♪♪ it's your front row seat to democracy. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in where today members will be voting on the nomination of the director of national institute of health and senators will work on several u.s. district judicial nominations. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, the reverend dr. barry black will open the senate in prayer. the presiding officer: the

the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, source of our strength, we come to you today remembering that your presence, power, and purpose sustain us during life's dangerous days. it's comforting to know that in every situation, you are always present to empower us with your love and wisdom. today use our lawmakers as instruments of your peace and love. examine their hearts and minds, providing them with the courage to walk continually in your truth. look favorably upon their efforts to bring peace to a war

torn world and lord, bless our nation. bring healing to this land we love until all our stridings cease. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., november 7, 2023. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael g. warnock,

a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of health and human services. monica m. bertagnolli of massachusetts to be director of the national institutes of the national institutes of

guided unveils 16.4 million real grants that amtrak in the corridor article says that president joe biden and was playing for passenger rail projects that will benefit and amtrak travel by the commander-in-chief the president

speaking at the amtrak outline how the owner hall trains in infrastructure cost 25 real projects along the northeast quarter. let's take a look at what he said yesterday in delaware. >> when all this is done we will reduce in speed up the trees on the northeast quarter this matters for businesses trying to get to bismarck. it matters for the parents commuting to work in the morning, and matters for folks trying to get home and get to dinner. it matters arrived in the northeast corridor it's like taking 500,000 automobiles off the road every day this has phenomenal airtag. as we continue to invest across the country stating millions of barrels of oil a day, folks in

the congress are proposing to/amtrak's budget were try to make it easier, faster, safer, more reliable. we tried to make it slower, harder and less safe. you cannot make this stuff up. that's okay were not going to let them stop the progress that were making. i promise you. >> the former president also made news yesterday the leading kitted on the republican side. this is the new york times it says trying to do what you have accomplished, rain and trump through the first few hours of donald j trump's time on the witness stand, he and judge arthur traded irritated facial expressions, it says this is the first day of donald trump's

testimony of manhattan, the judge residing over the civil fraud case tried to do with hillary clinton as star-studded lineup of debate moderators and trump's lawyers could not make mr. trump stop talking. it was an unusual up close showdown. arthur a 74-year-old judge for wisecracks sat a few feet away from the prickly smirking former president whose bluster and bravado helped prepare him to the white house. that is the new york times and let's take a look of the former president did speaking to reporters after his testimony. >> i think it went very well you were there not a =convoaud it's something that's never happened before. the opportunist.

$8 million in its 5200 times the amount. [inaudible] it's taking weeks and weeks getting their wish i don't have to be here for the most part i be here because i want to be here this is a scam and that should've never been brought in this case should be dismissed. everybody saw what happened today and what happened with their star witness who admitted and never told him what he originally said i did. he admitted that he lied and absolutely no credibility whatsoever. that's the only witness and i didn't show the mood is very conclusive everything we do is absolutely right, to think that

were being sued and spend all this time and money and people being killed all over the world that this country could stop. the inflation and all the other problems that this country has i think it is a disgrace and when you look at the poll numbers that came out today from the new york times i'm sure the times was not too happy. but people are sick and tired of what's happening. i think it's a very sad day for america. anyways this case should've never been brought up to be immediately dismissed. >> that was yesterday and were taking your calls on the 2024 election. we will start with doug and ohio, independent. good morning. >> good morning how are you on this beautiful election day. i'm in pretty good shape myself. i just want to tell you next year i'll be voting for joe

biden because he's done a great job with the economy and the job situation. he supports unions. everything's going fine, these republicans are crazy in that big dumb hoople lupa on tv. i'm just telling you right now i think he's doing a great job and the economy is doing great, gas is a dollar less than bush ten years ago. back in 2008 gas $4.25. i'm paying $3 now. i'm telling you right now biden is doing a great job and there's 8 million other democrats and independents that voted for biden, h1 of us going to change our votes. thank you very much. >> justin and amarillo texas, good morning. >> how are you this morning. >> good. >> i'm going to be voting for

joe biden the selection and like the last caller as they gazed at a great job and people are crazy right now. >> on the republican line redding, california. >> good morning i would like to talk about misconceptions of ex-president trump. as a businessman somebody that started a lot of companies myself. when you start a company like donald trump did you form an llc around each country. when you're in bed with a

hundred companies and if you go bankrupt i don't care if it's a casino in atlantic city. a bad economic downturn that is only three out of a hundred. all you're left with to work on the clock i used to do it and i used to be a democrats. you can put that to bed and one other point, you know i'm getting old. >> who are you voting for. >> i will vote for president. >> i raised $55000 for obama and if i wanted him to run a third term i would've done it again but the first time i will vote for donald trump if he's in prison. i appreciate being able to speak

to you. >> let's take a look at facebook, josé simply says haley for president. and joey says doctor cornell west. scott says easy one thank you haley would be my first choice but if trump gets the nomination which it looks like, the democrats, i will vote for him again. speaking of thank you haley, there was a social media ad from a prodi santos super pac called never back down attacking thank you haley. take a look. >> avenue haley do you believe it advances u.s. interest to provide food, jobs, homes to the people of the west bank and gaza. >> yes i think we need to do whatever we can to protect the region. anytime we can help mankind. that is not the role of the u.s. to do that. i always say that continue. anytime we can help mankind i've always said that.

>> thank you haley argues in support of bringing gaza refugees to america by politico. thank you haley did not say she wants the u.s. to take and gaza refugees whether the u.s. should help published indians displaced by the israel hamas were in they should care about innocent civilians that were unwilling to take them, haley did not call for allowing refugees from gaza into the u.s. let's take a look at the response from the super pac supporting thank you haley about those attacks from ron desantis. >> pour ron desantis is losing, he is lying.

now he's throwing but it thank you haley, the truth. >> thank you haley has been clear the other arab countries should be the ones taking the palestinian. >> i always said we shouldn't take any gazan refugees in the u.s. two weeks, congress must work together to avoid another pointless, damaging, unnecessary government shutdown. we also must work together to defend america's national security around the world, by standing with israel, standing with ukraine, and increasing our defenses in the indo-pacific. and we must provide critical humanitarian assistance, including to civilians in gaza, who have nothing to do with hamas, who need food and water and shelter. none of this will be easy to do. none of this is guaranteed to happen. the outcome of the next two weeks will hang on the same thing i've emphasized all year long -- bipartisan cooperation. if republicans are willing to

work with democrats in good faith, on issues where there's real overlap, and there are many, then we can move forward on the things we must accomplish. but if republicans inject partisanship into otherwise bipartisan priorities, that is only going to make it harder to avoid a shutdown, pass israel aid, pass ukraine aid, pass humanitarian aid for gaza, and all. our other priorities. yesterday, a group of senate republicans released a proposal for border security that they want in exchange for ukraine funding, and they know full well what they came up with is a total nonstarter. instead of putting together commonsense border policies that can pass in divided government, senate republicans basically copy and pasted large chunks of the house's radical h.r. 2 bill. and that's their asking price for helping ukraine.

making ukraine funding conditional on the hard-right border policies that can't ever pass congress is a huge mistake by our republican colleagues. by tying ukraine to border, republicans are sadly making it harder, much harder, for us to help ukraine in their fight against putin. it sends a terrible signal to both our friends and adversaries. it will be a moment that history will remember, if ukraine aid is tied to this. large segments of both parties in the senate support ukraine. large segment of both parties in the senate support ukraine. why on earth do some republicans want to torpedo it by tying this h.r. 2 anchor to ukraine funding? this move is only going to endanger ukraine assistance in the long run. if senate republicans open bid

for border is an amalgration of -- amalgamation of policies, sadly the two parties are far apart and we have a lot of work to do to bridge the divide. i want to be clear, i'd like to bridge the divide and see commonsense border policies done, and the president would like to get something done. as his supplemental proposal shows. if we can come together in a bipartisan fashion to stop the flow of fentanyl and give our front line officers the resources and tools they need to do their jobs and stop fentanyl, all while staying true to our values, that's what we should be doing. today we're going to keep working with our republican colleagues to see if there's a chance for compromise. if republicans need to actually -- but republicans need to actually work with us on realistic border policies, even if it's not everything they want. you can't get just a few republicans who are pretty much

on the hard-right side of their party to say here's what we want, take it or leave it. that won't work. senate republicans should not repeat the mistake of the house gop when they tried to push h.r. 2. their h.r. 2 bill is going nowhere, and this senate gop proposal is very close to h.r. 2. i've always been clear that i'm ready to have open, good-faith bipartisan negotiations. i was one of the authors of the senate's comprehensive immigration bill from 2013. it was led by john mccain and me. i know what it's like to to have hard conversation about these issues. i know through firsthand experience this topic is not easy. but nevertheless, i'm willing to have conversations about the border again, if republicans are willing to meet us halfway. we have so many shared bipartisan priorities --

to protect our nation, our national security. i hope partisanship doesn't tarnish our shared purpose. i hope we can work in the coming days to bridge the gap. again, when republicans willingly inject partisanship into issues that could have some bipartisan overlap, they make it extremely hard to get anything done. i urge my republican colleagues to stop using the same approach again and again, of taking bipartisan issues and injecting them with corrosive partisan measures that help sink them. nominations -- well, mr. president, today is going to be a very important and good day on the senate floor. this morning, we'll confirm monica m. bertagnolli as the next director of the nih, national institute of health. later today, the senate will hit a new milestone in our record of confirming president biden's diverse, well-qualified judicial nominees, when we confirm two more district judges --

kenly kiya kato to serve in the center district of california, and julia e. kobick to serve in the district of massachusetts. with the confirmations today, the senate will hit two exciting milestones -- 150 total judges confirmed under president biden and 100 female judges confirmed under president biden. two-thirds of the judges we have confirmed are women, redressing an imbalance that existed for centuries. we have 150 judges now who have brought integrity and impartiality to the bench. we have 150 judges who have expanded the diversity and dynamism of our courts. we have 150 judges who are restoring america's trust in the federal judiciary. then, after that, we'll finally advance -- finally, after that, we'll advance the nomination of ramon ernesto reyes, jr. to be a district judge in the eastern district of new york, setting up his confirmation tomorrow.

last night, we filed cloture on additional judicial nominees. i'm extremely proud of the work we've done to confirm these 150 judges, including 100 women, to the federal bench. i'm extremely proud of the work we've done, again, to confirm these 150 judges. let me put it in perspective -- as of tonight, the senate will have confirmed the 100 women to the federal bench, nearly double that of president trump's entire first term, and more than the full first term of any recent president. these nominees are all historic, taken together, and many are historic in their own right. we confirmed the first black woman to the supreme court, the first muslim woman to the federal bench, and much more. this senate has now confirmed more women of col lore to the -- color to the bench than any senate under any previous president. we aren't done. we aren't done. we'll continue to advance

judicial nominations on the floor of this congress, and i thank my colleagues for their cooperation. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

in and around northern virginia in loudoun county and places like that. and now on turnaround richmond. virginia is one of the states in america with the divided legislature republican control the delegates in both by very narrow margins. it is possible. vernacular know tonight and will get on a canada and they will control both chambers and republicans will control both chambers or we can have a split decision. governor glenn youngkin has put a lot of his own political capital behind these contest it would make it easier if the legislature is entirely republican and a legislature in a purple state, we may see a

late entry into the race for the white house, glenn youngkin may jump in and tell his voters that he is the guy that could change a blue state into a purple state and make a last-minute run i don't really think that would change the dynamics of the republican nomination for president. but he may jump in anyway. >> read any other races that you are watching a be a bellwether for 2024. >> i would not say a bellwether but question two in ohio which would legalize marijuana for recreational purposes ohio would be the 25th state to legalize pot and there's an interesting energy initiative in maine where a group of supporters are trying to buy the assets of power generators and make a public utility company, the private utility company that is like

that they spent $35 million, that is a lot of money in the supporters spent about a million dollars and that is an interesting consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: 40 years ago last week troops chanting death to america and death to israel led iranian revolutionaries across tehran, overran the u.s. embassy, and took 66 americans hostage for 444 days. iran's war against america big satan, and israel as little satan, has continued ever since.

it's underwritten violence across the world. from the 1983 marine barracks bombing in beirut to the 1992 israeli embassy bombing in buenos aires to the 1996 khobar towers bombing in saudi arabia to hundreds of attacks master mastermind by soleimani on u.s. forces in iraq, tehran has invested its time and resources into cultivating the terrorists of hezbollah, hamas, and palestinian islamic jihad. the iranian regime bears

responsibility for their savagery, and it's also responsible for more than 100 attacks on u.s. personnel and interests in iraq and syria just since president biden took office. these attacks have spiked since october 7. two weeks ago an iranian-made suicide drone hit a u.s. military barracks in iraq. thankfully the drone's explosive payload failed to detonate. but the message it sent about the state of president biden's deterrence of the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism was as clear as day. in recent weeks u.s. forces in iraq and syria have been targeted at least another 38 times with lethal force and more

than 40 servicemembers have been injured. let me say that again. iran-backed terrorists have attacked u.s. forces at least 38 times since october 7. u.s. personnel are, of course, not the only targets of iranian war on western influence in the middle east. america's air be a allies have endured repeated attacks as well. this ongoing siege is not the behavior of an adversary that is being effectively deterred. and how we got here is no mystery. when the biden administration took office, it rushed to restore a failed nuclear agreement with an iranian regime that had long since proven it wasn't to be trusted.

when iran-backed houthi rebels killed three people at an airport in uae and aimed two ballistic missiles at its capital last year, the administration responded with silence. and in response to the latest wave of attacks on u.s. forces, the president authorized a strike on an ammunition facility. the secretary of state felt compelled to reiterate that and said, we are not looking for conflict with iran. so clearly iran is looking for conflict with us. the regime -- the iranian regime is working hard to kill americans, undermine our influence, and sow chaos among our allies, and so far you'd have to say they're succeeding.

hamas and palestinian islamic jihad perpetrated the deadliest day of violence against jews since the holocaust. hezbollah stands ready at iran's behest to escalate this conflict into a two-front war. and years of careful progress towards normalization of relations between israel and its arab neighbors has been stalled. demanding that israel cease-fire against hamas would lock in these gains for iran. it would grant am necessary cities for both the terrorists -- it would grant amnesty store both the terrorists and their sponsors. we have the responsibility to reject these deed manneds, not just on behalf of our ally israel but. as i've said before, effective

deterrence requires both capabilities and credibility. it requires that a global superpower actually act like one. in practical terms, deterring iran and its web of terrorists means meeting attacks on u.s. personnel in iraq and syria with swift, lethal, and overwhelming military force. it means working with allies to inhibit iran's support for terror t and it means finally taking the advice i offered president biden when he took office. set aside the failed nuclear deal, work with republicans, and build an iran policy that can endure long after he leaves office. now on another matter, at a hearing last week, the secretary of homeland security told our colleagues that, quote, ensuring the safety of the american

people is a national imperative and a government obligation. secretary mayorkas is absolutely right about that, but for someone who understands so clearly the duty of his office, the biden administration's border czar is utterly failing to execute it. after three straight years of record-shattering border apprehensions, the alarming details of the national security crisis unfolding at the southern border at this administration's watch are coming into clear focus. last fiscal year doesn't just set a new all-time record for border apprehensions of individuals on the terror watch list. it saw arrivals from countries beyond latin america triple. cbp are facing a human wave at the border, that according to

mexican officials hails from 120 different countries. and speaks 60 different languages. for three years, policy choice -- by policy choice, the administration has welcomed this historic flood of illegal immigration and set the brave men and women of customs and border protection up for failure. and it's abundantly clear that the solution to the administration's border crisis is by replacing bad policies with sensible ones. even secretary mayorkas admitted last week that, quote, policy changes are needed. but in reality it the supplemental request he's selling on behalf of the president is much less focused on fixing policy than on throwing money at the problem. instead of shutting off the

broken asylum incentives that are driving record arrivals, the administration wants to pay for faster asylum claim processing, grant fund beinging for cities t once claimed themselves sanctuary cities and accelerated work authorization for eligible noncitizens. well, the biden administration's border crisis has created a fork in the road. in the face of record illegal migration, democrats are focused more -- getting more people into our country faster, no matter the cost. meanwhile, senate republicans are focused on securing the border, putting the american people back at the forefront of our border policy, and i'm grateful for a group of our colleagues, led by senator

lankford, graham, thune, and cotton, who are working hard on proposals to do exactly that a exactly that. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: are we in a quorum call? i ask we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i wish this were not true and it's true in the united states and nowhere else. but on average 70 women across this country are killed each month by an intimate partner, a husband or a boyfriend mostly.

and most all of those murders are at the hands of a perpetrator with a firearm. in the united states women are 21 times more likely to be killed by a gun than women living in any other high-income nation. i get it that the numbers we throw around whether talking about the gun violence epidemic sometimes can get a little numbing and overwhelming. but that's a really damming, unconscionable statistic. if you live in america as a woman, most affluent, most powerful country in the world, you are not twice as likely to die as women in other countries at the hands of a firearm. you're not five times more likely. you're not ten times more likely. you are 21 times more likely.

living in the united states of america. to die from a gunshot wound as a woman than a woman living in any other high-income country. i'm not talking about comparing the towns some war-ravaged developing nation in the middle of civil conflict. i'm talking about comparing the united states to other peer nations. that's unacceptable. we made progress last year. we made progress last year because republicans and democrats came together and said you shouldn't be able to have a gun anywhere in this country if you have a judicial history, if you have a conviction related to domestic violence. we changed the law. we limited something called the boyfriend loophole so whether you're a introduce or intimate partner or dating partner, you now can't get your hands on a weapon, you can't buy one, have a weapon if you've been convicted of a domestic violence charge. that was good news. the reason that we did that despite the fact that the gun lobby opposed it is because the american public have just made up their mind on this question.

now, in general on most questions about keeping dangerous weapons away from dangerous people, 80%, 90% of americans have already decided that they would just rather err on the side of caution. the request -- specifically on this question domestic abusers from owning guns, 80% of americans support that it's hard to get 80% of americans to support anything in this country. this is maybe the most popular public policy intervention in america today, stopping domestic abusers from getting firearms. and so the gun lobby and the gun industry which wants to sell weapons to everybody regardless of their criminal status cannot win that fight here in the united states senate. they lost that fight last year because the american public had made up their mind. you're likely not getting reelected to congress from a

swing state or district if you are voting against measures to take guns away from domestic abusers. but here's the problem with the state of american politics today. there are now two legislative law making bodies. one of them is the united states congress. the other is across the street at the supreme court. and so over and over again when an industry or a right-wing interest group can't move the laws of congress in their favor because the american public is so wildly against their priority, they just shift the venue of the fight across the street to the supreme court. and that is what's happening right now as we speak on this question of keeping guns away from domestic abusers. today the supreme court is hearing the case of united states versus rahami.

let me tell you a little bit it. rahami was a drug -- has a history of firing guns in public places. in the winter the 2019 he had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot. she tried to walk away knowing about his pension for -- penchant for violence. he knocked her to the ground, dragged her to the car, picking her up and throwing her into the vehicle causing her to hit her head on the side of the vehicle. upon realizing that a person witnessed the assault, he retrieved a gun and fired a shot into the air during which time his girlfriend escaped. it won't surprise you that his girlfriend went and got a restraining order against him. he was vicious and violent firing guns in public into the

air as a means to threaten her. he -- she went and got a restraining order. that restraining order required him to be noticed to the criminal background check system so he couldn't own or buy guns. 83% of americans think that's a great idea. somebody with that kind of dangerous history with an active restraining order against them should not be able to buy a gun or possess guns. that was the law in texas at the time. it worked for this woman who is being badly abused and her life was unquestionably under threat. rahimi thinks he should have the guns. thinks that notwithstanding his long criminal history, the restraining order, that the constitution requires him a domestic abuser, to have weapons. and so he has brought a case that has reached the supreme

court asking to invalidate all laws that keep weapons away from domestic abusers who are subject of restraining orders. if this case is decided in his favor, it is not just an outrage, it is not just dangerous, it is a frontal assault on democracy because what it would say is that the supreme court, not the united states congress, not the elected branch of government, is going to micromanage the decisions as to who can have a gun and who can't have a gun. they will decide whose dangerous and who's not dangerous. and that should make you really nervous if the outcome of this case is to decide that zachey rahimi is a responsible individual cape annual of owning and possessing more weapons. later in that year, rahimi threatened another woman with a

gun which resulted that time in a charge of aggravated assault. rahimi then participated in five separate shootings, five separate shootings, all of which were in public places. he was arrested, convicted of possessing a firearm. he was ultimately sentenced for these crimes for a long time in jail. so restraining orders are designed to look at someone, assess their penchant for violence and then take guns away from them to protect a spouse or a woman or a girlfriend. rahimi was violent. he was wildly violent after the restraining order. this is exactly who the law in texas is designed to protect us from. and yet we are perhaps weeks away from the supreme court invalidating that law, invalidating connecticut's law,

invalidating georgia's laws so that domestic abusers with histories of vicious assault can get their hands back on weapons. but this should come as no surprise to americans because we have won this fight, this fight to start moving the laws in this country towards common sense. we want people to have a right to own firearms. i believe in the second amendment. i believe the second amendment protects the right of private gun ownership. i do. but i think that there's a class of individuals, a pretty small class of individuals who have demonstrated so clearly that they are so dangerous and so irresponsible with firearms that they should not have them. it is a small class of individuals but zackey rahimi is clearly in that class and the idea that we are weeks away from somebody like him being able to get guns again should shake this country to its foundation.

maybe the supreme court listens to america. maybe they don't. but this country needs to understand the gravity of the decision that is being made. and the wholesale shift that will occur in legislating on the question of gun safety. if rahimi wins this case, we are no longer in charge. the supreme court will now on a case-by-case baifers decide who can have a -- basis decide who can have a gun and who can't. frankly, that's bad for progressives and supporters of gun violence. that's bad for conservatives as well because once the supreme court gets in the business of that kind of micromanaging, we are all out of jobs. we'll just show up to work, punch our clock, but really have nothing to do because they ultimately will pull the strings. they will substitute themselves as the new governing policymaking body in this country. and with the stakes so high for women's safety in this country, with 70 women dying every month

at the hands of an intimate partner, we can't -- we cannot let that happen. i yield the floor.

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, we've had no shortage of replienldzers in the last couple of years that we continue to live in a dangerous world. vladimir putin's war of

aggression in ukraine, increased chinese beligerance and hamas october 7 attack enabled by iran are all powerful reminders of the fact that there will always be malign actors in this world who must be confronted. these events are also a powerful reminder of something else. and that is the need for american leadership on the global stage. nature abhors a vacuum. and if the united states and other free countries don't lead, other countries will fill the void. countries like iran, russia, and china. i don't need to tell anyone all three of these countries have been flexing their power and seeking to expand their footprint. iran is hamas' recent attacks reminded us is supporting terrorist organizations throughout the middle east. hamas, hezbollah, palestinian islamic jihad, the houthis in yemen, shi'ia militias attacking

u.s. troops in iraq and syria. the list goes on. nor is iran con finding its fear of activities to meestled countries, providing russia with weapons to use in its war in ukraine and is helping russia to build its own drone-manufacturing facility to dramatically increase russia's dloan supply. russia, of course, is currently providing the world with a clear indication of it's aspirations in ukraine. putin made it clear his ambitions don't end there. he's also occupying territory in georgia and seemingly working on asserting russian influence in moldova and the balkans. as for china, whether it's increasingly aggressive threats against taiwan, efforts to expand military and economic hold over the indo-pacific, menacing u.s. military aircraft, or sending a spy balloon across the united states in an attempt to gather information on sensitive military sites, china has made it very clear that it

is set on expanding its power and woe to anyone who gets in its way. it is backing up its determination with an aggressive military buildup that has seen the chinese military outpace the u.s. military in modern capabilities like hypersonic missiles. so, mr. president, it's abundantly clear that bad actors are flexing their power, and as i said, our response to that must be a renewed commitment to american leadership internationally. that adopt mean attempting to fix every country's problems or to get militarily involved in every conflict around the globe. we neither can nor should attempt to become the world's policemen, but that doesn't mean we should retreat from the global stage or confine our focus to one or two areas. there's a lot we can do to while not attempting to play global

policemen or to solve every conflict. in the first place, we can and should project the kind of strength that makes bad actors unwilling to tangle with us or our allies. that means having a strong military prepared to meet and defeat any threat, backed up by resilient supply chains. but it also means things like a strong economy and developing our energy resources so that we don't have to depend on hostile countries or areas of the world for oil. military and economic strength is a powerful deterrent, but it's not enough. we also have to engage on the global stage. we need to build and maintain relationships with allies, support free nations and stand against hostile actions by hostile countries. the stronger the bonds of free nations and the more united our response to belligerent countries, the less scope these countries will have for their aggression. the world stage is going to be

dominated by someone, mr. president, and when free countries abdicate a leadership role, malign actors are likely to control the playing field. mr. president, some might suggest that the united states should only engage globally when events directly and immediately affect us. but unfortunately, that thinking often involves underestimating how much we are affected by world events. even those not a direct and meet attack on the united states' interests. some would question our continued support for ukraine. well, mr. president, i question what will happen if we don't support ukraine. withdrawing american support for ukraine could end up with a victorious and emboldened putin on the doorstep of four former soviet satellite states, now nato members whom we are bound by treaty to protect. if putin wins in ukraine, it's

not hard to imagine him viewing incursions into one or more of these former soviet states as a good idea. given our treaty obligations, and the imperative to prevent a soviet union 2.0rbgs it's not hard to -- 2.0, it's not hard to imagine american troops drawn into the resulting conflict. supporting ukrainians' efforts to defend themselves against putin's war of aggression is a way of preventing a conflict that would require a far greater commitment from the united states. not to mention warning off a likely catastrophic economic fallout in which -- in europe from a wider war, which would take a heavy toll on american businesses and consumers. furthermore, there's little question that a russian victory in ukraine would embolden not just putin but other malign actors, notably china. if russia is successful at taking over part or all of ukraine, why shouldn't china think it can successfully take

over taiwan? we should be supporting ukraine, not just because peoples fighting for freedom against tyranny are worthy of support, but because supporting ukraine, like supporting taiwan and israel and other free countries, is in our national interest. but mr. president, we should support ukraine with an end game in mind. saying we'll back ukraine for as long as it takes, as the president likes to say, is noble, but not being intentional about the resources we send risks prolonging this war without advancing toward that end state. we can't expect ukraine to tread water indefinitely, and i'm hopeful that the arrival of m-1 abrams tanks, longer reaching atacms missiles and soon f-16's, while too late to meaningfully contribute to ukraine's summer counteroffensive, will enable ukraine to make new battlefield gains. mr. president, the senate will

soon take up a supplemental spending bill to address defense issues, and any such bill should promote security abroad by providing support for our allies, specifically right now ukraine, israel, and taiwan. after three successive years of record-breaking illegal immigration at our southern border, we should make sure that any supplemental also focuses on building up our security here at home by tightening security at our borders in addition to addressing military priorities like ramping up munitions production. senators graham, lankford and cotton produced a substantive plan to help secure the border and stem the historic level of illegal migration under this president's watch. we should take up their proasm to address this essential aspect of our national security. mr. president, we can't solve every problem or bring peace to every conflict around the world, but the united states can be a

powerful force for good if we're willing to lead. we should use our strength and influence to contain evil actors and advance peace and freedom around the globe. fail to do -- failing to do so may have consequences for our national security now and long into the future. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. marshall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: mr. president, what if it was your family in these body bags? what if your wife, your daughter, or your mom were raped, tortured, and killed? what if videos of your baby or your grandchild being massacred were posted all over social media? what if a month had passed and there's been no meaningful action from your ally, the most powerful nation in the world? mr. president, i stand here today to right this wrong. today, we will show the world that once again america will be there to do justice, to stand up for humanity and ensure hamas does not become more powerful. as i stand in this chamber we have the opportunity to send a real message to iran and its terrorist proxies that we will stop their hatred and evil from

spreading. this morning, i rise in support of the bipartisan house-passed standalone legislation to provide aid to the people of israel, our strongest ally in the middle east, during their ongoing war with hamas. it's hard to believe that today marks a month, a month since the october 7 savage attacks by the hamas army of terror on the people of israel. hamas unleashed an attack that was worse than animals, killing thousands of israelis and 36 american citizens. right now, there are as many as 240 people taken hostage by these savages that only know one language -- death and destruction. right now, there are families of hostages here at the united states capitol begging for their loved ones to be no longer tortured, for their loved ones to reach safety from the grips

of this evil army of terror. mr. president, time is of the essence and it's imperative that the senate not delay delivering this crucial aid to israel another day. a timely military aid package with a unified voice from congress showing support for israel will not only add to israel's stability, it will slow down and hopefully stop the evil plots of hamas, iran, and its prorks -- proxies. our bill provides military assistance and resource to israel at the exact spending levels the biden administration has requested, and i want to emphasize these. these are the exact spending levels president biden put forth that he agrees israel needs this this -- there this time of war. you can imagine my surprise, the surprise of many to hear that our commander in chief omitted a significant -- admitted this

crisis has threatened to veto this aid package. think about this. our president is threatening to veto the aid he requested from congress. but this veto, with this he would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. and why? why, many, many people are asking. just because it isn't being leveraged for a $105 boondoggle package with another blank check to another -- $ $105 billion-dollar boondoggle package. today, we will call the president's bluff and present this in a bipartisan virks rick for the -- victory for the white house. we must fast track this to one of our staunchest allies, the people of israel. if this military aid and our strong message of support is not delivered soon, israel will find itself fighting a war on three fronts. we know that iran has those capabilities, that through their proxy forces they have the ability to send long-range missiles to israel from lebanon

and yemen. helping our ally, who is fighting a war from all angles against hamas, shouldn't require a prolonged battle in congress. this is a no-brainer and should have been done yesterday or the week before. mr. president, the support for this package to israel is bipartisan and bicameral. again, our legislation honors the spending levels outlined by the biden administration for israel and keeps aid to israel separate from the other conflicts. what i want to make perfectly clear to every american is that our standa loan package is -- stand alone package is an opportunity for a huge bipartisan win for all of humankind and get aid to israel quickly. the legislation we brought to the floor today ensures that funding for israel is notd withs with dirbled money to -- additional money. by passing the stand alone

spending bill, the senate will expedite the arrival of the assistance to israel after the house and newly elected speaker, mike johnson, passed with bipartisan support. now, many of us have concerns about the ukraine conflict, but until the white house answers the 12 questions posed by the house, including the need for an inspector general and a clear-cut peace strategy, many of us will continue to block sending billions more in dollars to what looks like a stalemate that has already tragically cost over 200,000 lives. here in the home front, what's even more disheartening for the american people is this white house embracing open-border policies to allowed almost ten millions, that's right, almost ten million illegal crossings of our border, making every state a border state and every american less safe. it's a poke in the eye to every member of congress who has been to the border and advocated for border security. this president sends us a

$105 billion bill, gaslighting the american people with a small fraction of this going to israel, and funds to make our border even more porous, more open, with an asylum-assist program on steroids. this is a slap in the face and disrespectful for the families who have lost a loved one to the fentanyl crisis. for the communities who are overwhelmed by our open borders and for every american who feels less and less safe in their own homes every day. this is the only -- this package the white house has given us is the only unserious packages given us. each of these issues should be debated fully, completely, and individually. but today on this senate floor we have the opportunity to make a difference for the people of israel and all mankind. the legislation we've brought to the floor would provide $14 billion to israel, including

$3.5 billion for foreign military financing and $200 million in diplomatic funding to help protect the u.s. embassy and personnel. this bill would provide funding for the iron dome and defend systems. it would allow the u.s. to stockpile more weapons. this bill strips all aid to gaza, which we know is frequently commandeered by hamas. all this will make israel safer and help stop in war, and, yes, israel has the right to defend itself and to defend its people. our legislation is a real opportunity to find common ground and unite here to help our ally. it passed the 226 bipartisan votes in the house. let's pass this bill for israel right now. the house moved quickly to deliver this legislation to us here in the senate. we should do the same and get it

to the president's desk today. now today i'm pleased to be joined by one of my colleagues from the great state of ohio, senator vance, in leading this effort in the senate and pushing for its passage today. society we don't delay this critical -- so we don't delay this critical funding for our greatest ally in the middle east, israel, and stop the spread of terror. i yield the floor to the gentleman from ohio. mr. vance: i appreciate my colleague from kansas -- the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. vance: thank you. i appreciate my colleague from kansas making a forceful case for why this package is necessary. we have been told by the president, we have been told by our israeli allies, we have been told by a number of national security experts that israel is in a fight for its life, not just against an enemy in israel, but radical islamic terrorism that often has and is planning as we spook to -- as we speak to

come to our shores. this package gives the president the exact amount of money he has asked for. what is different about our bill, what is different about the house's bill that it already passed is that, from what the president has requested is twofold. this is ready to go today. if we pass this package today, aid would flow to our israeli allies immediately. the other difference from the president's $ $106 billion behemoth, this is a single problem. the world is complicated. of course the world has intertwined complexities, but we should have enough respect not for the respect to debate these issues distinctly. many of my completion may forget that a matter of -- many of my colleagues may forget that there were people in this chamber, there were people in the united states of america demanding that

the state of israel give money and weapons to the ukrainians, money and weapons that the israelis are now using this very moment to defend themselves. the idea that these policies are not intentioned with one another, the idea that what happens in russia and ukraine is separate from what happens in israel is common sense and born out by the reality of the last couple of weeks. too many of my colleagues would like tollapse these packages because they would like to use israel as a political fig leaf for the president's ukraine policy. but the president's ukraine policy should be debated. we should talk about it. we should discuss it. we should separate the costs and benefits and analyze them as distinct policies because that's what the american people deserve of their legislature. now, there are many questions we could ask about the ukraine policy and many issues that have gone completely unanswered. number one, what is our end goal

in ukraine? you hear commonly that the goal is to throw the russians out of every ounce of ukrainian territory and yet when you talk to the president's own administration in private, they admit that that is a strategic impossibility. let me repeat that. no rational human being in the president's administration believes that it is possible to throw the russians out of every inch of ukrainian territory. so why is that the public justification offered by many advocates of indefinite, unlimited ukrainian aid? because this debate is fundamentally dishonest. we are not telling the american people the truth bass we know that if we -- because we know that if we did tell them the truth, they would not support an indefinite flow of money to ukraine. what are we doing, ladies and gentlemen? how long is this supposed to go on? how much money are we expected to send? what is the strategic objective? what are we trying to do? are we monitoring the fact that

we have spent nearly $200 billion, if the supplemental passes, $200 billion to one. most corrupt countries in the world? do we have proper assurances that all of that money is being spent on the things that we tell ourselves that it's being spent on? the answer of course is no because we have not had a real debate in this chamber. the american people, i think, should be ashamed of us for that fact. let me offer just one final observation here. you have heard in this chamber, you've heard even today that the ukraine policy was born of a spirit of bipartisan agreement, that we had this moment where democrats and republicans recognized that it was very, very important to help the ukrainians push back against the russian attack. and of course we support and praise our ukrainian friends. they've done a lot more than

many people gave them credit for. for 30 years washington, d.c., has run on bipartisan policy wisdom and it has run this country to the ground, with $1.7 trillion deficits, war after war after war that has killed thousands of americans, millions of other people, and has not led to the strategic strength of this country. it was great bipartisan agreement after september 11 that threw saddam out of iraq and of course a the love people celebrated it until we right now realized that iraq is a client state of iran. maybe what we should is some bipartisan wisdom that the foreign policy consensus of this country for the last three decades has been a disaster. it's been a disaster for this country, it's been a disaster for our dead marines, army soldiers, navy sailors, and air force airmen. it has been a disaster for this country's finances, and it has been a disat the for the --

disaster for the entire world. let's have a real debate. we've haven't had one in 30 years. mr. president, i yield to my distinguished colleague from florida. mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: the terror and devastation released on israelis has rightly horrified the world. innocent families were murdered in their homes, children were beheaded, girls were raped, whole families were burned alive, and elderly wheelchair-bound woman later identified as a holocaust survivor was brutally dragged through the streets of gaza. people are being held hostage by hamas. hundreds were mowed down about - mow down at a music festival. the images we've seen will never leave our memories.

in 12013 my wife and i had the opportunity to visit one of the kibbutz that was a site to a complete massacre. when i heard the news that it was the site of one of the most horrific and elbaradeiic activities, my -- and barbaric acentersties, my heart sank. it is gut-wrenching to think of the fate of the families. i spoke with the lady had a led our tour of the kibbutz who was traveling outside of israel that day and survived. i was able to speak to her after it happened and she has not been able to go back home. she said it's unclear if she will ever be able to go back home. can you imagine? so many in this chamber are so deeply connected to israel. i bet almost everyone here has a story like mine.

we know people who have been called a s sext rv. i know of survivors and hostage families. i place add poster outside my office that features the faces of the hostages being held by hamas. not since the holocaust has the world witnessed such a brutal attack on the jewish people. you have to really let that sink in. it's 2023 and it feels like history is repeating itself. we have a president who can barely speak about the hostages being held right now. the first step is passing aid for israel. we must send the world a clear message attack ago the united states and our allies and partners is a bad idea. it will only end with us winning. in the days and weeks ahead, israel is going to once and for all destroy hamas and it's ability to exist as a terror

state on israel's border. the united states has to support israel right now and ensure that they have the weapons they need to completely destroy hamas. that's why i'm proud to join senators marshall, vance and our colleagues on this bill. the house took decisive answer by passing this bill last week. the measure is fully paid for. the senate can follow suit right now. i am proud to colead the companion bill in the senate. i yield back to my colleague from kansas. mr. marshall: [inaudible] i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 6126 which was received from the house. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there any objection?

mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: reserving the right to object, there are some fundamental flaws in the arguments that my colleagues are making for the senate to do only half of its job. to say nothing of the partisan so-called pay-for here which is a giveaway to billions that actually costs our nation money and sets a dangerous precedent that our allies are fair game to be used as partisan bargaining chips. first, we should not be pitting funding for israel against funding for ukraine and other needs. there is no need, given the widespread support for providing assistance to both nations on both sides of this aisle. there's strong support for providing the assistance the president requested for israel, and there is also bipartisan supermajorities in both the house and senate in favor of ukraine aid. that is because most of us, on both sides of the aisle,

understand that while there are important differences, the challenges we and our allies are facing around the world today are connected. just last month, over 300 house members voted for ukraine aid, so pretending that this doesn't have the votes to pass the house simply doesn't pass muster. there is strong support here in congress to address these urgent priorities in one package, and that is exactly what i am working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do right now. secondly, our allies in ukraine can no more afford a delay than our allies in israel. ukraine is at a critical point in a brutal war to defend its sovereignty against putin's bloody invasion. we must not give putin a win and throw ukraine to the wolves for political expediency. after all, what sort of message

does it send about our commitment to our allies if we delay ukraine aid further? especially after we have already missed our earlier opportunities to get this done. for american leadership to have any weight in the world, our word has to mean something. our commitments have to be ironclad. that means we do not abandon our allies in their time of need, period. failing to stand by ukraine now will only embolden putin and other dictators looking to trample democracies, which brings me to my last point -- while the challenges that we and our partners face across the globe have different natures and nuances, we have to be strategic enough to understand that they are connected. they are urgent, and they should be addressed as part of one package.

the chinese government is watching how we respond to putin's aggression in ukraine. putin is wanting the hamas attack to give him an opening to distract the world from aiding ukraine against his brutal invasion. in fact we knee -- we know thata hamas delegation visited moscow recently. make no mistake, hamas is hoping that we ignore the humanitarian needs in gaza so it can drive people to despair and anger and ultimately extremism. when it comes to humanitarian aid, making sure that people have food and water and medical care isn't just the right and moral thing to do, it is also very clearly in our national interest as it promotes long-term stability and security combatting hopelessness that can

spiral into new threats. our adversaries are watching closely to see whether we have the vision to recognize how these crises are related and the resolve to come together and respond forcefully to them. we need to send a strong message, and the way we do that is by passing a strong security package. we are working to get together right now to get that done, and i urge all of our colleagues to support us in those efforts. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: reserving my right to object, i too believe with my colleague from washington state, we must move forward with emergency funding for our allies, all of our allies, not just the state of israel but also ukraine. i also think we have to move quickly to head off closure or a shutdown of our government next

week, and we have to address the pressing need of the american people in this process. but it's very clear that this proposal before us, this unanimous consent to pass the bill including only funds for israel is just an attempt to deny assistance to ukraine. it's not really about helping israel. it's about making sure we don't continue to keep our commitments to ukraine. and we have had a debate about ukraine. we have talked over two years about ukraine, how dangerous russian aggression can be not just with respect to the people of ukraine, but to the rest of the world. as my colleague said, china is watching. in fact, i think they're paying more attention to ukraine than the current issue in israel because putin's imperialistic dreams of restoring the russian

empire resonate mows closely to xi jinping's imperialist dreams to reunite taiwan to china. so if we fail in ukraine, i think that will send a very strong and unfortunate message to china that you can attack, wait the west out, and eventually they'll concede. that's not good strategy or policy. my colleagues argue that this will deny israel getting the means to defend themselves. well, we have already been supporting the state of israel. we have moved two aircraft task forces into the region. we're moving marines into the region. we are sending signals that we are strongly protecting them. indeed, we have already engaged and shot down missiles aimed at israel from our naval forces.

and we have also suffered 40 injuries of american military personnel because of actions against the united states positions in the middle east because of our protection for israel. we cannot abandon ukraine. they have lost hundreds of thousands of civilians and military personnel. if you want to talk about horrors, january 7 was a horrible day. i was in israel. i saw photographs, some that have not yet been released, of the tragedy. it was traumatic for the entire state of israel. but go to ukraine. go to bucha. dig up the graves of people shot in the back of the head while their hand were tied. you want to talk about atrocities? those are atrocities. so we are fighting forces that are dark and evil, and we have

to support all of those democratic nations, israel and ukraine, who are struggling against that darkness. this is not my opinion alone. last week mike pompeo, the former secretary of state for donald trump and a former congressman from senator marshall's home state of kansas wrote, quote, make no mistake, the outcome of this war will have a direct impact on u.s. national security -- speaking of ukraine. should putin prevail, whether on the battlefield or through a war of attrition that leads to ill-conceived diplomacy, the war will be felt well beyond ukrainians' borders. indeed i would add if we fail to support ukraine with funding and equipment that it is more likely that young american servicemembers will be called upon to fight and die and suffer

in eastern europe. because as so many of my colleagues have suggested, as secretary pompeo suggested, putin will not be satisfied with simply taking ukraine, and we could see ourselves engaged in defending one of our nato allies. that is a very simple sort of notion about american military policy. i would rather send wrowrts -- resources to a country fighting than send american soldiers to do the fighting. and if we don't support ukraine, that will happen. now this is a situation that calls on us to do the right thing, and we have to do the right thing. but this is not something that we can do separate one from another, because as we have all said, there is a connectivity

here, and this connectivity has to be recognized. now the other point i would make too is that this bill is paid for. now this, to me, is one of the most startling aspects of the legislation that the gentleman from kansas is promoting, because they've paid for it by taking money away from the internal revenue service. some would say they are using the israeli crisis as a way to do what so many of my republican colleagues like to do, give tax breaks to the wealthy. because when you take money away from the irs, you go ahead and ensure that people can feel much more comfortable about not paying their taxes as they should. "the wall street journal" published an article a few days ago. in 2021, the irs failed to

collect $660 billion-plus that was owing to the united states of america. that is many times this supplemental we're talking about no financial institution would take money away from its bill collectors on the notion that, oh, that's okay. only in washington would we do that. this bill is thus irresponsible in the way it is paid for and irresponsible in ignoring our commitment to the ukraine. it's time to get serious. we have ten days before our government runs out of funding. israel needs our support. ukraine need our support. american families and communities are counting on us to deliver critical disaster assistance. they need support for

affordable, high-quality child care. they need home energy, they need many things that are also at a crisis level, and we don't have time. we don't have time to entertainer tain -- to entertain political gestures, to send a signal to israel and a signal to the rich in america that we're with you and neglect and leave out yiewks -- ukrainians who are struggleing to continue this fight in europe. ultimately i feel if we don't respond appropriately forcing us to send men and women into the fight. i commend chair collins for standing up for this country and for our allies. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: reserving the right to object. mr. president, as the chair of the senate foreign relations committee, i've come to the floor to speak about hamas'

attack on israel. i joined with senator reed, ten senators, five democrats, five republicans, to visit israel two weeks ago. we saw the brutality of hamas firsthand. we met with the families of the hostages. we made it clear that we stand with israel's right to defend itself, and we strongly support president biden's efforts in the supplemental appropriation to provide those funds to israel. so why am i have concern about the unanimous consent request that has been presented? because it is not bipartisan. if you want to look at bipartisanship, look at the work of senator murray and senator collins on the appropriations committee. they've worked to get the type of unity we need in order to pass appropriations bill and get them into law, consistent with the agreements that were reached earlier this year, recognizing

the division in our congress. we need to have a bipartisan supplemental appropriations bill on the floor as quickly as possible. so i'm extremely disappointed by the action of the house because it's urgent that we consider the supplementalary appropriations bill. and because of the action in the house, it will now be delayed. make no mistake about that. if the house would have acted in a responsible bipartisan way, including the package that was submitted by president biden, we had an excellent opportunity to pass a supplementary appropriations bill before november 17, the date, by the way, that our continuing resolution expires. i am now deeply concerned as a result of what happened in the house as to whether we're going to be able to get that supplementary appropriations bill done before november 7.

and it's urgent that we do this. so let me speak about ukraine. ukraine is the front line in defense of democracy. we know that russia's invasion of ukraine was not just aimed at taking over ukraine. mr. putin would not stop with ukraine. the baltic states are clearly in his vision. moldova, georgia, and beyond. and as chairman reed pointed out, senator reed pointed out, it's a lot better for us to have the front line with the use of our funds defending our democracy than having to send american soldier to europe. it's urgent we get assistance to ukraine. we missed an opportunity two months ago. we've got to show the world that we are committed to defense of democracy. u.s. leadership.

just think about the message it would send if we say we're going to help israel, but i'm sorry, ukraine, we don't have time for you. that's giving mr. putin a gift. we can't do that. u.s. leadership is critically important. we need to make sure that we provide the leadership. and, quite frankly, our allies around the world are joining us, providing more than we are. but it is absolutely essential that america leads and we must get this ukrainian aid moving forward. we need to do it in a bipartisan way. it's a good investment. it's a good investment in protecting our democracy in ukraine. it's a good investment in degrading russia's military. let me try to connect the dots here if i might, because russia's war of aggression in ukraine is very much related to hamas' attack in israel.

two of the most dangerous and brutal dictatorships in the world, iran and north korea, have joined forces with putin to support russia's war efforts. make no mistake about it, it was russia that invaded ukraine. iran's proxy, hamas, attacked israel. connect the dots. we can't ignore russia and think we're going to be safe in the middle east. we need to provide the type of security that will help us with our own national security. iran is building factories in russia to pump out new drones. north korea is sending munitions to help putin rearm his forces. we need a supplemental appropriation package that counters all of these threats, and we need to do it now. so for the sake of our national

security, we can't waste time. that's exactly what the house is doing by sending us this supplementalary appropriation. we need to come together and show the leadership, bipartisan leadership in the senate, keep the package together. let's put america's security first and let's get to work immediately. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: reserving the right to object. our colleague has come to the floor and asked for unanimous consent for a bill of some major significance. this bill deliberately throw ukraine under the bus by ripping ukraine out of the emergency supplemental. this bill would have a very powerful and consequential impact. it would allow ukraine to be torn apart by putin's savage invasion. in the process, it will shatter

the atlantic alliance, it will fracture nato, it will destroy american leadership in defending democracies, and it will empower dictators around the world, dictators who conclude they can outlast a coalition of democratic republics when a dictator seeks to congress -- conquer a neighbor. the last time we saw this was when chamberlain went to munich. he said that he could take a big slice of czechoslovakia and look the other way, chamberlain declared peace in our time, but it did not produce peace in our time. instead, it stoked hitler's appetite for conquering adjacent land, it set the stage for the

second world war with a massive loss life and treasure of americans and life and treasure of many nations around the world. i tell you this, appeasing putin today is as wrong and mistaken as appeasing hitler was 85 years ago. we must stand with the freedom-loving, fierce-fighting, democracy defending people of the republic of ukraine. if you love putin, then by all means support this bill. if you love china and want to stoke china's appetite to invade taiwan, then by all means, support this bill. but if you love freedom, if you love democracy, if you respect the courage and the fortitude of the freedom-loving people of ukraine, if you oppose

democracy, crushing authoritarians wherever they are wound, then oppose this bill. there must be no putin appeasement on the floor of this senate. there must be no complicity in creating a munich moment and so, mr. president, i join my colleagues in preparing to object to this bill. i yield to my colleague from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: reserving the right to object. at this moment of danger and peril around the world, we, the united states, must support our friends and democracies that are under attack from brutal adversaries. that means ensuring that israel has the right to defend itself in the aftermath of the brutal october 7 attack of hamas. it also means ensuring that the

people of ukraine can defend themselves against putin's rank aggression. this proposal on the floor today is tantamount to surrounding to putin's aggression. this is waving the white flag. all of us were gathered in the old senate chamber, most of us, recently when president zelenskyy addressed the united states senate. president zelenskyy was very clear. that the ukrainians would continue to fight on no matter what, but he was equally clear that without the support of the united states and our allies, putin has the upper hand, and it becomes a matter of time. as we speak here, the ukrainians are shedding blood. they are giving their lives. for god's sakes, the least we can do is continue to provide them with the military and other assistance they need to fight off aggression, and time is of

the essence in ukraine. as my colleagues have said, this is not only about defending democracy and sovereignty in ukraine, it's about the credibility of the nato alliance and our other european partners who have come together to say to putin, we stand together against your aggression. the united states takes a walk, it sends a terrible signal not just to ukraine, but to all of our nato partners with whom we also say we have shared security interest. they see the united states walk away, it undermines the credibility of the entire alliance, not just with respect to ukraine, but with respect to any further aggression by putin or others. and it's not just about the nato alliance. as my colleagues have said, this is also about other autocrats around the world who are watching very closely what happens in ukraine, including what happens with respect to

u.s. support in ukraine. president xi is watching very closely as he keeps one eye on taiwan. so make no mistake about it. you can't get out here on the senate floor and say you want to help protect taiwan, say that you want to be tough on china when you're weak on ukraine because what happens in ukraine has a direct bearing on what happens to taiwan and a direct bearing on xi's aggression in the indo-pacific region. you can't have it both pace. -- ways. that has been clear from our allies in east asia talk to the leaders in japan, talk to people in the republic of korea, talk to others in the indo-pacific, they say if the united states walks on assistance to ukraine, that our credibility will be totally undermined with respect

to our allies in the indo-pacific, and that president xi will have the upper hand there. so let's not pretend we're tough on china when you're weak on ukraine. finally, as the chair of the appropriations pointed out, embedded in this proposal is also what appears to be a very cynical effort to actually use the claim of supporting israel in order to secure relief for very rich taxpayers in the united states. this cuts funding from the irs that the irs will use to enforce current law against very wealthy americans who are not paying the taxes that already due and owing. so under the cover of this bill, our republican friends apparently want to help out very wealthy taxpayers who aren't

paying their fair share, which is why the congressional budget office has said that even when you cut the moneys to the irs, it's going to actually increase the deficit. the provision that the house had to cut funding for irs, which i guess they thought they were going to fool people into thinking it was going to cover the cost of helping israel, it doesn't do that. it actually adds to the deficit. why? because the irs will not be table to enforce current tax law against very wealthy americans who refuse to pay their fair share. i know republicans are always looking for a way to give the very wealthy and the very rich a free ride, but this takes cynicism to a new level. so i propose that we come back to the senate floor with a proposal that does the right thing to support and defend israel and its attacks against

hamas, attacks from hamas, but also does the right thing for ukraine, for the credibility of the nato alliance, for the credibility of our alliances in the indo-pacific, for the people of tawn, and make sure that -- tawn, and make sure that this isn't used as a cover to give very wealthy people in the united states for the taxes they are due and owing. so, mr. president, with that, i yield the floor to the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: reserving the right to object. i join my colleagues in opposition of senator marshall's proposal and in support of a funding request that recognizes the breadth of our national security interest, which should include ukraine, israel, and the emerging challenges in the indo-pacific region. in ukraine, russia's brutal campaign of aggression is

threatening the country's freedom and sovereignty and the horrific event of october 7, has forced israel to defend itself in response to the worst terrorist attack they've encountered. both nations face a similar threat against adversaries that seek to destroy them. hamas wants to wipe israel off the map, putin wants to absorb ukraine into russia to recreate the soviet union. now, our allies and partners have already contributed a total of $94 billion to support ukraine's war and recovery effort, and we, alongside our international partners, recognize that the ukrainian people are not only defending their land and freedom, they're fighting for the preservation of liberal democracies around the world. what some of my colleagues overlook in their singular

campaign in support of israel is just how closely the fate of ukraine and israel are tied together. and there's one country which links both of those countries together, that country is iran. iran has been complicit in russia's actions in ukraine, exporting weapons and drones which inflict further bloodshed and harm on the ukrainian people and iran is backing hamas, which is waging war on the state of israel. and what's especially egregious is the blatant display of their maligned partnership. last week putin hosted hamas and iranian leadership and hamas expressed appreciation for russia's criticism of israeli sanctions. this bill that senator marshall is proposing would also cost the federal government $27 billion,

almost double what it provides to support israel. and senator van hollen has been very eloquent in the reasons why that seems to be in the bill, but it also strips out essential funding that we need to face the threat from china in the indo-pacific. it ignores the humanitarian needs for both the ukraine and israel, but most important, we can't pick and choose when the united states stands on the side of freedom and democracy. do we really want to give a green light to vladimir putin to continue his revisionist crusade across europe? do we want to give the impression to our allies and adversaries that that the united states can't be depended on? do we want to sow doubt that the united states will not stand up

for a free indo-pacific? our adversaries want the united states to fall short in standing up for our allies. they want us to be divided. we need to show them that we are united and i'm very pleased that leader mcconnell and appropriation vice chair collins are in full support of a holistic supplemental funding package. it's important that we fund this holistic response to address both israel and ukraine's needs, which includes humanitarian support for both israel and ukraine. thank you, mr. president. i yield to my colleague from minnesota. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you, mr. president. reserving the right to object. mr. president, i rise today to implore my colleagues to pass a national security supplemental in line with what

senator shaheen just outlined. yes to stand up to the hamas terrorists, but also to stand up for an open and free indo-pacific, to stand up for humanitarian aid, and to stand up to vladimir putin and his barbaric invasion of our ally ukraine. and that's what i'm going to focus on today because i have seen many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle standing proudly with president zelenskyy. the rhetoric of standing up for democracy has to be matched by what happens in this bill. just as putin has shown his true colors intentionally bombing apartment buildings, capturing cities and slaughtering innocent, abducting ukrainian children, the ukrainian people have shown theirs in bright blue and yellow against all odds.

since the invasion last february, ukraine has reclaimed 50% of the territory that russia unlawfully seized from them. as the ukrainians advance, putin, what's happened? he tried to capture kyiv, but he failed. he tried to wipe ukraine off the map, but he failed. he tried to drive a wedge between the u.s. and our allies, but he failed. he tried to topple the ukrainian government, but he failed. putin tried to break the ukrainian spirit, but he has made it stronger. he tried to break nato, but nato added member states. our ukrainian allies persevered against all odds. when putin tried to weaponize winter ukraine kept the lights on. in his visit to washington, d.c. in september, president zelenskyy made it clear, ukraine as we know it depends on

the support of its allies. not just the u.s., but countries in europe, countries like south korea, countries like japan. to abandon our allies now would be a dereliction of duty. we will not abandon our ally. as americans, we believe in government based on the principles of democracy and decency at home and abroad. after world war ii, we made it clear that big cubts can't invade -- big countries can't invited little countries. our fight is not only a fight for ukraine. it is a fight for protecting democracy across the globe. as president zelenskyy said at the u.n. earlier this year, if we allow ukraine to be carved up is the independence of any nation secure? we know what putin has done. bombed hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, continues to weaponize food and energy.

we cannot let our ukrainian allies succumb because the u.s. decided we said we were going to do this before, but now we don't think so. that is not standing up for democracy. and as my colleagues so well pointed out, other tyrants in the world are watching. they're watching if we keep our covenant. they're watching if we keep our word. we know what's happening in ukraine. balance -- balance rein a -- dancers going to the front line. cellists playing melodies in a town square to remind people that despite vladimir putin's worst efforts, culture and humanity are there in ukraine and not going away as we saw from the head of the museum in

odessa remind us this week, despite the bombing. as president zelenskyy has said, there is not a soul in ukraine that does not feel gratitude to you, america. when rob portman and i visited kyiv this last august, what did we hear a year ago? we heard thank you for the himars on a bag of take-out food to the u.s. embassy. we heard that was the name they were naming their kids -- himar they know what we've done. as congress continues to negotiate the budget, we must find a way forward on ukraine. as senator mcconnell reaffirmed, think of this as an axis of evil -- china, russia, and iran. this is not just a test for ukraine, i say to my colleagues who are focused on national security. it is a test for the united states and for the free world.

yes, an opportunity to secure our own borders, but also a security, an opportunity to secure the borders of our allied democracies. remember the three words that zelenskyy uttered on the first day everyone counted him out. he went to the street corner with a few people around him, when everyone thought russia was going to take them out, and said three words -- we are here. we are here. that's what we have to do right now in this chamber. we cannot send a message, we are not here or we were there before but we're not here right now. we are here. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i turn it over to my colleague from the great state of delaware. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: thank you, mr. president. reserving the right to object. i join my colleagues in standing

to speak against a proposal brought to the floor by my colleague from kansas, a proposal that would move aid to israel swiftly but ignore the urgency and the importance of humanitarian aid to countries around the world, of investments to secure our own border, of critical aid to ukraine. and as my colleague has just spoken eloquently, we have all been inspired by the tens of thousands of ukrainians who hearing the urgency of the call to fight for their nation, to fight for their freedom have laid down their lives, have worked to restructure their society and to aim towards freedom. i have a hard time countenancing the idea that we would walk away in this moment of challenge. as many proponents have said and i'll briefly point out, the proposal that comes over from

the house is not serious. it uses the tragedy and horrors of hamas and its attack on innocent civilians, killing dozens of americans, the brutality of that in the urgency of this moment to advance a pay-for under the cloak of fiscal responsibility that would add $27 billion to our national deficit. many of us have already dismissed this proposal as not serious, but this is a serious moment. as my colleague from ohio has said, we need a serious debate about our path forward, about where we are going and why. i want to speak briefly to two components of this bill, then close. our president's supplemental proposal includes $13.6 billion to secure our border. the last serious bipartisan proposal on border security which was the king-rounds bill we took up in 2018, invested $25 billion over ten years,

$2.5 billion a year. this supplemental would put $13 billion in one year into hiring thousands of new border agents, cbp and border patrol, thousands of new staff, attorneys, folks who can move the asylum process quickly and money for detention and deportation, and nearly $1 billion investment in scanning everything coming across our border to end human trafficking and the importation of fentanyl. this is a serious proposal that deserves serious support. last, the humanitarian piece of this overall supplemental would not just help ease the suffering in ukraine, in gaza, but in dozens of countries around the world facing a collapse due to a global calamity of hunger. let me conclude. mr. president, it is right now, right now twilight, dusk

in kyiv. it is right now as we debate on this floor, twilight, dusk in jerusalem. i am confident there are members of the ukrainian government, there are members of the leadership of ukrainian forces, there are individuals on the front line in ukraine listening to this debate, urgently wondering will we stand. will this senate that invited president zelenskyy to address us in the old senate chamber just six weeks ago, keep our word? will we stand or will we fall? this is a moment that will test our nation. this is a moment that tests this body. will we allow ourselves to be distracted by moments of comfort or ease? or will we take up the hard work with the leadership of this talented and capable pair, the chair and vice chair of our

appropriations committee? will we negotiate? will we compromise? will we take up the challenge laid before us to be the dispensable nation that will care for those in need, that will secure our own border, that will defend israel, that will defend ukraine, that will look in the face this moment and say we are the indispensable nation? will we stand? mr. president, it is my prayer that we have, we must, and we will. with that, i yield the floor to my colleague from the state of washington. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: for all of these well-stated reasons, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: thank you, mr. president. this has certainly been one of the most substantive debates we've had up here, very meaningful and very learning to myself as it exposes what our priorities are as senators to everybody across the nation.

today i heard lots of arguments why we should combine funding. people essentially wanted to leverage support for israel for their own priority. again, lots of arguments why we should combine the funding. but i didn't hear one meaningful argument that describes why we should not fund israel singularly. why shouldn't we just do it by itself? there's near unanimous agreement up here. this is a great opportunity to say indeed this is the time to support israel. no one's abandoning ukraine today. we're not abandoning taiwan today. but it's interesting to me that no one talked about the concern of the corruption in ukraine, that talked about their federal government nationalizing communications companies, the fact that poland and hungary and other countries are leaving them and saying they don't support the war anymore. no one's talking about peace.

no one's talking about the 200,000 people that have already died in ukraine. are those bodies, are those people not important as well? why isn't america leading a peace agreement? mr. president, time is of the essence. time's of the essence. but as we can tell today, we could debate each and every one of these topics until the sun sets here, until the sun rises in israel, but there's not unanimous, near unanimous support for ukraine without some certain questions being answered. lots of questions need to be answered. is there a plan? look at the schedules this week. why aren't we talking about some type of supplemental bill on the floor? why don't we have it to the floor yet? if we were serious up here, if my leaders across the aisle, if the white house was serious, they would have something on the

floor last week. this is the administration that takes a week to decide to send an aircraft carrier when our allies are in need. the schedule this week is embarrassing what we're spending time on up here. i want to go back to priorities. i think so often all these causes are important, and we all agree that we need to address each and every one of them. but if i listen to my friends across the aisle, they would describe ukraine as the priority. i don't think anyone back home can really take the president's supplemental bill serious when he actually makes the border more open. ten million people have crossed the border illegally under his watch, and what he throws into this supplemental package is actually going to increase the number of people crossing the border illegally. the priority should be to fix a broken immigration system and to secure the border, that at the end of the day there's less

people crossing the border illegally, not more. that we need a policy that turns off this magnet of asking people to come here. at the end of the day what it looks like to me is my friends across the aisle want to take this opportunity of support for israel and leverage it to pass their votes for their own agenda, an agenda of an open border, unendless funding to an unendless war in ukraine. every day i wake up, i pray that i would do justice, that i would love mercy. and i would like to think that that would be true of every member of the senate. the argument today is not about the irs. it's not about what's happening in the house. it's about what we're saying. it's about what we're doing in our willingness to stand up and fight in this case for the people of israel. but this is a battle that goes way beyond just a battle between

the people of israel and the hamas army of terror. this is a battle for the future of humankind. we've encountered 179 known terrorists on the watch list, 60,000 aliens of interest across our border, and the numbers go on. just this week a terrorist was released at the border, caught him in new york as well. this is about what's doing fair, what's right, and what's just. we may disagree on ukraine. we may disagree on what we should do in taiwan. we definitely disagree on what we should do at the border. and i'll admit to you, i could be wrong on ukraine. it will take history 50 or 100 or 200 years to find out who was right or wrong on ukraine, but i'm telling you this. you can take this to the bank. i'm right on securing the border. i'm right on supporting israel. thank you, mr. president.

i yield back. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i'm going to ask unanimous consent, but before i do i just want to respond to the senator and say we have a proposal that covers israel, humanitarian aid, ukraine, and the border. we are working to get that done, and i welcome the input from our republican colleagues so that we can be a strong united states of america and address the issues that we all need to address. with that, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to two minutes prior to the vote, followed by senator sanders who will speak for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. murray: i have always strongly advocated for the nih, they have done so much and it's not just cutting edge, it's

lifesaving. this agency nih holds the future of the country in its hands. it is of the utmost importance to have an experienced leader and dr. monica m. bertagnolli is an excellent person. you need a steady hand to be a cancer surgeon. and she is a respected researcher and a proven leader. she served on the board of directorrors, the american cancer society, and the prevent cancer foundation. she was ceo of alliance llc to make sure that rural communities are included in clinical studies and she is the head of the national cancer institute where she led the research, strategies and goals for president biden's moon shot initiative. in addition, she also brings a

strong personal connection, which she spoke about at our help committee hearing had she brings the personal experience of growing up in a rural community where she watched her uncle travel across the state to provide care to patients and watched her father fight cancer while care was far from home. and she brings the most recent personal experience of receiving a cancer diagnose, -- diagnosis, and then receiving care made possible by nih research. it is clear that those experiences will inform how she approaches her role at nih. i also want to take a moment to recognize that in the field of biomedical research where women have long been severely underrepresented both in clinical trials and in the workforce, it will be truly meaningful to have such an accomplished woman serving in a role that has the real power to tackle issues like improving diversity in clinical trials,

fighting sexual harassment that has pushed too many women out of the field and tearing down other barriers to achievement in equal representation for women in medical research. mr. president, dr. monica m. bertagnolli is the right person to ensure that nih stands on the cutting edge of research, and will promote health, keep our nation competitive and give patients across the world real hope for the future. she has the experience in medicine, research and management for this role and a deep understanding of what the nih work means for feems in this country who are counting on medical breakthroughs. i'm proud to vote yes. i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, the american people understand whether they are -- understand, whether they are democrats,

republicans, or independents, that our health care system is broken, it is dysfunctional, it is failing. we spend almost twice as much per person on health care, an unsauce sustainable $13,000 for every man, woman and child than any other country on earth and yet the results of all of that spending are abysmal. while the insurance companies and the drug companies make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, we have 85 million americans who are uninsured or underinsured and over 60,000 people who die every single year because they can't get to a doctor when they need to. in this country, despite our huge expenditures, we don't have enough doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, or mental

health specialists. and our life expectancy is far lower than most other countries, especially for working-class and and -- and lower-income americans. mr. president, in my view, and i think it's the view of most americans, health care is a human right, not a privilege, and we need major reforms to our current system so that every man, woman, and child in this country gets the quality health care they need regardless of their financial status. the responsibility for reforming our broken health care system rests with the administration and it rests with many agencies of government including hhs, cms, the fda, and the national institute of health, nih, which plays a very important role in

the development of new prescription drugs. mr. president, while the ten largest drug companies made over $112 billion in profits last year and while they pay their ceo's exorbitant compensation packages, one out of four americans cannot afford to pay for the medicine they need and thousands of families face financial ruin as they pay outrageously high prices for the prescription drugs that keep them alive. let's think about that for just one second. millions of people in this country every year get sick. they go to the doctor and the doctor writes out a prescription, and yet because of the exorbitant price of

prescription drugs in america, one out of four of those people cannot afford to fill that prescription. so what happens to those people? well, they get sicker. maybe they end up in an emergency room? maybe they end up at a hospital. maybe they die. 25% of our people cannot afford to fill the prescriptions our doctors preare describe. it is -- prescribe. it is not just the high cost of prescription drugs that impact individuals. in my state, the state of vermont, and i don't think it's terribly different elsewhere, the high cost of prescription drugs account for 20% of the overall budget of that hospital and that drives insurance policies up, what we pay in the hospital impacts greatly the prices we pay for insurance. in other words, mr. president,

the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in america is a crisis situation that must be addressed. it impacts everybody. adding insult to injury, not only has the federal government not effectively regulated the price of prescription drugs but the taxpayers of this country have, over the years, provided hundreds of billions of dollars in research and development into new prescription drugs that have provided enormous financial benefits to some of the most profitable drug companies in america. for example, in america today the median cost of new cancer drugs has gone up by more than 300% over the past decade even though 85% of the initial foundational cancer research is funded by u.s. taxpayers. in june, the health, education,

labor and pensions, which i chair, released a report that found the average price of new treatments that nih scientists helped develop over the past 20 years is over $111,000. in other words, we are spending a fortune developing new drugs, but our people cannot afford the treatments that they pay for. in virtually every case, american taxpayers are paying far more than people in other countries for the exact same medicine that the nih helped to develop. that may make sense to somebody, it does not make sense to me. here are a few examples from the report. astella charges higher prices while the same drug can be purchased in japan for $20,000. guess who developed the drug. american taxpayers. johnson &

johnson charges $60,000 for a drug while the same drug can be paid for with $10,000. mill lenian pharmaceuticals charges $20,000 for valkoti. guess who did the research and paid for that drug. the nih and american taxpayers. in other words, here is the insane situation. the american taxpayers fund the research for these drugs but they can't afford the product that they helped create. does anybody really think that makes sense? if american taxpayers helped develop a drug, we should be paying the lowest prices in the world for that product, not the highest. mr. president, that has got to change.

no prescription drug, no matter how effective and lifesaving it may be is worth anything to the patient who cannot afford it. in my view, at this crisis moment for american health care, we need an nih developer who is prepared to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and use every tool at their disposal to substantially lower the extraordinary high cost of medicine in this country. the 1800 well-paid lobbists from the pharmaceutical industry here in d.c., it's almost four lobbists for every member of congress, may not like it, but that is precisely what the american people want and it is what they need. the status quo is not working. we need fundamental changes in the way that the nih addresses the crisis of high prescription drug costs. dr. monica m. bertagnolli is an intelligent and caring person,

but she has not convinced me that she is prepared to take on the greed and power of the drug companies and the health care industry in general. nor is she prepared in my view to fight for the transformative changes the nih needs at this critical moment. and that is why i will be voting no on her confirmation. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the 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. 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 -- barrasso, brown, cortez masto, heinrich, hickenlooper, rounds, schatz, warnock, and whitehouse. mr. crapo, aye. senators voting in the negative -- blackburn, hagerty, mullin, and sanders and wicker.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. manchin, aye. the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, no.

the clerk: mr. grassley, no.

the clerk: mr. paul, no.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye. ms. collins, aye. mr. cassidy, aye.

mr. mcconnell, no. the clerk: ms. lummis, aye. mr. tillis, aye.

the clerk: ms. hyde-smith, no. mr. budd, no.

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

the clerk: mr. young, no.

the clerk: mrs. capito, vote:

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

mr. crapo, no. mr. kaine, aye. mr. fetterman, no. mr. sullivan, no. mr. boozman, aye. ms. ernst, no.

the clerk: mr. lee, no.

the clerk: mr. romney, aye. the clerk: mr. lankford, no.

mr. wyden, aye. the clerk: mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: mr. daines, no. mrs. shaheen, aye. mr. cardin, aye. mr. rubio, no.

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. mr. thune, no. the clerk: mr. bennet, aye.

mr. durbin, aye. mr. kennedy, no.

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

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. tester, aye. ms. duckworth, aye. mr. padilla, aye. ms. smith, aye.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye.

the clerk: mr. lujan, aye. the clerk: mr. vance, no. mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no. mr. braun, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. menendez, aye. ms. hassan, aye.

the clerk: mr. reed, aye. the clerk: mrs. fischer, no.

the clerk: mr. king, aye. mr. graham, aye. ms. baldwin, aye.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

ms. rosen, aye. mr. coons, aye. mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. the clerk: mr. cotton, no.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. welch, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no. the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye. ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye. mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. the clerk: ms. sinema, aye. mr. blumenthal, aye.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye.

the clerk: the yeas are 62, the nays are 36, 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. 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 move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 28, kenly kiya kato of california to be united states district judge for the central district of california, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of kenly kiya kato of california to be united states district judge for the

central district of california shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. 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. 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.

the clerk: ms. lummis.

the clerk: mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. vote:

,. the clerk: mr. moran. mr. mullin.

ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters.

mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio.

mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow.

mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: mr. wyden, aye.

the presiding officer: senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, blumenthal, cardin, cortez-masto, kaine, lujan, manchin, sinema, smith, van hollen, wyden. senators voting in the negative -- boozman, cassidy, collins, hyde-smith, lankford, moran, murkowski, paul.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. johnson, no.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no. mr. budd, no. mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: mr. schatz, aye. ms. rosen, aye. mr. merkley, aye. mr. tester, aye. mr. booker, aye. ms. butler, aye. mr. peters, aye. ms. warren, aye. mr. carper, aye. ms. stabenow, aye. mr. heinrich, aye. ms. duckworth, aye. mr. schumer, aye. mrs. murray, aye.

mrs. gillibrand, aye. mr. ossoff, aye. mr. durbin, aye. mr. markey, aye. mr. coons, aye. mr. menendez, aye. mr. brown, aye. ms. hassan, aye. mr. hickenlooper, aye. mr. padilla, aye. mr. king, aye. mr. bennet, aye. mr. casey, aye. ms. hirono, aye. mr. warner, aye. mr. kelly, aye. mr. welch, aye. mr. reed, aye. mr. murphy, aye.

mr. warnock, aye. the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. crapo, no.