominees were confirmed through unanimous consent and now we've somehow stopped it. we changed it. certainly i have changed it. i changed it because the dong doj has changed. when donald trump was president, he was not trying to throw joe biden in prison. joe biden is president and he's threatening to throw not just donald trump but a host of others into prison. that is unprecedented. that is a new thing and therefore the way we respond to it must be unprecedented as well. i acknowledge that something the senator from illinois is pointing out here. in years past, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made an argument that most of my fellow conservatives don't agree with, but i do. for any law enforcement to work, whether state, federal, county or city, it needs to have

legitimacy. it needs to have the trust of the people. i've talked to a number of people just in the last few months who have told me that they have witnessed things in their community but they wouldn't call the department of justice because they don't trust the department of justice. i know senator durbin and others might say, well, look, you're a conservative republican for ohio, of course you talk to the sort of people who are skeptical of the department of justice. but i'd ask him toe extend the same courtesy to my voters to that -- that i would extend to all voters across the country whether they like me or not. when people don't believe that law enforcement can be trusted, public safety will suffer. our democratic colleagues have made this argument in the past speaking about other prosecutors in other communities, and i think they're right. wher you agree with -- whether you agree with the reasons of the mismistrust of law enforcement, you cannot have

application of law if you don't trust the people doing the application. that is the problem with the situation we find ourselves in. i don't like that the department of justice has become what it has become. i don't like, set aside president trump, i'm pro-trump, a thumb of my colleagues are anti-trump. set aside the concerns about the presidential election. what about parents protesting at their school board meetings for their kids. should they be investigated by the fbi. if they are investigated at the fbi, doesn't that suggest something is broken at the department of justice? i think that the answer is yes, and i think that answer threatens the foundation of law enforcement and equal justice under the law in this country. i will continue the hold policy so long as a broken department of justice cares more about thriks than it does justice. mr. president -- cares more about politics than it does

justice. i object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: can you imagine about the family concerned about narcotics and fentanyl deaths in their neighborhood think about this argument. that some people are mad about some of the things don't by the department of justice. under the previous administration as well as this administration, as an attorney and senator, i can find things to object to. but to deny to the city of cleveland and the northern district of ohio a u.s. attorney to lead their office to stop sex trafficking, that is a political statement that the senator believes is appropriate. that he's going to stop a nomination to -- to someone? chicago, and the trafficking of thousands of guns each year from neighboring states and he's going to old up that person because he objects to the way they treated former president trump. that is what's wrong with this country and this senate.

when one senator can stop the appointment of well qualified individual with no questions asked about how to handle a job in cleveland or chicago and to do that because he has a political grievance. i hope i never get to that point, and i hope others will think twice. we need a government that is it effective and provides safety to the people we represent. holding up the effective appointment of prosecutors to do their job is inappropriate and i will continue to come to the floor and plead the case for safety in the neighborhoods. and before anyone else decides to come to the floor in the future on the republican side and criticize crime in the city of chicago, for goodness sakes, try to explain to the senator from ohio there is a connection between criminal prosecution and crime. i yield the floor. mr. kennedy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to talk briefly,

mr. president, to the senate today about two issues. with respect to the first issue, i suppose i'm talking to my people back in louisiana as much as i am talking to my colleagues in the united states senate. this is minority leaders -- this is new orleans. this is the mississippi river, which running through new orleans, much of louisiana gets its drinking water from the mississippi river. and of course the mississippi river is fresh water. and the mississippi river is long, wide, and mighty.

the mississippi river source is the northern part of our state. it drains a thumb of other rivers. this is the southern portion of the mississippi river, and new or leans -- new orleans meanders around and into the gulf of mexico, which, of course, is saltwater. you probably never thought about this, mr. president, or perhaps you have, most people haven't. why doesn't saltwater, the mississippi river runs into the gulf, which is saltwater, and the gulf's a big area, why doesn't saltwater from the -- from the gulf of mexico flow up the mississippi river? and that would be a good question.

the reason is pretty simple. as i said, the mississippi river is long, big, wide, and mighty, and it drains a good portion of the united states. and when the mississippi river is at thunderstormal levels -- normal levels, it flows very, very quickly and fast. and it keeps the saltwater down here in the gulf of mexico at bay. but sometimes the mississippi river gets low, and it flows less -- less swiftly, and that's a situation right -- that's the situation right now. and when that happens, it's happened i think five times in the last three centuryies, sometimes saltwater actually comes up from the gulf into the mississippi river, which is a

problem for my people in southeast louisiana, including but not limited to new orleans because they rely on the mississippi river for their drinking water because it's fresh water. now, this red line represents the saltwater intrusion. saltwater is creeping up the mississippi river just like a thermometer. we know, based on historical evidence, that it's not likely to go all the way up the mississippi river, but that doesn't solve our problem in louisiana because we depend on the mississippi river for drinking water. if it gets far enough up the mississippi river, it meaning the saltwater, then we've got a real problem in southeast

louisiana. as i say in the last 25 years, this has happened four times. in 1999, 2002, 2022, be -- and it's happening this year, as we speak. i think the time that it happened before was in 1888, if i recall correctly. now, i am an optimist who worries. i am worried about this because about a million of 4.6 million people in my state depend on this for drinking water and we are in the middle of watching saltwater come up the river and we don't think it's going to stop coming up the river until sometime around, i don't know, the end of october, maybe. we could be wrong. but i want the senate and i want my people to understand that

their local, their state, and their federal governments are dealing with this problem. first, i want to thank president biden. president biden declared a -- a disaster declaration, which allows us to get the assistance of fema, and i'm very grateful for that. number two, our corps of engineers is involved. they're very able people. our corps of engineers below the city of new orleans has built an underwater dam. that's what it looks like. it's like a dam. they call it a sill. i call it a dam or a a levy. why in the world would the corps

of engineers do that? because slt water is heavier than -- saltwater is heavier than fresh water. when saltwater comes up the mississippi river, it's not coming up at the top. it's coming at the bottom. and the corps of engineers in a place called myrtle grovably new orleans -- by the way, myrtle grove is known for its really great fishing and wonderful people -- at the area in the river next to myrtle grove, the corps has come in and they built an underwater dam. that's not going to stop all the saltwater. it's just going to slow it down and stop some of it. so some of the saltwater, despite this dam, is still flowing north. headed toward new orleans. the corps is talking about if necessary adding an additional 25 feet to the underwater dam.

right now the underwater dam is about 55 feet. we add another 25 feet. the river at that level or at this point is about 90 feet. and they're leaving a hole in the dam in case you're wondering, for ships to come through. number three, the corps of engineers and fema are both prepared if necessary to deliver us fresh water if we need it by barge. if you ever wonder about the might of the federal government, in particular our corps of engineers, again, i can't thank them enough, they can deliver up to 36 million -- 36 million gallons of fresh water a day. so thank you, corps of engineers, and i want my people

back home to know that so they won't be worried. also, looking on the bright side -- book that other one back up there, will you, hanson. by the way, mr. president, with me today are two of my colleagues from my office, mr. henson webber, and mr. christian lamby. i want to thank them for their help. this is new orleans. this is the saltwater creeping up. not everybody in new orleans and the new orleans area in southeast louisiana get their water from the mississippi. some people have well water so that's a plus. some facilities in new orleans have also started installing what's called reverse osmosis filtration machines to take the saltwater out of the water. out of the pressure water. and we in government stand ready and willing to advise facilities that would like to do that. the other thing we're talking

about doing -- we're trying to not do this except as a last resort because it's so expensive expensive, as you see here, the red is the saltwater. the blue is the fresh water. folks who live here -- down here by the saltwater and can't get water out of the mississippi because it's too salty, we're thinking about building pipelines this direction going north, sort of along the river to get fresh water from a point in the river further up north and take it through those pipelines down south where we need it. now, that's expensive. it's been looked at by local governments, being looked at by the state government, we're in discussions with the federal government about it. it will be a last resort because it's so expensive. and i hope that the saltwater

intrusion can stop, we can stop it. frankly, what's causing this is we are having a drought, and there's not enough water in the mississippi river. if we could get a little bit of rain up north, that will ad to the volume of the water and it will push that saltwater out. the finally i want my people to understand what we're doing, this is southeast louisiana. it's sort of the toe of the boot. further up here in louisiana, we have built a mini dam. we call it the old river control structure on the mississippi river. and we divert some of the water out of the mississippi river into another river in louisiana. we do that pursuant to a statute passed by congress which says that 70% of the water at this point which is way up here has to be diverted or kept in the

mississippi river, but 30% is diverted further west. why do we do that? because the corps decided years and years ago if we don't -- that river at that point is so strong and so mighty and moving so quickly and so swiftly that -- that if we did not divert some of that water, the mississippi river would change course. instead of flowing through baton rouge and new orleans, it would change course and flow this way to the gulf. so years ago the corps said we need to take some water out. the corps is thinking about opening that dam up if necessary at the old river control structure and putting some of that water back into the mississippi river that it's diverting right now to increase the flow of the river which will of course push the saltwater back out. so i appreciate, mr. president,

the senate's patience in allowing me to explain this. as i say, i want to thank president biden for his declaration. i want to thank fema. i want to thank the corps of engineers. i don't want my people to worry. your folks in government have pounced on this issue like a ninja. and i'm not saying we have it solved but we're doing everything we can to get us through this. second issue -- i'll try to be brief. mr. president, as you know, we've spent over a hundred billion dollars to help ukraine defeat vladimir putin whose thirst for blood, we now know, is legendary. he has the same, he meaning

vladimir putin, has the same thirst for blood that stalin did. we spent over a hundred billion dollars helping ukraine. some people think we spent too much. some people think we need to spend more. some people think we should have spent their money -- shouldn't have spent money there at all. some people think we ought to spend less. this is america. opinions are kind of like belly buttons. everyone has some. some are inies. some are out dts ies. the senate will be debating ukraine soon, mr. president. but regardless of how you feel about being back putin and whether you think that's in america's national security interest, and whether you agree with me that putin is a pirate, he's a gangster, wherever you stand on that, there's one thing

we all ought to be able to agree on. this hundred billion dollars, plus -- it's actually around $113 billion, and that's not just money for arms, that's also money for humanitarian aid and money to keep the government of ukraine running. and that money, that $113 billion-plus didn't just fall from heaven. we thank heaven for it. but it came out of people's pockets. and those people are called the american tax pairp. one thing, -- taxpayer. one thing, regardless of what you think about ukraine, i think we all can agree on, is that we have to watch that money like a hawk. we cannot allow it to be stolen. we cannot allow it to be wasted. now, mr. president, i know you've had this experience in life because i know you're a wise man. nothing makes it easier to

resist temptation, nothing in this world makes it easier to resist temptation than a proper upbringing, a strong set of values, and witnesses. and we need more witnesses. and i'm talking about an inspector general. senator sinema and i have a bill. it's called the independent and objective oversight of ukrainian assistance act. all this bill does, it says, mr. president -- not our mr. president here in the senate -- president biden, appoint an inspector general to watch this money like a hawk. and that inspector general would have to be confirmed by the united states senate. the president picks. we confirm. and that inspector general would give per on the -- give per roddick reports to the president, to the congress and

the american people on a weekly basis if they would like about its audits of this money and who has been stealing if anyone and who's been caught. now, let me make two quick points. president zelenskyy is also fighting corruption. and there has been some corruption in ukraine. you would expect there to be, frankly, when you're spending a hundred-plus billion dollars. president zelenskyy, i'm proud of him. he's fired some people and they're watching others. i also want to be fair. right now the inspector general from the department of defense and the -- an agency called usaid and department of state, they say they're auditing the money. and i'm not saying they're not. i'm not saying they're not. but have any of you heard from them? i haven't. i know they had one meeting where they came up here at their convenience to talk to us, and a

bunch of us couldn't go. we were in hearings or something. but they haven't been given periodic reports to the american people. and i'm not saying they're doing a bad job. i'm not saying that. what i am saying is that we don't need a cluster of agencies involved here, turning into a cluster of another description. we need just like we did in afghanistan, we need one inspector general, one woman or man that we can hold responsible, appointed by the president, confirmed by the united states senate. the inspector general at the department of defense and the inspector general of the state department, the inspector general at usaid can work under the people's inspector general, under senator sinema and i's bill. but we need one person, one

person to hold accountable. just like we did in afghanistan. and the american people regardless of how they feel about funding in ukraine and the members of the united states senate, regardless of how they feel about the war in ukraine. surely we can agree that we will all rest easily or at least easier if we follow the money. now, i tried to pass this bill once, mr. president. and i want to be fair. some of my democratic colleagues opposed it. but some of my republican colleagues opposed it, too. and some of them were quiet about how they opposed it. but i know who they are. i love them but i know what they were up to. they were taking orders from the department of defense because the department of defense, bless their hearts, they don't want any of us intruding on their

turf. they say we've got this. let me tell you something. there's one agency in the federal government that has never been audited. one agency in the federal government that has never been audited. guess which one? the department of defense. the department of defense. now, that's not -- i'm not saying that's the fault of the inspector general there now. but he needs to start with his own department. and let senator sinema and i pass this bill. we're trying to help him, not hurt him. we're trying to give him some help. so that's what our bill will do. i'm not giving up. i'll be back as i said the other day, just like the terminator on another issue. this is something that all senators can agree on, regardless of our position on ukraine that this money

shouldn't be wasted. i'm going to say it again. nothing makes it easier to resist temptation than a proper upbringing, strong set of values and witnesses, and senator sinema's bill and my bill will provide those witnesses, those auditors, those inspectors general that we need. thank you, mr. president. with that i yield the floor. mr. kennedy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

>> good afternoon. now i want to thank everyone for coming. special thanks to senator murray and senator padilla. particularly senator buckworth for joining us today today. we are thrilled, just thrilled and delighted to have senator butler joined us here today. but as the senate democrats she's a vital and active member of our caucus. we knew each other before that we sat down and talked for 45 minutes and boy was i impressed. senator butler is going to be a great senator and before we get more to senator butler and want to speak about her predecessor are dear friends who he deeply missed and loved and that is senator feinstein. as we all know dianne was such a force three she came during the

year of the woman, 1992 alongside patty murray. fans work extended far beyond the senate floor. she made her voice a platform to women throughout the country. dianne didn't just push doors down for women she held them open for generations of women to follow. she gave a platform a model to women across the country to inspire roles in leadership who want to leave their own mark on the world and make this country a better place for us. today they are a 24 women serving in this chamber put every one of them stand on dianne's shoulders. her impact extends far beyond the senate floor and far beyond politics. the sign of the leader is someone who dedicates the whole of their spirit to cause greater than themselves. a a sign of the hero and someone

who fights for others to endorse for others no matter what cost and no matter what the odds. and the sign of a friend is someone who stands by her side fights the good fight, on good days and bad days too. dianne feinstein was the world leader a friend and a hero for so many of leader to change the nature of the senate and the fabric of the nation. she made america a better place. as the senate mourns this tremendous loss we are comforted in knowing how many mountains by m. and come election impact in how many she shattered along the way. america is a better place because of senator feinstein. today and tomorrow many of my colleagues democrat and republican alike will go to california and more together and say our final goodbyes. it will be my honor is said tearfully great honor to speak tomorrow at her memorial. also joining us tomorrow will be

her successor the brilliant and accomplished senator butler. senator butler standing on senator feinstein shoulders makes history of her own as the first openly lgbtq senator of to serve in this body. senator butler has dedicated her life serving others in advocating for families particularly women and girls across the country and finally to our colleague, we know i know these last few days have felt like a whirlwind three-day note seems like there's a million things to do and so little time to do them. rest assured we will. senator murray. >> thank you mr. leader. i've been really lucky enough to serve with dianne feinstein since the start of my time in u.s. senate after we were both elected and the so-called year of the woman when they were finally after a long time six of

us in the united states senate so 24 sounds great to me. but we still have work to do. senator feinstein was truly one-of-a-kind and right from the very start she really stood out to all of us here as someone who came here to be a voice for her constituents and values and whether was gun safety or abortion rights, she was tough as nails and ready to face down any of those guys here in the senate. she was really a role model and set an example for all of us on how to conduct yourself and to stand strong for what you believe in. she showed america that women did belong here in the united states senate and that our forces were needed. she was a hard worker who would never give up or stop talking to the people that she disagreed with which is why she often made so much progress that seemed impossible. she was someone who read every

single brief and asked really tough questions to stay on top of some of the most complicated issues and foreign policy which is exactly why when dianne spoke, we all listened. look, i'm not going to list all the legislative accomplishments of senator feinstein. therefore to me and you've heard people talk about them but what i think the american people should know is that dianne did really big things. it is not easy to make a difference in congress and the course no bill is the sole accomplishment of any single member but there is no question dianne made waves in the country and that her personal story and how she communicated what she had been through when her colleagues -- colleague was assassinated to have a real impact. there's no question she absolutely changed the culture and the conversation around gun

violence to get the assault weapons ban passed. and whether was batter standing up to the cia, to shine a light on the use of torture, dianne never backs down. and she made way. she changed the conversation and the policy. hollywood made a motion picture about her. but i don't want it to get lost with dianne who did so much more and is more than an icon. she was a deer friend to many of us here on both sides of the aisle. she was so quick with a thoughtful gesture or a sympathetic ear a kind word or a generous gift like the picture she drew up those flowers shared with several of us and i'm so proud to have one hanging on my wall. that personal touch is something that made you feel heard and supported when he most needed it. she was the most gracious and

elegant woman and in the next minute on the senate floor in a committee hearing she'd be fiery and tough. so as we start to celebrate her legacy tomorrow i want her family and staff and all of her constituents to know she was appreciated and loved and our support is there for them now. senator feinstein will beat dearly missed and long remembered. today i'm so proud as we turn the page on that history so we begin another page here with senator butler. i'm so glad you are here. welcome to the united states senate. we know you are going to make california proud and make a difference as well. >> thank you patty. good afternoon everybody. want to thank senator schumer for inviting me to join him and honoring the legacy of to me as

a friend, a mentor and a titan of the united states senate, dianne feinstein. it's impossible to overstate the impact she had on california and the nation. for generations of california she was the one we turn to for leadership and for comfort whether it was in a conflict or crisis. everyone recounts how she was always so prepared and so put together and we hear those stories over and over and over again but i think i understandi why. as a first, i know the pressure weto often feel that sometimes having to work twice as hardta hoping to attain half the respect when you are the first and if you think of the main

first anity, this humanitarian crisis, which has created now a public safety crisis as a result of unrestrained illegal immigration. news reports are that more than 260,000, more than a quarter of a million, more than a quarter of a million migrants crossed the border last month, making it the busiest month on record. i know sometimes it's hard to grasp the immensity of these numbers, but let me put it in another way. it's an average of 8,600 migrants coming to the united states every day, and, of course, when they come to texas or arizona or california, they don't stay there. that's why you're hearing from the governor of illinois, the governor of new york, the mayor of new york city talking about the impact on their states and

their cities. and, of course, we all know that the fentanyl crisis, which is part and parcel of this open border, has taken the lives of 71,000 americans last year alone. we know where the precursors come from. they come from china. we know where it's manufactured -- in mexico. and then it comes across the border. and the business model of the cartels is flood the border with people, divert the attention of the border patrol who have to gauge in pushing paper and progressioning these migrants. -- and processing these migrants. meanwhile, the surge of drugs across the border, and they end up in all 50 states across the community.

age -- we've seen surges up to 11,000 people a day. and it isn't going to get any better unless something changes. former secretary of the department of homeland security, jeh johnson, once warned that even a thousand migrants a day overwhelms the system. we're now operating at more than eight and a half times that pace, on average. when migration levels are so high, it impacts all of our missions at the border, even those that have nothing to do with migration. law enforcement,s i said, has shifted from the front lines. instead of stopping dangerous drugs, many agents find themselves pushing paper and changing diapers because we've seen 300,000 unaccompanied children come across the border since president biden took office. unfortunately, as "the new york times" has documented, in at least 85,000 instances when

health and human services, the office of refugee relocation, made a wellness call to the sponsors of those children, there was no answer and no follow-up by the administration. so the administration can't tell you whether they're being trafficked for sex, whether they're being forced to work in dangerous jobs, whether they're getting health care, whether they're going to school. they just they just can't tell you, and they frankly don't care. they say it's not our job anymore, once we place them with sponsors. this is up to the child protective services in each of our states. as the presiding officer knows, all of our states are seeing tremendous caseloads in their child protective services, and they can't handle what they have now, much less with thousands more coming each day.

under president biden's leadership, the crisis at the border just gets worse. we've hit a record of 260,000 a month. the united states is pretty much broken -- has pretty much broken every record on the books at the border, and broken those records again. the busiest days, years, months at border crossings have all happened under president biden's watch. with each day that passes, the border crisis is affecting the safety and security of our country, and the white house refuses to accept any responsibility or to change anything about the way they operate or to reach out or even receive suggestions or willingness to meet to try to solve the problem. they just show no interest. the president and his administration act like their

hands are tied and they can't do anything, but that's simply false. in the 1990's, president clinton signed a law establishing what is called expedited removal. it allows the border patrol to detain and quickly remove illegal immigrants. expedited removals have been utilized by republican and democrat administrations over the years. it's a powerful deterrent. what we lack now is any sense of deterrence. i learned with interest today that the mayor of new york is making a trip to central and south america to give the message don't come, don't come to the united states, don't come to new york city. of course, that voice is lost among the images on tv that demonstrate people who do come can successfully make their way

to the border, into the country, and of course then there are people who successfully make it and call the relatives back home, said, i made it, you can too. come. so there's no deterrence. but there would be if we used the law that president clinton signed, which allows for expedited removal, because not all of the people coming to the border are claiming asylum. but they're being paroled in the nomen chaich your of our -- nomenclature of our immigration laws, released into the interior of the united states, without even claiming any legitimate basis for being here. president biden has the authority to conduct expedited removals today. he had that authority on day one, but he refuses to utilize it. rather than stand up new

facilities or hire more personnel to make the expedited removal process function, the biden administration has simply been releasing people into the interior of the country at an unprecedented pace. cbs news reports that the department of homeland security has released most migrants into the interior in recent months, instructing them to undergo immigration court proceedings, which are years away. one of the new york newspapers recently reported that in order to get a hearing in an immigration court in new york, it could take up to ten years. the administration is engaged in catch-and-release at an unprecedented scale in communities -- and communities across our country are paying the price. their children are being stolen by fentanyl. their streets and sidewalks are filled with migrants, who have nowhere to go. their city budgets are being

wrecked by a crisis that should be managed by the federal government. i've often asked myself what's it going to take for president biden to care and to do something about this crisis. he seems unfazed by the more than six million borders crossings that happened since he became the president, not to mention the 1.5 million got-aways. he seems unconcerned that this crisis serves as a perfect diversion for the drug cartels, which are trafficking fentanyl and other deadly drugs in the ups. he seems unbothered by the fact the administration has lost track of hundreds of thousands of migrant children, including countless kids who we know are being exploited for child labor. thanks to president biden's neglect, the border needs far more resources than ever.

we need more agents. we need more detention space, more physical barriers, more immigration judge teams, and more flexibility to remove individuals who have no legitimate claim to remain in the united states. i'll give you an example where one small tweak in our asylum practices could change a lot. it could send a message that you can't come unless you have a legitimate claim, and it involves something like what's known as safe third-country transit. for example, about a year and a half ago, del rio, texas, small town of 35,000 people, had 15,000 haitians show up. you can imagine the chaos and burden just on trying to take care of the needs, basic human needs of that many people at one time. it turns out these haitians did

not come from haiti, at least not directly. they'd been living in south america. but because they knew that they could show up at the border, say the magic words, then be released into the interior of the country, only to be told to show up for an immigration court hearing years in the future, they knew they could beat the system. they knew how to exploit the system. little cities like del rio, nor apparently big cities like new york city, have the infrastructure or ability to manage this many migrants in a fair, orderly, or humane way. but given the administration's complete lack of interest in solving the problem, the only thing i know to do is for congress to act.

we need democrats and republicans to try to work this out. i've worked on immigration issues the whole time i've been in the senate, and believe me it's one of the most frustrating topics to work on that i can imagine. but i don't think we have any choice but to keep trying. this should be a point of agreement among our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. after all, the impact of this crisis is now being felt far beyond the southern border. the majority leader's home state of new york is overwhelmed, they say, by the burden of the migrant crisis. even though texas and arizona, for example, have had millions of people come across our border. now mayor adams, of new york city, is crying uncle when 10,000 people show up in new york city. the governor of new york and

mayor of new york city have sounded the alarm over the devastating impact of this crisis. the majority whip's home, of illinois, is feeling the burden, too. the mayor -- governor pritzker recently made similar comments to the governor of new york and the mayor of new york city. the situation has become so untenable that hundreds of migrants began sleeping on the floor of police stationles and the o'hare international airport in chicago. cities more than a thousand miles from the southern border are overwhelmed by the unbearable weights of president biden's border crisis. thanks to every -- thanks to his failed policies, every state has now become a border state. no community is immune to the consequences of the security failures at the southern border, including communities where i've

met with the parents of young people who've lost their lives by consuming fentanyl, by taking a pill they thought was innocuous but had just enough fentanyl to take their life. we know where it's coming from, and it's a result of the failure to control the borders. there's nothing safe, orderly, or humane about the status quo, and our colleagues across the aisle need to work with us to fix it. this is now a nationwide disaster that affects every state and every community in america, and i hope we can rely on the courage and the leadership of members of the united states congress to take action. border security is national security. it's not just the problem in my state or in arizona or new mexico or california. we need to be clear-eyed about

the vulnerabilities at the border and what the ramifications of an open border are. and then we need to take decisive action to address them. madam president, i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. thank you, madam president. i rise today to strongly support the nomination of susan kim declercq, whom president biden nominated to serve as the u.s. district judge for the eastern district of michigan, and we will be having that vote shortly. one of the things that people consistently say about ms. declercq is how warm and personallable she is. she is, in a word, kind. don't let that fool you -- she can go toe to toe with anyone in the courtroom.

ms. declercq is a proud graduates of university of michigan and wayne state school of law. her first job was as a clerk to u.s. district judge avril l. cohen. judge cohen was a force of nature who spent 40 years on the federal bench, retiring at age 95. he was a bit gruff, but he had an open mind and open heart, two attributes ms. declercq carried throughout her career, that spanned the public and private sector. currently, she's director and counsel of special investigations at ford motor company. before that, she spent 18 years in the u.s. attorney's office for the eastern district of michigan in a variety of leadership roles, including chief of the civil division. she's fought to protect people's civil rights over and over and

over again. an example, a michigan family that was literally kicked out of a restaurant because their children suffered from a genetic skin disease. she successfully represented an auxiliary firefighter and u.s. army reservist who was denied a promotion extended to coworkers with less experience after he returned from active duty in afghanistan. in all of her cases, madam president, she's won the respect of everyone in the courtroom. as one michigan lawyer said, if i had to lose to anybody in litigation, i'm glad it was ms. declercq. it is worth noting that, if confirmed, susan kim declercq will be michigan's first federal judge of east asian desent.

susan kim declercq is an outstanding nominee, who received bipartisan support during her cloture vote earlier today. i urge my colleagues to support her confirmation. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i would ask consent that the scheduled vote begin immediately. the presiding officer: without objection. question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. 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. butler. ms. cantwell.

mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. the clerk: 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. 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. the clerk: 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.

senators voting in the affirmative -- bennet, blumenthal, carper, cortez masto, duckworth durbin, fetterman, heinrich, kaine, kelly, king, merkley, murphy, padilla, peters, rosen, schatz, sinema, stabenow, tester, welch.

ms. smith, aye. ms. butler, aye. senators voting in the negative -- cornyn, cramer, crapo, daines, ernst, grassley, hagerty, hyde-smith, johnson, marshall, mullin, tillis, vance, wicker. mr. thune, no. mr. casey, aye.

mrs. murray, aye. mrs. shaheen, aye. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. rounds, no.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no.

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

the clerk: mr. moran, no. vote: the clerk: mr. paul, no.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. the clerk: mr. cardin, aye. ms. baldwin, aye.

mr. wyden, aye. mrs. capito, no. mr. scott of florida, no. the clerk: mr. braun, no.

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

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. mr. cotton, no.

the clerk: ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. barrasso, no. mr. manchin, aye. mr. hickenlooper, aye. mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. boozman, no.

the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: ms. hassan, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye. mrs. blackburn, no. mrs. britt, no.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. sanders, aye. the clerk: mr. booker, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: mr. budd, no.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no.

the clerk: mr. young, no.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye.

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

vote: the clerk: mr. lankford, no.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, no. the presiding officer: the yeas

are 52, the nays are 42, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i am back for now the 290th time to urge this chamber to act on climate change. i've got my trusty graphic here, which after nearly 300 of these is getting a little battered.

this evening, i'd like to talk about two things -- first is the grim parade of climate-driven disasters the united states and the world has experienced over the last several months. then our hearings in the budget committee on the enormous budgetary and economic dangers caused by fossil fuel emissions. let's start with the unprecedented warming the world is experiencing. this june was the hottest june on record. then july became the hottest month on record. then august became the hottest august and the second-hottest month on record. and september was just declared the hottest september on record, and by the largest margin. here is what that looks like, when you compare it to previous years. we have topped out of the zone

of previous experience. so, 2023 will almost certainly become the hottest year on record, with the first significant chance that global average temperature will hit 1.n the preindustrial average, exceeding that 1.5-degree celsius point will expose us to dangerous tipping points, things like ice sheet collapses that could cause dozens of feet of sea level rise. more than 6500 daily heat records were broken in cities and towns across the u.s. this summer. phoenix experienced a record 55 days this year with temperatures above 110 degrees, with a 31-day streak. people who fell on phoenix

pavement required medical attention for burns. the midwest experienced its worst drought in over a decade, with huge swaths of the midwest, southwest, and the south still under the most severe drought designation. extreme drought in hawaii set the conditions for its lethal wildfire. in vermont, new york, and pennsylvania storms triggered deadly floods. florida's gulf coast was hit by hurricane idalia, which intensified rapidly over warmed-up waters of the gulf of mexico. wind speeds increased almost 55 miles per hour in just a 24-hour window. around the world europe baked, china hit record high testimonies, italy suffered its worst flooding in a century, and more than 21,000 libyans are dead or missing after massive flooding. record breaking fires ravaged greece and canada.

canada's fires burned an area roughly the size of oklahoma. the smoke, there's the annual acreage of canadian wildfires, and here's this year. top year before, down here. this is what we got last year. the smoke from these fires blanketed the eastern seaboard for weeks. here in washington, doctors said that breathing the smoke-choked air was worse than smoking a half pack of cigarettes. new york looked like this. the list of unprecedented, record-breaking, and worst-in-history climate events goes on and on. these disasters seen separately

fail to capture the full scale of the problem. when you look at them together, you see that we are creating a climate for our own habitation unlike any in the history of humankind. we are increasingly testing the limits of human habitability on this planet, and it will worsen if we don't act. which brings us to the budget committee. set is aside the destruction of lives and live layhoods, the -- and livelihoods, the 250,000 deaths per year caused by fossil fuel emissions. look just as the financial havoc. last year weather-related damage in the united states topped $165 billion, the third costliest year on record. this year, we've had 23 separate billion-dollar climate disasters already.

and that's just counting direct physical damage. just now in the c.r., we had to had $16 billion in disaster relief funds, and that's only a stopgap. failing at our climate responsibilities is immoral, but it is also irresponsible. fiscally irresponsible. so the budget committee did a deep dive into the fiscal costs and risks of climate change across ten budget committee hearings already this year, central bank,financial experts, economists, insurance executives, political leaders, and other responsible experts described increased budget costs and systemic risks looming over the u.s. economy. what's systemic? systemic means that the damage spreads beyond the immediately affected sector and cascades throughout the economy.

remember 2008 when a meltdown in the mortgage market cascaded through the economy and brought the great recession. between october 2008 and april 2009, 700,000 americans lost their jobs every month. american households lost $17 trillion in wealth. the federal government's debt grew by $5 trillion from lost revenues. our economy still carries the scars. and in one of our budget hearings, a former chief economist from freddie mac said that climate change could cause a crash in coastal property values that would be just as bad, just as bad. sea level rise and worse coastal storms are on their way to making more than a trillion dollars in coastal real estate uninsurable, and, therefore, unmortgagable. and that's when you get that crash, not when the water pours

in across your doorstep. but when 30-year mortgages won't cover your property because that risk of the water coming over the doorstep is so foreseeable e and it's not just coastal property either we heard. there's a whole separate risk from wildfires that a similar death spiral occurs for western property values, and we had a hearing on that. the other systemic threat we had a hearing about is that the fossil fuel industry is artificially propped up, both by massive political subsidies and crooked international cartel pricing, and that as inevitably declining demand for its products occurs, that in turn will cause a dash for the exits.

when other countries that pump enormous amounts of oil and gas abandon the cartel pricing, sell is it for what they can get, the dash for the exits. when that happens, it will strand hundreds of billions of dollars in fossil fuel assets in what is called a carbon bubble collapse. each of these three systemic risks is well-documented. each could create a massive economic crash. and added to that is the steady relentless cost increases, the climate inflation from insurance prices, from lost and damaged infrastructure, from increased health care needs, and from climbing food prices, as increased temperatures, higher sea levels and precipitation anomalies break up world food supply patterns. we've had hearings on those, too.

at our very first hearing, a former governor of the banks of england and canada and a former director of the nonpartisan congressional budget office and goldman sachs' former head of risk management all underscored the economic urgency of solving climate change. and the foreseeable hit of climate change on public budgets. they all suggested that a price on carbon -- so polluters pay for harms they cause -- would be fiscally and economically responsible. one republican member of the committee embraced a domestic price on carbon and noted that a carbon border adjustment, a tariff on imports on economies such sasse china, would use market force. i couldn't agree more. i've had that in the senate for

years. a carbon price with a border tariff. a later hearing brought conservative support thor that kind of climate action interests former australia prime minister malcolm turnbull and former republican majority leader bill frist. up against our serious, nonpartisan and knowledgeable witnesses, among them witnesses with real fiduciary obligations and real economic stakes, with every motive to get it right, the republican witnesses often spouted fossil fuel disinformation, often funded by dark money industry front groups. we heard some beauties. one witness, a former mouthpiece of the tobacco industry, stated that secondhand smoke was not a public health issue because lung cancer and emphysema are not contagious, like that's the problem.

one witness produced cherry-picked and misleading testimony so easily refuted that even the fossil fuel friendly montana attorney general dropped her off his witness list in the youth climate case he was defending. a trial that the young plaintiffs won against the state of montana, by the way. another witness informed us that sea level rise was nothing to worry about because new york, american american family -- miami, and boss isn't will all just move. republican witnesses spouted the usual debunked falsehoods, that renewable energy is expensive, that the science around climate change is uncertain, that transitioning to clean energy will be bad for the economy. it's all nonsense, and they say it anyway. one witness even tried to accuse the financial services sector of having a conflict of interest behind what she called its

climate alarmism. but then she had to admit under examination that the fossil fuel industry was the one with the economic incentive to minimize climate dangers and shouldn't be trusted as a reliable source. many of the republican witnesses have made careers out of being industry shills, sheltered in a fossil fuel-funded array of front groups like the competitive enterprise industry, the american enterprise institute and the heritage foundation just to be trotted out for hearings like these. well, our hearings began in february, and they got very often this response from the other side, but let's take a look what the we warned about and what happened since. well, first of all, there's that accelerating cascade of climate disasters that i discuss $at the beginning of this speech. so i won't relitigate that.

let's go on to insurance. our hearings in february and march warned of turbulence ahead in the insurance industry. these predictions are already coming true. hearing in february and march. by july, insurers were exiting or reducing exposure in california, florida, texas, and louisiana markets, and reinsurers exited iowa, all citing exposure to climate-related losses. in florida, homeowners' premiums have spiked to nearly four times the national average, with a 40% increase this year predicted. there are already signs that insurance affordability and availability are beginning to disrupt florida's real estate market, exactly as foretold in our hearings. and i doubt florida's state

insurance fund is solvent. and don't think it's just florida. here's where climate risks are hitting home insurance markets. a lot of it is along the coast here where hurricanes and sea level rise and increased storm and tide damage is putting homeownership at risk. you'll notice that the entire state of florida is covered. but then out here you get into wildfire-adjacent areas where the wildfire risk is already causing problems in the home insurance markets. in the face of these risks, all across the country, up against truly distinguished witnesses, real grown-ups who know what they're talking about, whose warnings are already coming true, republicans frequently put up fossil fuel front group

mouthpieces, paid not to understand the facts. sadly you it's a sign that fossil fuel mischief persists. so in our 11th hearing, we showed how the fossil fuel industry has known for almost seven decades about these dangers they deny. as early as the 1950's, industry scientists left records of their warnings about climate change. they were measuring and predicting it. industry scientists were measuring and predicting it, and they knew their fossil fuel products were causing it. in 1977, exxon's senior scientist james black told exxon's management committee -- and i'm quoting him here -- there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide released from the burning of

fossil fuels. 1977. that's what exxon's scientists told exxon's management. well, other scientists noticed it, too and congress began pursuing legislation that would have addressed climate dangers. big oil responded with billions of dollars in fossil fuel-funded disinformation, lobbying, and dark money election spending. they're still at it, as the more preposterous witnesses attested by their presence. it wasn't always so. during my first years here in the senate, climate legislation was bipartisan. john mccain ran for president on a serious climate platform, but in january 2010, the

citizens united decision set loose a barrage of political spending by the fossil fuel industry. worse, the court allowed that spending to be secret, to hide the identity of the spender. the fossil fuel industry was ready with unlimited dark money and -- and -- with the secret threats and promises that the ability to spend unlimited dark money allows you to make a -- to make. and between the spending and the threats and the promises, the fossil fuel industry snuffed out bipartisanship on climate and like that -- from january of 2010, the date of citizens united forward, no citizen on gotten on a serious bill in the senate. fossil fuel interests have spent

billions of dollars that we know of so far on ads, on lobbying, on campaign contributions, and on super pacs. super pacs by the way didn't exist before citizens united. that monstrosity is a creation of citizens united and dark money. the delay in climate action that those billions of dollars bought has directly caused the economic perils that our hearings have spotlighted. organizations -- organizations like the american enterprise institute, the competitive american enterprise institute by 2021 had received over half a billion dollars from fossil fuel and other dark money interests. this is a web of various fossil fuel funded front groups with

the bulk of the funding unidentified. that's the dark money blob in the middle of this web. and here are some of the key groups into which political money flowed to support climate denial and climate skepticism. political money flowed through anonymizing intermediaries, into super pacs, lobbyists crawled around this building. they spent a fortune, but for all the billions that they spent, this political and propaganda effort was a bargain, a corrupting bargain, but a bargain. the international monetary fund calculates, using a peer-reviewed procedure, that we

subsidize fossil fuels by $760 billion annually in the united states alone. $760 billion is the subsidy the imf points out that the fossil fuel industry floats on in this country. so let's say the fossil fuel industry spent $7.6 billion on political influence and secret corruption schemes every year. they'd be pocketing a subsidy dollar for every political innuance penny that they -- influence penny that they spent if they protected their $760 billion subsidy. it's the best money they could possibly spend. it's more rewarding than drilling for oil.

but while corrupting congress may have been a bargain for them, the price of a corrupted congress was very high for everyone else. we lost an essential decade from the citizens united decision in january of 2010 and our passage of the ira, the first serious piece of legislation for climate passed by congress. more than $3 trillion stems from the 2008 crisis and the covid pandemic, another warn-of shock. those trillions of shock debt amount to 40% of our total national debt. climate disruption shocks are looming, predicted, clearly

predicted. just like climate change and its consequences were predicted, clearly predicted, and now, as we've seen, the climate change consequences are here, the shocks are still looming. i'll close by saying that the threat from climate change to the federal budget is probably the least of our climate worries worries. as we think about the damage beer doing to the natural systems -- we're doing to the natural systems that were made for humankind as we look at new diseases and danger and destruction as we think about wars as resources skip. as we think about the lost species, the lost places of beauty, the lost natural harmonies, the lost human

traditions, the trout stream you can't teach your granddaughter to fish at because the trout aren't there. by some measures, the money is the least of it. but here -- but here we seem to care most about the money so our budget committee hearings have made clear that warnings abound of what droughts, floods, wildfires, and heated rising seas will do economically to american families and businesses and to our federal budget. the long-predicted damage has already begun. it's gone beyond science predictions. it is now within the fishery horizons -- fiduciary horizons

of businesses who have to report to shareholders on climate risk that is so real and immediate that their fiduciary obligations remain. that's why there is this phony isg show that they put on to push back against the fiduciary obligations that so many corporations are feeling obliged to meet. and these looming systemic economy-wide threats are real. nobody says it will be the coastal crash or the wildfire crash or the bubble crash, nothing says that all three can't happen. if we are to be serious about debt and about deficits and about federal spending, we better damn well be serious about climate change.

it is, as my trusty old graphic says, time to wake up. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: first i want to commend my colleague from rhode island. no one has been more accurate and more far-seeing about climate change than sheldon whitehouse. when he first came to the senate, it was a technical issue that scientists debated, et cetera, and now it's an issue that we are confronting because of his efforts and it's also an jesh that we're confronting because we see it, this

beautiful 80-degree weather we're enjoying, well, the weekend prediction is about 50. i hate to say it, when i was a kid, temperatures didn't change that fast. we are in the midst of climate change. he foresaw it. he's dedicated himself to addressing it and i'm just very proud to be his colleague in this senate. mr. president, tonight i rise to discuss the state of the war in ukraine. and the vital importance of our support for the ukrainian people. while we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the house gop didn't shut the government down last week, we need to move quickly to restore the military and humanitarian assistance that the house stripped out of the 47-day stopgap funding bill. at a minimum, we need to provide

the full amount of ukraine assistance qtd by the administration -- requested by ukraine. it is not just a moral obligation, is it -- it is a national security interest. i can't begin to understand the fighting within the republican majority in the house and why gop leaders would allow a smallo veto assistance to ukraine. i do know that ukraine is in a vital point in their fight against russia and they need our help. ukraine will go into another difficult winter and russia -- in a letter to congressional leaders last friday, the

comptroller for the department of defense wrote that the department of defense has exhausted nearly all available security assistance funding for ukraine. under secretary -- under secretary mccord added, without additional funding now, we'll have to delay or curtail assistance to meet ukraine's urgent requirements, including for air defense and ammunition that are critical and urgent now as russia perhaps to conduct a winter offensive and continues its bombardment of ukrainian cities. we cannot let that happen. mr. president, i would ask at this point unanimous consent that the text of ms. mccord's letter be recorded in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: knowing the need for our support, and i must point out our support is the leading edge of worldwide support, our

nato allies have stepped forward, countries around the globe understand that this battle between democracy and freedom and atoc raisi -- atoc raisi and inhumanity must be won. president zelenskyy came to this building two weeks ago and asked for our support, he received bipartisan promise rls from members of both the senate -- promises from both the senate and the house and i pledged my support and nearly all of my senate colleagues also. it is shameful on the heels of that visit after looking president zelenskyy in the eye and promising to stand with him, our house colleagues decided to strip all ukraine funding from their continuing resolution. that decision contradicts the will of the majority of congress and the american people.

and it breaks faith with the people of ukraine, who are in a battle to preserve their nation and their lives and their battle is our battle. their battle against unprovoked aggression by putin against a democratic neighbor is a battle that we must assure they can win because he won't stop there. mr. president, we can't allow the opposite -- we can't allow a few members of the house to force a cruel deal on the people who least deserve it, the ukrainian people. this conflict matters not just to ukraine, but to our own security here. it's clear that if putin succeeds in ukraine, he will not stop. he made this clear years ago when he talked about that his mission in life, his sole,

overwhelming preoccupation was to recreate the russian empire. the baltics, poland -- parts of poland, moldova, georgia. he's very clear. it's ironic in history how dictators can be so clear about what they want to do but ignored by people who should stand up to them. hitler was very explicit of what his goal was and yet we appeased him. will we appease putin, cut off aid to the ukrainians? it's your problem, not our problem. if we do, it will be our problem. he will seek to destabilize other countries in the region,

including our nato allies, and if that happens under article 5 of nato, we have a legal, moral obligation to go to their aid, and that means the blood that will be shed is not ukrainian blood but the blood of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and coast guardmen, and the cost of that, in my view, is priceless. our job in some respects is through our actions we continue lowering the probability that american men and women in our service will suffer and die in action. if we renege in our commitment to ukraine, that probability will go up, not down and we will regret it immensely.

we've seen colleagues on the other side speak out but they have to speak out more vigorously. leader mcconnell said recently, with ukraine bravely defending its sovereignty and eroding russia's capacity to threaten nato, it is not the time to ease up. helping ukraine retake its territory means weakening one of america's biggest strategic adversaries without firing a shot. and leader mcconnell is right about that, and i admire his forceful and courageous support of the ukrainian people. remember also, china is watching how the democratic nations of the world respond to russia. in considering a potential invasion of taiwan, president xi is scrutinizing putin's playbook and the international response. and he has seen things that are

potentially provoking, particularly if the international community simply gives up and allows ukraine to fall. the conclusion he likely will draw is that if i engage and i'm persistent enough and long enough, then the political winds in the united states and across the globe will be behind my back and they'll give up, and i'll succeed. the credibility of the united states deterrence is only as strong as our actions. our would-be partners around the world are also watching closely at what we're doing. will we have their backs if they are agressed against? we must show that we are a

steadfast ally, not hamstrung by the whims of fringe pliptions. again, our adversaries -- the whims of fringe politicians. again, our adversaries would see themselves empowered as our alliances dissolve, because there's no confidence, or lack of confidence in the united states. this is especially true when we consider how the ukrainians have proven time and time again that, given the right support, they are entirely capable of defeating the assaults launched against them, and there's a number of reasons nor this. -- reasons for this. first and foremost is the incredible courage and fighting skill of the ukrainian people, as well as the inspirational leadership of president volodymyr zelenskyy. i had the opportunity, like so many of my colleagues, to travel

to kiev earlier this year and was deeply moved by the ukrainians' bravery and commitment to defending their homeland. second, the remarkable leadership of president biden. his administration has forged a unified response, leading worldwide combination of putin and providing enormous military, economic, and humanitarian support for ukraine. i doubt if anyone in this senate, weeks before the invasion of ukraine, would have predicted that nato would rally as it has to support the ukrainians, that allies across the globe would dig into their stocks of munitions and transfer them to the ukrainians. that the whole world would be, in some respects, moved by the

actions of our country in standing up and inspiring others to join with us. we also ben fifthed from -- benefited from eight years of training of ukrainian forces, starting in 2014. in fact, i had the first opportunity to meet general kavolai, our supreme allied commander, when he was a brigadier general in lviv, training ukrainian soldiers. that training was manifested as they repulsed the russian assault. it was squad leaders and company commanders and young battalion commanders who had been trained by us and our allies, who were able to outfight, outmaneuver, outthink the russian adversaries, and they continue to do that. and finally, putin's assault has faulted from the inept

performance of his own forces. the war has exposed a poorly led and poorly trained russian army, with corrupt leadership at every level, poor tactics and communication and inept logistics. but wait -- people learn from adversity. the russians are learning. they're beginning to understand the limitations of their forces. so they are putting them in trenches. they are fortifying the battlefield. they are minimizing any maneuver that they must do, because that's a complicated military operation. and then they are throwing in thousands and thousands of poorly trained but still well-armed soldiers. so we can't assume that their poor performance will last forever.

that's another reason why we have to continue our support and give our ukrainian allies all the help they need. now, putin assumed, i believe, that his actions, his quick assault on kiev would drive a wedge within the international community, that we would dither, that we would debate, that we would do nothing. well, he was badly mistaken. as i indicated before. but the leadership of president biden, secretary blinken and others, nato has shown a remarkable unity and resolve. we can't overstate the scale of this importance, that countries that before were unenthusiastic, let me say, about military operations suddenly began to provide equipment, support, training, raise their budgets

and do so to assist the people of ukraine. and also, something that goes unstated by so many is that our european allies are also giving tremendous aid to civilian populations that have been displaced, and aid to the budget of ukraine. if you look on a per capita basis of gdp, i should say, the basis of percent of gdp, we are not the most generous benefactor of ukraine. it's the baltic nations. so this is an usual worldwide commitment of sacrifice, of resources, in which we are the leader, but many other nations are giving as much, if not more. now, putin, i believe, thinks he can wait us all out, he can wait

for the supplies to be ex hawpsed by the ukrainians. oh, -- exhausted by the ukrainians. oh, by the way, if we take away our resources, those supplies will be quickly exhausted. but we cannot validate this viewpoint. the ukrainians have fought too hard, suffered too much to be left to their own devices. to be abandoned. ultimately, to be slaughtered by the russians. just as the ukrainians have learned to adapt on the battlefield, the effort to aid and equip the security fompleses has -- forces has evolved. throughout the war, the biden administration calibrated assistance to ukraine, calibrated in a very difficult situation. we have allies that were somewhat reluctant to move weapons systems in. we have allies who are signatories to the treaty against the use of cluster munitions, which we had to take into account. we have to negotiate between

multiple parties who don't have precisely the same viewpoint as we have, but yet we've been able to consistently support, train, equip, and provide the resources necessary for the ukrainian forces to begin their counteroffensive, which they did weeks ago, to continue their fight through this winter, and position them, we hope, for decisive action as soon as possible. we've committed tremendous amounts of security assistance, including advanced air defense systems, equipment, and we remain keen that we look ahead to provide the most modern weapon systems that the ukrainians can use. many people forget the training necessary to use sophisticated

weapons systems. many people forget that the key to maneuver operations is rather sophisticated coordination between ground forces, heavy armor forces, artillery support, air support when available. all these things are not something that one just does naturally. it takes training. it takes repeated attempts. and fortunately for us, the ukrainians are so dedicated to their country that they are committing their all to use our equipment effectively. i'd also note that the supplemental funding we provided allowed us to invest more money, create more jobs right here in the united states, as the u.s. defense industry partners ramp up production to meet ukraine's

needs and to backfill our open munition supplies. indeed, what we've found is really a new type of warfare. we had become accustomed for decades to have complete air superiority when we fought, to have precision weapons that were so accurate that the battles we fought were weeks -- desert storm, iraqi freedom, the first phase of the battles in afghanistan. so, we didn't think we needed large-scale munitions production, etc. the type of warfare we're seeing now, which very well might be the type of warfare we encounter, requires an industrial base that can provide adequate ammunition, adequate supplies of equipment, and we've started that process. one aspect is multi-year contracts now for munitions, so that there's a demand that

produces, understand, and we'll fulfill. now, some have said our response has been too slow and we should have given more weaponry or better weaponry, etc. well, those people have criticized the president about their claims of slowness should be outraged at the house who's demanding we stop it all. they should raise their voices now, strongly. emphatically. to tell the house we must have ukrainian aid approved and we must do it quickly. thought the war in ukraine, president biden has led the united states and the international community with admirable resolve. congress must send a strong message to putin that americans continue to stand in solidarity with the people of ukraine, and

that we're committed to supporting them as they fight bravely to defend their homeland. the simple truth is that their battle is our battle. if they lose, americans lose. the likelihood that our young men and women will be called upon to answer the -- to enter the fray increases dramatically. we must support our ukrainian allies. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. reed: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. quorum call:

[inaudible conversations] [background sounds] >> good afternoon. now, i want to thank everyone for coming, special thanks to senator murray and and senator padilla but particularly senator butler for joining us today. we are thrilled, just thrilled, delighted, feel great to have senator butler join us here

today. but as a senate democrat at lunch and and as a vital and active member of our caucus. we sat down, we knew each other before from emily's list, but we sat down and talked for 45 minutes and, boy, was i impressed. senator butler's going to be a great senator. and before we get more the senator butler, i want to speak a bit about her predecessor, my dear friend who we deeply miss and love, and that is senator feinstein. as we all know, dianne was such a force in the senate. she came in the year of the woman, 1992, right alongside patty murray. she ghei a voice, a platform -- gave a voice, a platform to women throughout the country for decades. dianne didn't just push doors down that were closed to women, he held them open for generations of women to follow. she gave a voice, a platform, a model for women across the

country who aspire roles in leadership and public service who want to leave their own mark on the world, who want to make this country a better place for others. today there are 24 women serving in chamber, and every one of them would admit they stand on dianne's shoulders. her impact extended far beyond the senate floor and far beyond politics itself. the sign of a leader is someone who dedicates the whole of their spirit for a cause greater than themselves. the sign of a hero is someone who fighting for others -- fights for others no matter what the odds. and the sign of a friend is someone who stands by your side is, fights the good fight on good days and on bad days too. dianne feinstein was all of these and more; friend, hero for so many, a leader who changed the nature of the senate and the fabric of the nation. she made america a better place. as the senate mourns this

tremendous loss, we are comforted in knowing how many mountains dianne moved, how many lives she impacted, how many glass ceilings she shattered along the way. america, america is a better place because of senator feinstein. today, tomorrow many of my colleagues, democrat and republican alike, will go to california and mourn together and say our final good-byes. it'll be my honor, sad, tearful and great honor to speak tomorrow at her memorial. also joining us will be her successor, the brilliant and accomplished senator butler. senator butler, standing on senator feinstein's shoulders, makes history of her own as the first openly lgbtq senator of color to serve in this body. senator butler has dedicated her life to serving others and advocating for families, particularly women and girls across the country. and finally, to our colleagues. i know, i know these last few

days have felt like a whirlwind. i know it seems like there's a million things to do and so little time to do them. rest assured we're here to help. senator murray. >> thank you, are mr. leader. i've been really lucky enough to serve with dianne feinstein since the start of my time here in the u.s. senate after we were both elected in the so-called year of the woman when there were finally, after a long time, six of us in the united states senate. so 24 sounds pretty great to me. we still have work to do. senator feinstein was truly one of a kind and right from the if very start she really stood out to all of us here as someone who came here to be a voice for her constituents and values. and whether it was gun safety or abortion rights, she was tough as nails and ready to face down any of those guys here in the

senate. she was really a role model and set an example for all of us on how to conduct yourself and the stand strong for what you believe in. she showed america that women did belong here in the united states senate and that our voices were needed. she was a hard worker who would never give up or stop talking to the people that she disagreed with, which is why she often made so much progress that seemed impossible. and and she was someone who read every single brief anded asked really -- and asked really tough questions the stay on top of some of the most complicated issues in foreign policy which is exactly why, when dianne spoke, we all listened. look, i'm not going to list all the legislative accomplishments of senator fine stein. there are far too many, and you've heard people talk about them. but what i think the american people should know is that

dianne did really big things. it is not easy to the make a difference in congress and, of course, no bill is the the sole accomplishment of any single member. but there is no question dianne made waves in this country, that her personal story and how she communicated what she had been through when her colleagues were assassinatedded had a real impact. there's no question she absolutely changed the culture and the conversation around gun violence to get the assault weapons ban passed. and whether it was that or standing up to the cia to shine a light on the unhumane use of torture -- inhumane use of torture, she never backed down. and she made waves. she changed the conversation and the policies. i mean, hollywood made a motion picture about her. but i don't want it to get lost that dianne was so much more than an icon.

she was a dear friend to many of us here on both sides of the aisle. she was so quick with a thoughtful gesture or a sympathetic ear, a kind word or a generous gift like the pictures she true of those flowers -- drew of those flowers sharedded with several of us, ask i'm so proud to have one hanging on my wall. that personal touch is something that made you feel seen and and heard and supported when you most needed it. she was the most gracious and elegant woman. and then in the next minute on the senate floor or a committee hearing, she'd be with fiery and tough. that was dianne. so so as we start to eling bait her legacy tomorrow -- celebrate her legacy tomorrow, i want her family and her staff and all of or her constituents to know how much she was appreciated and loved and our support is there for them now. senator feinstein will be deeply missed and and long remembered. and today i'm so proud as we

turn the beige on that history -- the page on that history that we begin another page here with senator butler. i'm so so glad you're here. welcome to the united states senate. we know you're going to make california proud and make your difference as well. >> thank you, patty. good afternoon, everybody. i want to thank senator schumer for inviting me to join him in honoring the legacy of, for me, a friend, a mentor and a titan of the united states senate, dianne feinstein. it's impossible to overstate the impact she's had on california and the nation. you know, for generations of californians, or she was the one that we turned to for leadership and for comfort whether it was in times of conflict or a crisis

or not. everyone recounts how she was always so prepared, so put together. we've been hearing stories over and over and over again. but i think i understand why. you know, as a first, i know the pressure we often feel, sometimes having to work twice as hard hoping to attain half the respect. when you're the first. and if you think of the first that senator feinstein represented, the first woman to serve as mayor of san francisco, the first woman to chair the senate judiciary committee, to chair the intelligence committee and the longest serving female senator in our history. that explains a lot. he always had that toughness -- she always had that toughness can that grace at the same time. i've shared stories of what it

was like working for her. whether you worked for her or not or, heaven forbid, you might have squared off with her, you knew all too well that she'd do what it took to win. no issue was too small, no challenge too great. from the landmark assault weapons ban to taking on her own party even about torture, from fighting discrimination against lgbtq americans and standing up for reproductive rights to protecting victims of trafficking and combating violence against women, the list is long, it could go on and on and on. but there's one aspect of her legacy that i marley want to the highlight -- particularly want to highlight for not just the american people, but particularly young americans and young californians. the full appreciation and

recognition is there yes, sir -- i don't think the full appreciation and recognition is this yet for what she did to help protect the iconic landscapes throughout california. from forests to deserts, the power of national monument status, national parks status the protect public lands for future generations. it's been a tremendous gift for me as i reflect on my time with her when i was on staff calling her boss, calling her senator -- i didn't want to be reprimanded. as a young elected official, calling her a mentor and calling upon her advice and counsel regularly. to one day calling her a colleague and, most importantly, a friend. just a few days ago senate feinstein made one last -- senator feinstein made one last trip to san francisco, her home where people there still think

she's the mayor. she'll be the forever mayor of san francisco. but what she's left behind for heist and for our newest colleague, senator butler, is probably the highest standard you can think of, of what it means to represent california, how to serve the people of california and how to be the best senator you can be for the sake of our country. our hearts are we are. >> are with her daughter katherine and her entire family. we'll miss her. continue to miss her. and now it's my honor to bring to the podium her successor, someone i'm proud to call a friend. we've only known each other since 2009, but in that time through various positions that she has held, that i have held, we haven't just done a lot of work together on different

issues, but we have developed a friendship under her pax, under her -- passion, under her strategy strategic mind. and it is an honor to have you serving in the united states senate. senator butler. >> good afternoon. i am just honored beyond are belief to be asked by leader schumer today to offer some reflections on just my first whole day standing in -- sitting in the seat of senator dianne feinstein. as mayor, she -- of san francisco, first woman mayor of san francisco, to come in to the quites senate in the year of the woman -- in the united states senate in the year of the woman, to lead all of the legislative the battles that you have heard and have read over the last few days and just here today,

senator feinstein is an example of the gift of emily's list. she add had the courage to want to run. i remember when i first met senator feinstein. it was 2009 in her district office in san francisco. she was convening stakeholders to talk about important issue relative to immigration. she brought us a group of community leaders and labor leaders interdistrict office. the first thing she did was not tell us what was going on in

washington. she did not tells the role she was playing and negotiating language or bills. she asked us how the community was feeling. every instruction had with senator feinstein before her passing and even since has reminded me very much of her approach to the work starting with the people of california. it's definitely the example i have learned from and want to offer my colleagues on behalf of the legacy of center dianne feinstein. thank you for inviting me. >> thank you, you're going to do great. she is the greatest. thank you everybody my colleagues have to go but i have to say a few words about what happened in the house. so, we all know there's quite a bit of history being made on the

other side of the capitol as well. unfortunately not the good kind. yesterday, a small band of bag extremists plunged congress into pandemonium. for the first time in history the speaker has been removed from his position at the hand of radicals that he empowered from day one. what happened yesterday is a failure entirely of house republicans on doing. a disaster in the own making to the great detriment of congress the detriment of the american people. speakers of banner, ryan and now mccarthy have all learned the same hard lesson you cannot allow the hard rates to run the house or run the country. you will get chased out by the same maga hard rates it. you couldn't not allow a small band of extremists that represent just a tiny percentage

of the views of the american people to tell the overwhelming majority of americans what to do. but folks, republican issues with maga extremism seeds far deeper than any single leader it is a poison the gop has refused to confront for years. the main stream house republicans deal with this issue that chaos will continue. now i hope it is obvious maga extremism is not good from house republicans leadership. it is not good for congress and it is disastrous for the country. so let me say this to the next speaker of the house whoever that may be. think carefully about what happened to your predecessors before deciding to coddle the hard right. each of your predecessors got burned each time. i urge the next speaker not to make the same mistake not just

for their own future before their countries. whomever the house elects to speak will not be able to ignore the reality of divided government, no matter what the hard right demands. to his credit speaker at mccarthy shutting down the government and at the end of the day realized had to work in a bipartisan way to work for what's right in america. the need will not change we will need bipartisan to keep the government (better for the american people i urge my republican colleagues in the house once and for all except the reality bipartisanship is the only way out. i will take your questions. [inaudible]

>> will look. strong bipartisan majorities in both the house and senate. for aid to ukraine i've spoken to leader, we are going to use together to get a big package done even in the house you may remember when it speaker mccarthy put $300 million in for ukraine and one of the budget bills there was a move by the hard right to take it out. it was defeated by over 300 votes. we have a large bipartisan majorities and aid for ukraine. we are going to work to get that done. [inaudible] >> look, when i read the indictments i was both deeply disturbed and disappointed. senators must rise to a certain standard and senator menendez actions are way below that standard. yes, yes.

>> in terms. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> we are working very hard on the senate to get things done. we have passed 12 bills out of committee bipartisan appropriation bills and now we are working to get those bipartisan bills to the floor of the senate. our staffs are constantly talking to one another these first three bills about all of them. we will work very hard to get those bills to the floor. yes back there. [inaudible] >> yes hakeem jeffries. yes. >> that will be up to her whether she runs pretty thank you everybody.

[background noises] have a good day. you are welcome. >> heads up. [background noises] [inaudible conversations] >> hello everyone. i would like to start by thanking speaker mccarthy for his service. we had a great personal relationship tried to lead to

very different parts of the american government. i think he has much to be proud of it. we did the inevitable with regard to the debt ceiling one person it is extremely grateful for the service i have no advice to give to house republicans except one i hope whoever the next speaker is gets rid of the motion to vacate. i think it makes a speakers job impossible. the american people expect us to have a functioning government. on the senate side winning ticket is meant appropriation bills passed as possible. the majority leader has

indicated that is what he would like to do as well. you will have plenty of cooperation with us and trying to achieve a regular appropriation process as we possibly can. >> at least here in the senate we have center collins and her great work on the senate appropriations committee for getting us at least into a position where we can consider appropriation bills. that should be the number one priority for this congress up until the next deadline we hit on hopefully the one beyond that. because honestly if we do not get the appropriations process going here were not going to need these done will end up in a terrible position of the end of their i hope senator schumer will make this the number one party. he's got a lot of things he wants to do what we should be doing anything else right now but dealing with appropriation

bills as they have been reported out of the appropriation committee. we have until november the 17th i regret the fact were not going to be here next week i think the senate ought to be in her next week working on the appropriation bill of a short amount of time and a lot of work to get done. i know everybody in our side iss committed to making this process work to seeing we actually can make a major significant headway and progress on the annual appropriations process before november 17 deadline. i let me make one observation about that too. it's really important as we think about funding the government that we take a look at what's happening at our southern border is an absolute disaster down there. 260,000 people apprehended trying to come into the country illegally in the month. a new all-time record 11000

people per day. this so far a blind eye the deaf ear to the horrible circumstances that our southern border. there is nothing humanitarian about what is happening down there. we need to address that. i think the democrats are willing to work with us were willing to do that with the appropriations process as well. >> joe biden's border policy has been one train wreck after another. the reason i say train wreck the number of americans who have died from fentanyl since joe biden has been at present equals a number people who take an amtrak train, fill it with people, crush the train everyone dies every other day pray that's the number of people in america being killed by fennel. i was a train and also because joe biden should be familiar took the train back and forth to delaware when he was a senator

for 36 years. but last week he went to arizona. so joe biden goes to arizona which is a border state with a number of illegal immigrants lethal drugs that come across every day continue to kill americans. he did not go to stem the flow of lethal drugs aired know he went to increase the flow he is so close to the border he was closer at the next regular daily train ride home to deller he did not go for it is so little respect for the border patrol or the citizens of this country are the communities in which they live by the border, ignore them completely. it is disgusting for republicans have solutions to secure the border act 30 have cosponsored apparent it secures the board from illegal immigrants and deadly drugs. our train practice in the

engineers sleep at the switch recently be joe biden has been asleep at the switch and people all across america are dying by the train loads. [laughter] i only respond when there's an emergency. [laughter] that will be going for a while. [laughter] it's not hitting my watch is that hitting anyone else's watch? it's a matter of time? [inaudible conversations] leader, are we all right? [laughter] when does it stop? after the asking of their lungs as it stop? on that note i like to say i've served many years with kevin mccarthy before he became speaker. he's a very good friend of mine are wonderful public servant. it's a tough time for him it's a

tough time for them for those of us who know us well have a great amount of respect it was a sad day yesterday so kevin we wish you well put you served our country well and i know you're not finished. basically today want to echo the words of the leader and others that we need to get back to regular order at our appropriations bill. i am a ranking member on the health education labor bill heard i want to have our imprint our senate imprint our bipartisan input into what we think the properties are as exceedingly important bill as all of them are. susan's has worked masterfully with patty. hopefully when we come back willhave the three minibus toger with what many amendments worked out everybody's voice will be heard we averted a shutdown we cannot run this up to november the 17th with the same intensity we had in the past. i for one thanks it's a

disservice it's a road to nowhere it's a mystery march and we cannot govern like this. thank you. >> is it over yet? [laughter] pulling the fire alarm again i wasn't sure. [laughter] we have talked a lot about the border crisis. there should be a fire alarm pulled right now it's the alarm that we are seeing on the southern border with some 11000 illegal crossings happening every single day in this country. make no mistake the crisis we are witnessing is a direct result there is cause and effect because of joe biden's failed open border policy. look at any illegal apprehension chart you will see when it hit a low number right as biden took office and how it skyrocketed since then. he ended construction on the wall. this is cause and effect.

this is a solvable problem we could come together republicans and democrats to restate those policies and to finish building the wall. sadly all of our communities must paying a big price for that of the great northern border state like montana or southern border state or in between. it is insanity. a veterans in new york are forced out of a nursing home to make space for illegal immigrants. servicemember hotel reservations were canceled the army navy game because of migrants taking up space there. even the democrat governors are fed up. let's hope they start called the white house and telling them they are fed up with these policies there because in this disastrous time for president biden to wake up and he should engages border czar vice

president harris get something done and the nightmare on our southern border. next i would add one thing on the border. early this year it was only fox news covering this disaster at the border now it's been covered on cnn. that tells you that even if they could not ignore this catastrophe that is been going on almost since the beginning of the biden ministration. >> what is your concern? [inaudible] they go hand in hand they cannot function. >> the obvious answer is we need to get a speaker and hopefully we will get one by next week. i will repeat what i said earlier to do that job for anyone you have to get rid of the motion to vacate.

that puts whoever the speaker is the hammerlock of dysfunction potential dysfunction. >> i hope whoever emerges and to start getting rid of the motion to vacate. ask what is your strategy looking forward for ukraine? i think it's important. kevin mccarthy address that very well last night. it is still a major priority. i think the majorities of both bodies still support it. we need some direction and on does that bother you? hugs look at job but one right

now in the senate is to get back on the appropriation bill. get as many finished as the majority leader will let us. all these other issues will be dealt with in due time.

while we can all breathe a sigh of relief the house gop did not shut the government down last week, we need to move quickly to restore the military and humanitarian assistance the house stripped out of the 47th 7 date stopgap funding bill. and at a minimum we need to provide the full amount of ukraine assistance requested by the administration. it is not just that we have a moral obligation to assist ukraine, it is in our national security interest also. i cannot begin to believe the infighting and intrigue occurring within the republican majority and the house. i simply can't explain why gop leaders allow a small cadre of their caucus to effectively deal

and assistance to ukraine. what i do know is ukrainians are at a crucial point in their fight against russia and they need our help. ukraine will soon enter another difficult winter when we don't rush it will target its energy and civilian infrastructure without regard to innocent civilians. in a letter last friday mike mccord the comptroller for the department of defense wrote the department of defense has exhausted nearly all available security assistance funding for ukraine. undersecretary mccord added without additional funding now we would have to delay or curtail assistance to meet ukraine's requirements including for air defense and ammunition that are critical and urgent now as russia prepares to conduct

winter offensive and continue continuousbombardment of ukrain. we cannot all that happen. mr. president i would ask to unanimous consent the text of the letter be included in the record. >> that objection. >> knowing the need for our support i must point out our support is the leading edge of worldwide support. our nato allies have stepped forward. countries around the globe understand this a battle between democracy and freedom and had talkers see and in humanity must be one. president zelenskyy came to this very building two weeks ago to ask for our support. he received overwhelming about the senate and the house.

of course i was proud to pledge my support and nearly all of my senate colleagues also. it is shameful that on the heels of that visit after looking president zelenskyy in the eye and promising to stand with him, our house colleagues decide to strip all ukraine funding from their continued resolution. that decision contradicts the will of the majority of congress and the american people. heartbreaks faced with the people of ukraine who are in a battle to preserve their nation their battle is our battle. their battle against unprovoked aggression by putin against the democratic is a battle that we must assure they can win. because you won't stop there.

mr. president, we cannot allow house of representatives to force a cruel deal on those who least deserve it, the ukrainian people. and as i have said this matters not just ukraine but to our own security here at home. you will not stop. he made this clear years ago we talked about his mission and life, whose sole overwhelming preoccupation was to re-create the russian empire. the baltics. poland, mulled over, torture, he is very clear. it is ironic insist that dictators can be so clear what they want to do but ignored

people to stand up with him. hitler was very explicit in what the goal was. and yet we appease them. but we appease putin, cut off a two ukrainians? it's not our problem. if we do it will be our problem. we will seek to destabilize other countries in the region including our nato allies. as it happens in article five of nato with a legal moral obligation to go to their aid. and that means the blood that will be shed is not ukrainian blood. of our soldiers, airmen, guardians and coast guard men. the cost of that in my view is

priceless. our job in some respects is to ensure by our actions here that we continue lowering the probability that american men and women and our service will suffer and die in action. if we renege on our commitment to ukraine that probability will go up not down. we will regret it immensely. we have seen colleagues on the other side speak out. they have to speak out more vigorously. leader mcconnell said recently with you ukraine bravely defending its sovereignty and eroding it is not the time to ease up helping ukraine retake its territory the biggest without firing a shot.

leader mcconnell is right about that. we admire the forceful and courageous support of the ukraine people. remember also china is watching how the democratic nations of the world respond to russia. and considering a potential invasion of taiwan president xi is scrutinizing putin's playbook and the international response. he has seen things that are potentially provoking. particularly if the international community simply gives up. and allows ukraine to fall. the conclusion he will likely draw is if i engage and i am persistent enough, and long

enough, then the political winds in the united states and across the globe will be behind my back. i will succeed. the credibility that eisai's i s deterrent is only as strong as our actions. our would-be partners around the world are also watching closely at what we are doing. will we have their backs if they are aggressive against? we most show we are is steadfast. not hamstrung by the winds of french politicians. again, our adversaries would see them some empowered as our alliances dissolve. because there is no confidence or lack of confidence in the united states. this is especially true when we

consider how the ukrainians have proven time and time again that given the right support they are entirely capable of seeing assault launched against them. there is a number of reasons for this. first and foremost is the incredible courage and fighting skills of the ukrainian people. as well as the inspirational leadership of the president zelenskyy. i had the opportunity, like so many of my colleagues to travel earlier this year i was deeply moved by ukraine's bravery and commitment defending their homeland. second is the remarkable statesmanship of president biden. his administration has forged a unified response. leading combination of putin providing enormous military economic and humanitarian support for ukraine.

i doubt if anyone in the senate weeks before the invasion of ukraine would have predicted that nato would rally as it has for the allies across the globe would dig in their stocks of musician and transfer them to the ukrainians the whole world and some respects moved by the actions of our country and standing up and inspiring others to join with us. we also benefited for eight years of ukrainian forces starting in 2014. effective on the opportunity to meet the general supreme allied commander on his a brigadier general training ukrainian

soldiers. that training has manifested as a repulsed assault it was squad leaders and company commanders young battalion had been trained by us and our allies who were able to out cite, outmaneuver, outthink the russian adversaries and they continue to do that. putin's assault has fulton from the depths of his own forces. the war has exposed a poorly led and poorly trained russian army of corrupt leadership every logistics. people learn from adversity. they are beginning to understand the limitations of their forces

they are fortifying the battlefield. they are minimizing any maneuver you are doing because that's a complicated military operation. then they are throwing in thousands and thousands of poorly trained but still well armed soldiers. so we cannot assume their poor performance will last forever. whip to continue our support and give our ukrainian allies all the help they need. we assume his actions his quick assault on kyiv would drive a wedge in the international community. we would gather, we would debate, we would do nothing. he was badly mistaken. as i indicated before the

leadership of president biden secretary blinken and others nato has shown a remarkable unity and resolve it. we cannot overstate the scale of this importance. countries that before were unenthusiastic about military operations suddenly began to provide equipment, support, training, raise their budgets and do so to assist the people of ukraine. and also, something that goes under faded by so many is that our european allies are giving tremendous aid to civilian populations that have been displaced. from a to the budget of ukraine. if you look on a per capita basis of gdp i should state thee basis a percentage of gdp we are

not the most generous benefactor of ukraine. it is the baltic nations. this is an unusual worldwide commitment of sacrifice a period .other resources in which we are the leader but many of the nations are giving as much if not more. now putin believes he can wait us all out. he can wait for the supplies to be exhausted by the ukrainians. we take away our resources those supplies to be quickly. we cannot validate this viewpoint. the ukrainians have taught too far suffered too much should be left to their own devices to be abandoned. and ultimately to be slaughtered by the russians. just as the ukrainians have

learned to adapt on the battlefield the effort to aid and equip the security forces have evolved going forward. the biden administration has calibrated assistance to ukraine. calibrated in a very difficult situation. we have allies who were somewhat reluctant to move weapon systems in. we are signatory to retreat and gets the cluster munitions which will take into account. we have to negotiate between multiple parties that don't have processes in viewpoint you consistently support, trained, equipped and provide the resources necessary for the ukrainian forces to begin their counsel which they did weeks ago. to continue their fight to this winter and position them, we hope for decisive action as soon

as possible. we have committed tremendous amount of security assistance including advanced systems, equipment. and we remain key that we look ahead to provide the most modern weapon systems that the ukrainians can use. many people forget necessary to use sophisticated weapon systems. many people forget the key to maneuver operations is rather sophisticated coordination between ground forces, heavy armored forces, artillery support, air support when available. all of these things are not something one does naturally.

it takes repeated attempts and fortunately for us the ukrainians are so dedicated to the country they are committing their all to use our equipment effectively. the supplemental funding has allowed us to invest more, create more jobs right here in the united states. the u.s. defense industry partners ramp up production to send a backfill of own supplies. indeed what we have found this really a new type of warfare. we had become accustomed complete air superiority. to have precision weapons that were so accurate battle he fought for weeks. i racking freedom.

we did not think we needed large-scale admissions productions et cetera. which very well might be the type of warfare we encounter requires an industrial base that can provide adequate ammunition, adequate supplies and equipment we started the process. one aspect is multiyear contracts. said our response has been too slow. we should have given more weaponry or better weaponry et cetera. those people have criticized the president met their claims or slowness. should be outraged we should

raise her voice is now strongly, emphatically, we must have ukrainian aid approved emily musto quickly. throughout the war in ukraine president biden is led the united states and the international community with admirable resolve it. congress must send a strong message of putin and americans continue to stand in solidarity with the people of ukraine. we are committed to supporting them as they fight bravely to defend their homeland. these simple truth is that theie battle is our battle. if they lose, americans lose. the likelihood our young men and women will be called upon to answer the freight increases dramatically.

we must support our ukrainian allies. with that madam president i yield the floor.

democrats and house of representatives house speaker mccarthy from the position joining us to talk about that and other issues related to the functioning of government, democrat from california. member the foreign affairs committee, thanks for joining us for quick sinks or have me on progress how'd you vote yesterday concerning speaker mccarthy and why did you do it? >> i voted with all of the other democrats. frankly, yesterday was a sad day. we have never been in this place in the history of vacating the speakership now we don't have a speaker of the house. but at the end of the day is that the speaker mccarthy to come to democrats and say i'm going to need some help here. in his own words he said he wasn't going to work with democrats. i don't know what to say here. it should, cota, would've what could you have said to democrats to gain some support?

>> what happened on saturday to avoid a government shutdown went democrats and republicans came together speaker put a bill on the floor that we could all support. i thought after saturday's vote the speaker would reach out. all of us expected matt gaetz to bring the motion to vacate. we suspected he did not have enough support in his own caucus. i would have expected he would reach out to leader hakeem jeffries on our side and say what's the deal we could keep we can keep thegovernment movind keep the house with the speaker. my understanding is while they did talk and communicate. the speakers never asked for support never negotiated. >> in the search for the next speaker what you think the role you and your fellow democrats will play as far as that election vote is concerned? >> saw the debate on the house yesterday before the motion to vacate. it's a fight within the

republican party it was conservative republican fighting for extreme republicans. they have got to get their house in order. if they can't come together around a single speaker i would encourage patrick mchenry who is a decent guy maybe cut a deal and get back to regular functioning parties in congress request can you elaborate your thinking on that? >> would all like to write real appropriation bills i think we like to honor the debt ceiling built speaker mccarthy negotiated with president biden. that is what the senate is going to do. you watch the senate operate in a bipartisan way at the end of the day and divided congress the house has a republican majority but the senate have democrats. you're going to have to

negotiate when i'll start the process there i will get democrat supporting. text with us until 9:00 o'clock of going to ask a question about yesterday 2027488001 for republicans (202)748-8000 for democrats and independents (202)748-8002. give us a sense of the audience of what happens in congress now as far as the speakership is concerned? would be here today trying to get her to fill the speakership. having a speaker of the house is a dangerous precedent third in line for the presidency should anything happen. again the speaker pro tem my mit understand and cannot fill the position that's a dangerous place for our country. that said, they decided to have a racist that sounds like tuesday the republicans will view a candidate for them for those who may be ready for

speaker. will be back in session tuesday night i believe. hope you have a speaker vote on wednesday. >> when it comes to matters of fennec on foreign affairs sprayed one of things is that the center of the debates with former speaker mccarthy and other things was ukraine funding. where does that stand? >> it is important in our national security to support ukraine. they are fighting the good fight for this is about democracy, freedom, it is about standing up to the unprecedented invasion by russia into a sovereign nation, ukraine. most of that including republicans feel like we should support ukraine. now for the life of the i'm not sure why speaker mccarthy or x speaker mccarthy went up with a bill on the floor. hopefully one of the next speaker is what allows to take that vote. he passed a vote for ukraine funding and a bipartisan way.

should be a single bill that deals with ukraine or should it be attached to something? what is the best way forward on that? >> either one it should pass the senate as well. either one will be fine. >> store in the wall street journal that said that u.s. offending system salary for ukrainian salary keep government expenditures expected to run out next month. adsitt pays the soul of one or 50 civil servants indicate more than half among teachers and so on. what case would you make of this is good to spending by the u.s. government? >> i think supporting the ukrainian defense is good spending. allowing the ukrainians to defend their own sovereignty. standing up to the illegal invasion by vladimir putin. that is good for democracy around the world.

again we are standing with their nato allies and others. i think it's important it's not just about ukraine it's better national security. >> sued that front the republicans made the case that while that debate on ukraine was going on, even more robust debate should have happen a border security. they made that over the last several of weeks. what you think about those claims republicans are what they wanted to see happen of the border? >> we are open to debate in the debord security. i do not know a wall is the best way to defend the border but we could use technology. we certainly could use more border patrol agents and things. we should also pair that with real immigration reform. again that is never easy but you find a lot of democrats willing to work with the moderate republicans to try to get something done to secure our border. but also to address dreamers on folks who are here want to work for. >> democrat from california joining us for this discussion is a member of the intelligence of foreign affairs committee.

our first call for you comes from james for james is in new york under independent line. you're on with our guest, james go-ahead big. go ahead. >> good morning gentlemen. i had a question about the bill of rights. and how well we are working with those. if our next president comes into power writes in executive order that mimics the first four of the bill of rights, or courts going to be allowed to touch them like the doing right now? they are acting like privileges when they are supposed to be rights given by god. is that possible? >> thanks of your question, james for the bill of rights is the sacred. they are at the founding of our country but i would not want to see any president changing those bill of rights that define who we are. i think that would be on precedent for a president should try to change her bill of rights. >> and jim in florida republican

line go ahead. >> good morning. i have a question action of a statement first then a question. i watch the "washington journal" interview where hakeem jeffries stood up and talked about the democrats voting for the people. now let me just say this he talks about extreme maga republicans that they have a problem. yet yesterday every one of the democrat voters voted with extreme maga republicans to remove a conservative congressman, mr. mccarthy, from his position. that to me tells me hakeem jeffries just stood there told boldfaced lies and you are lying as well. i would like to hear from you by every democrat decided to side with the maga republicans i will listen off-line thanks.

>> again, a lot of us were waiting for speaker mccarthy to ask for our vote too. he made no attempt to ask for a vote. in his own words and his own interviews on television he said he was not going to ask democrats to support him. in this business you have to go out and solicit votes and talk to folks and negotiate. that is what i fully expected next speaker mccarthy to do he showed no inclination to do that. he really did not build any trust. so when the vote came up we weren't there for him too. >> a fellow californian how much of a relationship did you have with the former speaker? >> not a ton. again a likable individual. very personable. never really thought of as a big policy guy. but we want the house to function for the only way it's going to function is if you get moderate democrats and moderate republicans in a bipartisan way. that is what happens in divided

governments. i don't like we are where we are today without a speaker. i certainly hope love the next speaker is can help heal the institution and bring us together. it's going to be necessary for democrats and republicans work together. >> pro tem patrick mchenry who said on the efforts of yesterday saying if they can't democrats rinse additional castle vote with a handful republicans are going after the speaker but they have be mindful this sets a precedent. how do you respond to that? >> i don't disagree. i think back in january you saw those 15 or 16 speaker votes they were discussing changing the rule to allow any one person to do a motion to vacate the chair we warned them this is exactly what we were afraid might happen. there is a reason why we change the threshold to 50 individuals because we wanted to respect the institution. i think kevin mccarthy and his desperation to get the speakership really weakened the

institution. we would love to work with patrick mchenry however the next speaker is to institute a rules package that action protects the institution that changes the motion to vacate to a different threshold so guy like matt gaetz can't just provoke chaos. >> sacramento, california that is one of the cities are gas represents. rhonda, on the independent on your with our guests go-ahead. >> thank you pedro parade hello representatives. doctorate this is rhonda. i have written. >> hi honey. i wrote a letter about our border crisis. when you're speaking with pedro a few minutes ago you mentioned you are all for supporting ukraine. well what about our old borders? just on the news yesterday are the days before they showed busloads flooding into los angeles now.

what is your strong position about our border crisis and in lieu of us running ukraine? i have written you letters assert you have invited me too come to your open symposiums but here we have not seen you. can you please give me your position because the election is coming up and i voted for you in every election. but now that i am an independent sir, i want to hear your position strongly about protecting our border. >> okay thank you. >> i really do think we have an urgent situation on the border. we should protect the border. that could be additional trips down there. certainly we have a backlog in some of the asylum cases with the more judges down there. we should use technology to help manage the border that's also part of the fentanyl drug crisis we are seeing struck the country

right now. i'm all for working with republicans to be about the border security. at the same time there's no reason we can't still do our national security by helping support the people of ukraine within their own country. if we don't do this will rule the day down the road directed by the ministration has set forth an effort to look at the larger issues of migration. particular comes to illegal immigrants coming. or has that ever gone and has it been successful? >> obviously we see the influx of people coming to our southern border this will be a long-term challenge. we see it massive freedom security, water insecurity, on the central american nation. a lot of the venezuelans you see abject poverty there. those aren't long-term challenges we do have to secure the border you see a lot of migrants coming this way.

but let's do it in a humane way. an understanding way. >> in florida republican line will hear next good morning. >> good morning thing ever taken my call. my question is a follow-up to the question you asked previously about funding to ukraine. not only for the military but it covers pensions and salaries and civil workers and things like that. you have a representative mccormick on who gave me an eye-opener answer to that question. he said you have to fund the pensions and civil employees of otherwise you won't have a government the government implodes you won't have military. if so course you have to have that i was a pretty good answer i wonder if the representative agrees with that assertion bite representative mccormick? >> thank you for that question.

that's part of the reason you got to continue to support civil society so you can have a functioning government and functioning country while they are at war. that is part of it. the one thing i would talk about that i've heard from some of my republican colleagues is about transparency. knowing where ukraine funding is going. i think you tried a bunch of democrats willing to work with republicans to make sure weather is independent or inspector general or some way to track the flows of a weapon money et cetera. that could be a compromise to get a single bill to the floor. >> i know he is new to the position. but your impressions? >> i think patrick mchenry has been a serious legislature pretty someone who we understand to be a person interested in policy. i would hope over the next few days with the intention, the heat in the room gets ratcheted

down and then we come back on tuesday or wednesday we have a serious negotiation. where uncharted territory that makes it democrats and republicans to work together to elect a speaker of the house. let me be honest we are not in the majority i don't expect we will be elected democratic speaker. let's elect a speaker that can run the whole house and take into account democratic as well paired. >> for you yourself and not the other members of your conference who's a republican you could support a speaker? website when you think a who's willing to our leader uncertain uncertainly initiate the institution working again. we need to write a real budget we've got to do a farm bill with got to reauthorize the faa. there is real work that needs to be done before the end of the calendar year.

whoever that is and leader jeffries this is someone we can work with. then we will consider that progress and want took eight republicans to else the speaker. as far as the power they wield today what are your concerns? >> the rule change that allows one republican, matt gaetz, to vacate the speakership needs to be changed we need to take that threshold. but we had it was at 50 there's 20 something just so we find ourselves a month or two month down the road in the same situation. >> from georgette this is on our independent line. will hear from friday. >> yes. my question is why do democrats insist on continuing the efforts in ukraine we have issues here at home that require the same

money. we are supporting a proxy war that is destroying that country we are not helping that country. we do not fund civil service here we are in our own country will be threatened to put our government on hold because of the republicans did down to federal government. i think that congressman has departed wrong on ukraine should be normal funding. no more funding thank you. >> our concerns serve the on the foreign affairs committee to ask for the russian invasion talking to their leadership, talking to president zelenskyy. understanding. this is the first big country war since world war ii. it supporting the ukrainian people that are fighting and

dying for their own country. if ukraine falls to other parts of europe and elsewhere. also xi jinping only chinese communist party to perhaps invade taiwan. we cannot withdraw from the world the world is a much safer place when the ice age is leading with their partners. i am happy that nato countries are finally stepping up to put in their own resources and other countries around the world et cetera are putting resources into the fight. this is more than just ukraine it's about democracy, it's about freedom, it's about the next 75 years will look like. i'm defeating russia. >> one of these spinoffs from the last couple of weeks as a thehouse was working on appropriation bills.

what did you think of that actually happening? what's as hopeful after saturday we came together democrats and republicans to give us 45 days to avert the shutdown x speaker mccarthy would come to us the senate is using those numbers not the appropriators write real appropriation bills i can pass the house passed the senate willing to negotiate? >> the foreign affairs how would those numbers impact things under those umbrellas? >> a lot of the foreign operations and cut diplomacy of cut development and he would make america less safe.

there are a lot of threats were country right now. we are at a crossroads for the world needs a strong america. independent line you are next up, hi. >> hi, thank you for taking my call representative thank you for being on c-span today. the reason why i am calling sir you were one of a few hundred privileged people to represent appropriate as the house of congress and legislative blanched. how dangerous we are going to worth russia. why have you continued to vote for billions of dollars joe to a corrupt country we have no interest in. a moment ago you said we have a duty to pay for the bureaucrats.

i respectfully disagree with you sir. we have many more important things to worry about them provoking russia into nuclear war, and nuking washington, my home and supporting ukrainian bureaucrats. we can start building the wall i would love to hear comet server. >> ukraine is not a perfect country. certainly we are concerned about corruption we talk to the biting ministration about some of that. the danger here is fresh and does not stop at ukraine. we hope we could contain and as for the ukrainians that are fighting this war to protect and defend their own country, their own region it's the democratic countries around the world that are banding together to help support ukraine in this fight the european countries. again we have seen this in the past in world war ii. the germans continued that is why we feel strongly about this.

that said we should have open debate. we should finish that debate you bring a single vote to the floor let's vote on it. that is where the vote of the house is. ask randall north dakota democrat line. beck's good morning. i am a retired i worked in both the marine corps and the navy writing to submarines. i work within the industrial complex after words when i am sure you have the best of intentions but i make $1300 a month on social security and the amount of money you are spending over there in ukraine which i happen to be a believer of freedom and democracy in all of these things.

our funding people that are going to live better than i am who will serve this country. now i don't understand that. i don't understand how long you're going to the american congress is going to step on that next of half of the population of the american people to throw this in. this choice of dollars of debt that nobody seems to be paying much attention to accept to play games with. >> first, thank you for your service to our country. and certainly i think you deserve an appropriate pension and the ability to live i don't think we should have unlimited funding forever for ukraine.

you see the fight been taken to the russians the hope is again now is not the right time to abandon the ukrainians. it's debated on the floor. again this cannot be a forever war we cannot forever provide that funding. if you can get to a place where you can at least get a cease fire or get a better place were going to try to get and chester from florida independent line go-ahead. >> i don't know how will you knew her but could you give a sense of your impression of the passing of senator feinstein? >> she wasn't icon to california. certainly a leader in the senate for many years.

we look to support her there is an election coming up next november. to fill the full term of senator feinstein. again a big loss. our hearts are with her family and the memory of a great iconic. >> representative state of california. thank you for your time server. >> thank you, be well. >> the coming of october comes a new term as the supreme court a lot of cases to be heard a lot of topics to be considered here to help us set the stage and went to expect is with bloomberg supreme court reporter thank you for giving us your time. >> is good to be on. >> broadly if you had to break this down as a big issue to expect this time around how would you do that? >> at this time would be blockbuster cases for the affirmative action case in the previous term. there is hot button social

issues that are at the court or likely to be including the gun case. there's a lot of cases about the structure of government. >> with the cases that are to be considered right a lot of these come from the fifth circuit court of appeals to explain what the court is and why so many cases appear? what special peers court overseas texas, louisiana and mississippi. i think it's pretty much without question the most conservative federal appeals court in the country. including like the state of texas on the fifth circuit has issued a number of rulings and many are before the supreme court this year they go be on our more conservative than the supreme court has yet includes a gun case will be talking about.

as a conservative supreme court go as far as the fifth circuit? i suggest with us for the half hour for the cases that will be heard. (202)748-8001 for republicans. (202)748-8000 for democrats and independents, (202)748-8002. he brought up guns one of those is about guns as domestic abusers. cracks go back a couple terms was supreme court the court in that case set up a tough new task for gun regulation saying basically have to have a historical analog billing history and tradition if we cannot find something back in 1789 or around then looks like the regulation were looking at today is unconstitutional. with that as a backdrop the fifth circuit says if you are

subject to domestic violence restraining order you can lose your gun rights. and a man named was prevented from owning a firearm. he subsequently was involved in at least allegedly several shootings, threatened originally threatened his girlfriend with a gun, physically abused her. the question is whether he still retains a second moment rights yes he does. x was abided case in the matter? the history and traditions doesn't require you to find the exact thing. that when you go back and look in the history back in 1789 we willnot talk about domestic abu. that does have to be the

testator judge found this person was dangerous in that context a certain amendment goes out and get a weapon and potentially use it against someone else progressed back in time will but the 2022 the took action on the second amendment standalone at the going to say no, this man does not have a second amendment right. they have to deal how they set up in 2022. exact historical analog for government. it's hard to see how gun restriction one to be considered

one of the other cases the consumer financial bureau the operation in particular with funding can you tell us about it? >> sure this was a case argued just yesterday for the question is out of the fifth circuit the fifth circuit said the way the cfpb gets its funding is unconstitutional. it draws its money from the federal reserve is not subject to the year-to-year congressional appropriation. it would not of been subject to the government shutdown how that happened is agency by way of background set after the 2008 financial crisis regulates things like mortgages, home loans, consumer products and conservative republicans have long said it's unaccountable, has too much power. the question is whether the supreme court will try to roll back the cfpb the argument yesterday suggested they're pretty skeptical of this

argument by the funding mechanism is unconstitutional. >> as far as the justices themselves are questioning there's reporting this particular coming from the lawyer represent the challenger. >> even justice thomas, justice barrett, some of the conservative we are questioning whether the cfpb will be any different from a lot of other agencies including the customs service which is set up at the time of the founding in terms of how they get their funding. and secondly you may be right was a constitutional problem have to give us a constitutional argument and the argument the appropriations clause it somehow limits congress discretion in setting up an agency, it did not sound physical a lot of support for that argument. >> on the topic of regulatory power were talking about how to

get a little legal 101 but that's a topic chevron deference. it's implications there. what is it how does it apply to the justice here? goes to the question who gets to interpret the statutes are in the chevron case the court say if an agency interprets an ambiguous they will defer to the agency. conservatives they like what agencies were doing and liberals didn't like it. and now things can flip. conservatives are unhappy with the chevron doctrine. liberals tend to want to defend it. the court is considering a policy doctrine overturning that.

it is a case that arises out of fishing rules in new jersey. and it may be that the conservatives after the chevron doctrine were not doing a whole lot anymore. this is certainly a court one way to expect that they would narrowly doctrine even more is on the line for independence you are with bloomberg talk about upcoming supreme court term. go ahead. >> yes thank you, thank you c-span. on the cfpb case are there other government agencies that are funded like the cfpb? is that funding mechanism is

overturned what will happen and when can we expect a decision on that? thanks again. >> those are all really good questions. much of the argument was about the first question whether it is like any other agencies and other agencies will be affected. that liberal and conservative justices are saying you cannot distinguish from the federal reserve it's basically the same for the federal reserve also is not subject to year-by-year congressional appropriations it gets its money from federal reserve banks. so drawing that line the court was having that's our time with the challengers to the cfpb urged the courts to do that only ruling it is not silent the court sees a way to do that. in terms of the impacts company by the administration has argued in the court took up this case that of its ruling by the fifth

circuit has cap a cloud over everything the cfpb has done since its inception for the cases narrowly about a rule that's never actually been enforced. but because the fifth circuit has been operating illegally this whole time a lot of other defendants have a raise this issue in pending cases there are questions about how it might apply to past cases in past rules and everything. but as i said at least from the argument it did not >> the supreme course interested in going there at all. and so we will not see that kind of disruption for. >> (202)748-8001 for republicans demarest (202)748-8000 and independence (202)748-8002. the back onto the actual legal work the court does there's the issue of trust you problems in the polling as well as i its first current trust in the supreme court. how does it factor to the perception of the corporate sickly how the justices view their work? >> so is the perception of the

court is not good right now. whether that matters to the justices this a bit harder to say it probably matters to some of the more than others. they certainly publicly say they try to do what they think they should do and not think about it. that said all the ethics controversies over the past year to weigh on the court. they are very cognizant of that. there some suggestions they might be changing how they operate in public a little bit. maybe there's a little less willingness to do some things they might have done otherwise. it certainly is very much in the back of their minds all the time for. >> justice thomas coming into the limelight because of the the pro-public appeases, justicl concerning her book. as far as someone who watches the court, what do you think about it as far as the way they do things do they talk about these things?

do you get a sense they care in a sense? >> my sense is they can't talking about talk about a lease alisalittle bit. certainly justice kavanaugh said pretty clearly and justice kagan alluded to it they are working on sums sort of code of conduct or something along those lines were justice kavanaugh suggested his hopeful they will come out with something soon. they are talking about it at least on that level. some of these stories it is hard to say how much they talk about the stories about justice thomas. the interviews with justices given to the wall street journal they are all very aware of those. no doubt some of us topics are awkward for them to talk about. it is a bit of a challenge for them to focus on their work without letting all of that be a distraction for them. >> it was justice kagan did recently in an interview she did i think at a law school talks

about the potential for the code of ethics appear to want to play a little bit of what she wants to say about that. >> right now we are in a situation where we have committed to follow certain kinds of ethical rules respecting judges. but head said we will only be guided by others. so we have committed to following the gift rules that other judges follow. in the outside income rules that other judges follow. other judges have a very extensive code of ethics that governs everything that they do. there has been some concern and i think it is legitimate concern that the supreme court is an unusual kind of court in certain respects. some of the rules do not fit quite as well at the supreme court level then they do at the level of lower courts. but of course but we could do is

just adapt the code of conduct the other court systems have in order to reflect the slight or certain differences. and i think it would be a good thing for the courts to do that. it would help in our own compliance with the rules. and it would go far in persuading other people that we adhere to the highest standards of conduct for. >> the chief justice of interest in applying that kind of template that other judges have to serve hundreds to the supreme court? >> he certainly has an interest in it. he has not said all that much. he has put out when he declined to testify before the senate judiciary committee he put out that statement ethical principles and practices that all nine justices science.

he has made a couple brief comments talking about the importance of ethics. he is somebody who's cared deeply about the institutional standing of the court. that is something not everybody agrees with with in terms of what he thanks about important. with respect spent high on his list of priorities cannot be lost on him is come up with a code of conduct. it seems like the court gets they are at legitimate issues here gifts, disclosures and things like that. it will go a long way toward being at least a first step towards regaining some the confidence. >> thanks for taking my calls thank you for your guest i've

legal question concerning former president donald trump for me this is a question a lot of americans have it pretty specially trump supporters and former trump supporters. my legal question is this. with all the misinformation and in my opinion slander and i will give you four examples the dirty dossier that turned out to be paid for by the democratic and hilary clinton. the mueller report which falsely accused of collusion and he was cleared. and all of these new chargers which seem to be ridiculous about overinflated property values. what is donald trump's filing personal lawsuits against these people government and former government officials who have blatantly lied in public to smear him. i want to know if he has a legal

recourse to sue people or defamation. if he does so little outside in my area of coverage for the supreme court. the caller made a lot of allegations there that people would disagree with. certainly donald trump has said he was going to file a lot of lawsuits and has not filed them. my own observation is if the president had a strong legal case on any of those things he's not afraid to file the lawsuit. none of has not made it any way shape or form. when cases involving donald trump not as president but as an individual have made it up to the supreme court he has not fared very well for the court has rejected his argument not the exact argument the callers bringing up.

so at least from a supreme court standpoint a lot of the times donald trump's arguments don't really hold a lot of water projects to bring it back justice thomas recuse himself rf concerning a case about that. give us specifics but is there a sense in the days after the initial report of why he did it? >> he did not at the top justice thomas did not give an explanation will beat speculating here for the case was an appeal filed by jon eastman at that name is familiar is somebody who was a lawyer to president trump during the time of january 6. has been indicted in the georgia case. he is also former law clerk to clarence thomas. this case did not have any practical stakes anymore but it stemmed from the house committee looking into january 6 and their efforts to get his e-mails that they've already gotten. the e-mails, at least according

to a politico report a year ago as i understand it, referred to justice thomas in efforts to use him to appeal to him to try to overturn the election results. there are some factors in their clean the factors former clerk and the potential reference that might explain why justice thomas recused in this case is not recused in other cases stemming from the election are generally six betwixt joe and marilyn go ahead. >> good morning pedro how are you doing? thank you for taking my call. pager, i wanted to comment from a citizen's perspective and try to be as honest as possible. people call in and they are defending donald trump when everything he has done. he asked the gentleman a question for the question was he has a recourse but guess what? everything he was accused of has been proven, it is factual.

the people calling in defending and trying to turn it around i do not know where they get their new source from. >> are on a sour gas we are talked about the supreme court you can direct that question or comment him if you would like. >> the supreme court done what they need to do. now i do not agree that all of the opinions but that is okay. but if they do the right thing by the constitution and honesty is concerned this a gentleman supreme court will have no problem. they call it as it is for. >> thanks joe. we saw his street made of the supreme court overturning roe v wade. when it come other cases on that front? they take up appeals filed dealing with the abortion pill. if you recall that come up in the supreme court on an emergency basis a few months ago

when the court basically said that pill is going to remain fully available while litigation goes forward. the legal and antiabortion advocates arguing the fda gave short the scientific evidence of dangerous approve the drug and then when it expanded access to it. at this point the fight is about that expanded access. so the fifth circuit said the fda -- at blocked the rules from the fda that allow the pill to be mailed so people don't have to go and make in person visit to a doctor.

absolutely. this is an unusual case where a federal court essentially second-guessed the scientific judgment of the fda and said it didn't give enough credence to these arguments that it was dangerous and the concern is that if the court can do that in this case, it can do that with all matters of other drugs the fda has approved. >> host: one of the topics debated on capitol hill quite frankly is social media and it looks like the justices may have to look at a couple of cases concerning that. can you set that up for us? >> guest: there's that bucket and another. both conservative or non-sta rud republican run states would

restrict the discussion of social media companies when they say take down this information. the texas law requires they have to be engaged in viewpoint discriminations, so they can't take down the ideas that they've been taken down too many conservative posts. and in the florida law there's provisions one of them requires a detailed explanation for every time they take down a post and the social media companies say that would be burdensome. the court agreed to take up both of the cases the federal appeals court and then there's another potential case we could hear something about in the next couple of weeks having to do with the biden administration's contact with social media companies into the lower court restricted again what the biden administration could do in a case stemming out of covid misinformation so we could have several social media cases this

term. >> host: greg is joining us for the discussion he reports on the supreme court for bloomberg. from kentucky, clarence and the independent line. >> caller: hello? >> host: you're on. go ahead, please. >> caller: as soon as possible i don't think we should have term limits. other reasons for saying that -- >> host: do you have a question about the supreme court? >> caller: do i have a question about the supreme court? >> host: our guest deals with the supreme court. do you have a question about that? >> caller: i think we are doing just fine the way we are. >> host: okay that is clarence and kentucky. one of the papers highlighted when it comes to the court one of those dealing with the americans with disabilities act, what's the impact?

>> guest: this is in the case is being argued today. it has to do with so-called standing whether somebody who probably isn't going to go to a hotel can go to the website and see they may not have complied with the requirements of the americans with disabilities act to provide certain information about access to make sure there's access for disabled people to use a hotel and the question is whether someone like that can file a lawsuit and advocates being able to sue say if they can't it makes it much tougher for us to enforce to make sure places like hotels are complying. >> host: in california on the democrats line. hello. >> caller: do we have anything on the docket regarding

elections and how they are conducted particularly since we have had so much controversy whether the election is stolen and can be programmed, do we have anything on the docket concerning how we go about our elections is there anything to try to resolve the controversies because it seems to me there's been a lot of energy wasted on this issue. we didn't have these problems back in the 1960s and 1970s. so do we have anything to look forward to, the supreme court, is there any case or controversy that is on the docket for that? >> guest: there's nothing with regards to how we count the bill which i think the rest of the

question was. there's questions about machines and the like. it's early and we have an election next year so it wouldn't be a surprise if something crops up. there is one case that is a little different. another redistricting case this one is out of south carolina and unlike the last term we had a couple of cases one of which was from alabama and whether they needed to create a second congressional district and they essentially said yes. that had to do with the voting rights act. this is the case having to deal with of the equal protection clause and the argument is that south carolina republicans when they drew their districts took race into account too much and intentionally kept a particular district at a particular number of african-american voters and even the supreme court has said lawmakers have a free hand to

gerrymander for political reasons. they still can't do it for racial reasons, so that's the issue of the south carolina case they will be considering next week. >> host: the guests work can be found on bloomberg.com. greg reports on the supreme court and set up the upcoming term. as always, thank you. a member of the budget committee also the energy commerce committee and one of those people yesterday that voted to support then a speaker mccarthy. good morning. >> guest: i think he has done a great job as the speaker and has shown outstanding leadership. it's unfortunate that this has happened. this is a sad day for america, for our conference, for the constituents in my district. this is historic. there is no question about it but we have to be realistic. the winners yesterday were the

democrats and they were the ones that one. the party lost and we lost a great leader and we also lost unfortunately a prolific fundraiser so we've got to rally around. we've still got a great conference and leaders in our conference and we will get another speaker. i think we've got a lot of talent. i look forward to us regrouping and coming out even stronger. >> host: this was spearheaded by others. why do you pay your attention to the democrats? >> guest: they voted with of the democrats. these eight people that voted to vacate the chair voted with the democrats and they were the winners and we were the losers, but we've got to get the train back on the track and we will. we are right on policy and that's the key. with all due respect, whatever

the reasons may have been, one of the reasons they keep pointing to is the fiscal sanity in washington, d.c. and i couldn't agree more that is something that we have got to give attention to. we've got to get our arms around this. if we don't, we are going to lose our country. and i don't say that just flippantly. i mean, that. we have got to get this budget under control. we've got to address our $30 trillion in debt. i will just give you an example. the number one responsibility and federal government is to protect our homeland. we can only do that through a strong defense. next fiscal year we will spend more on the interest on our data than we well on defense. if it is inexcusable and that's got to stop. we've got to stop running these 2 trillion-dollar budget deficits and adding to our debt. we've got to get back to a

responsible budget. i'm proud of the work we've done in the budget committee and we've actually passed out of committee a ten year budget that will give us a balanced budget and actually will save trillions of dollars over that period of time over 16 trillion. not only that, but it will bring us to a positive state of over $130 billion if we follow this plan that we have passed through the budget committee. >> host: guest with us until 10:00. 202-748-8001 for republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats. independent, 202-748-8002. text 748-8003. representative gates criticized speaker mccarthy for not going and focusing on single issue bills, the effort on the cr, the effort to cut spending. are those legitimate criticisms? >> guest: i would submit to

you that we have done more in the way of addressing single subject bills and addressing the preparations process van anytime, any other time in the nine years that i've been a member of this body. it's very unfortunate. i get the frustration and i would have liked to have seen the appropriation bills before now, but we are where we are and the only thing we can do is to do the best we can to catch up. we are behind already. that's why we had to pass the cr that gives us more time. about what was offered before i think is extremely important. what was voted down was including spending cuts. that's something we've never done before. we've never had a cr that included spending cuts. we had an opportunity to address what i consider to be one of the top issues in our country right now and that is the southern

border. we've got to secure the border. we had a hr two as part of what we had the opportunity to pass. that did not pass and then the speaker at the approval of the majority, the vast majority of the conference agreed to put a clean cr reauthorization and funding for fema and natural disasters on the floor and that past. what came out of that concerning the speaker of the house? >> we did have the meeting last night after the speaker's position was vacated and the speaker pro tem patrick mchenry told us that we would be back and have presentations from those who were interested in running for speaker and wednesday we would vote for a new speaker.