the correct application of this standard is pivotal to the operation of our asylum system and making sure that it's there for those who need it and not subject to rampant abuse by those not eligible for it. it's been corruptive over the years but this administration has destroyed it entirely manipulating it to the point where it's now beyond recognition. we must fix it. it's sad that we have to fix it but we have to fix it in large part because it's been so distorted and abused by this administration. profiting international drug cartels to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year, leaving a huge, huge wake of human suffering in its path. it would close loopholes and restrict asylum to aliens who present themselves at an official point of entry. we must eliminate these loopholes and not allow the

biden-harris administration to make more of them. congress needs to take back the authority to establish law. we can start today by passing the stopping border surges act, ending the ambiguities in our xhurnts asylum law will help mitigate the situation at the border and prevent unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats from acting with utter impunity, to enforce their own policy preferences, culminating inevitably in open borders with more than ten million people coming into this country in a space of only three and a half years. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. to that end, madam president, as if in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 685 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, 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 an objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, there's a pamphlet that's circulated to tourists and students alike entitled how laws are made, and it tells the basic process under our federal constitution for enacting legislation. it talks about committee hearings. it talks about votes in committee, votes on the floor, in the senate, then in the house, conference committees, agreements, a lot of other votes. finally, the measure is sent to the president, if its successful, for his signature or his veto. that is the ordinary process. you will not see what's happening on the floor of this senate in that pamphlet to describe how laws are made. it is arch an unusual thing -- it is such an unusual thing. we're in the senate basically trying to say i ask unanimous

consent to ignore the constitution as written and laws as described and go ahead and pass this bill anyway. you might say there are times that's needed, and it is. when it comes to the issue of immigration, there's a much broader consideration. the fact of the matter is it's been almost 35 years since we passed an immigration reform bill. 35 years. i don't know how many times the senator from utah has-voted for an immigration bill, perhaps not, but the point is we've tried and can't bring the measure to the floor. there is resistance and objection primarily from the republican side of the aisle for any type of comprehensive reform. there comes a time when there's a glimmer of hope. once in a while something happens around here, you think things are going to be different, and that happened a few months back. we had a conservative republican senator from oklahoma named james lankford. james and i disagree on so many issues, but i respect him so

very much when it comes to his legislative commitment. he sat with chris murphy, a democratic senator from the state of connecticut, and they said can we, republican and democrat together, come up with a measure that won't solve every problem with immigration, but at least it will move us forward? what are we going to include? well, we're going to include provisions that dictate what happens when someone presents at the border, who would be considered in a fast fashion and who would not be. we're going to put more border patrol agents on the border, and they wrote a provision that the border patrol agents union, thousands of men and women who risk their lives every day on the border, endorsed. what about fentanyl and narcotics coming into the united states? they added more provisions, more law enforcement to stop the flow of narcotics. there were provisions in that bill which i didn't like, but by and large that was a good bill. it was a bipartisan effort to solve some of the major problems

we have. some on the republican side said unless you pass this bipartisan bill, we're not going to allow other business to occur. it was a pretty serious showdown moment. so we were prepared to do it. a lot of us were prepared to vote for this measure. it was bipartisan. it made real progress. and it really addressed the flow of people coming across the border. what happened next is important. what happened next is one person stepped up and said stop. that person was donald trump, fo former president of the united states. he said i don't want this bipartisan measure that senator lankford and senator murphy have crafted to pass in the senate. critics said wait a minute, former president. if we don't do this, we won't do anything. we won't address this measure significantly or constructively before the flex measure -- before the next measure. he said so be it. blame it on me, donald trump said, kill this bill. the word went out on the republican side, stop where you

are. no measure is to pass, not even this bipartisan measure you. when it turned out that only a handful of republicans were willing to defy donald trump, the measure died. that was the end of it. you have to ask yourself, did we have miss an opportunity there? the answer is we certainly did, a bipartisan opportunity to do something constructive. the decision was made by donald trump that he would rather have this issue going into the election in 2024 than to have any solution, bipartisan solution, which might enure -- inure to the credit of the democrats as well as republicans. we find ourselves on the floor today with a measure that's being suggested on it by unanimous consent that, of course, did not go through committee, has not been reviewed, and it unfortunately has some serious flaws. instead, this big targets the most vulnerable people seeking

safety and protection in the united states, children traveling without a parent or guardian, families with minor children, and asylum seekers fleeing persecution. the bill before us, the unanimous consent request, strips away protections for unaccompanied children, it deports many of them back into the hands of smugglers, keep others in detention up to a month, and keep them separated from adults who could care for them. this bill would require families to be detained, a failed policy with disastrous effects on children and doesn't make the border any safer. this bill would create multiple new restrictions on asylum, undermining our long-standing commitment to refugees seeking safety, such as the people in ukraine. many of them were refugees to the united states once attacked by vladimir putin. i believe most americans agree, providing protection for them is the right thing to do. the biden administration is doing what it can under our outdated immigration laws to secure the border and encounters between ports of entry decreased

by more than 50%. yes, there were too many flowing over the borders at various times, but we've seen dramatic reduskses in those going across the border now. we could have seen more with this bipartisan bill, by donald trump and his loyalists ended up killing. the administration has dramatically increased depor deportations, made tough changes in our asylum system and improved access to lawful pathways to citizenship. ultimately, it is congress' responsibility to reform our broken immigration system, which has not been updated in 35 years. to resolve our challenges at the border, we need immigration reform that will fix our broken immigration system and provide necessary resources to dhs to secure the border. rather than providing additional resources, improving infrastructure or adding more lawful pathways, this bill undermines fundamental american values and puts families and children at risk. recently, the bipartisan group

of senators had a tough border deal put together. i want to commend senator lankford for his courage in stepping up, particularly when donald trump was opposed to him. i wish the majority of republicans would have stood behind their senator from oklahoma city, but -- from oklahoma, but the senator from utah and others decided they wouldn't, they would rather take these opportunities to come to the floor and try the unanimous consent route. donald trump was crystal clear. he said blame it on me if the bill fails. the bill failed, and i'm blaming it on him just as he asked. he doesn't want a solution, he wants an issue in november. the time is long past due for my senate republican colleagues to stop partisan bickering. get behind james lankford's effort. work in a bipartisan effort to pass the immigration legislation the american people deserve. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i appreciate the thoughtful

remarks of my friend and colleague, the distinguished senator from illinois. he and i have worked together on many issues. we don't agree on everything, but when we do it's a lot of fun, we're able to do a lot of great things together. i appreciate his leadership on the judiciary committee. the fact he's always been friendly toward me. i also appreciate his reference to our sort of a sufrex aspect of -- a civics aspect of of what we do, the notion of how a bill becomes a law is always instructive. it's always helpful to bring that up. we've lost some of that in our system. people get confused how laws are made. of course, the very first operative provision of the constitution, article 1, section 1, has only one clause, so it's clause 1, very first language after the preamble says that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives.

remember, legislative powers are law making powers, meaning all power to make law, make federal law, are vested in this body, in this body and the body with which we share the legislative power, just down the hall, the house of representatives. article 1, section 7 laboratories on this function and -- elaborates on this, and makes clear you cannot make a federal law without following this formula, the formula prescribed by article 1, section 7 is bicameral passage followed by presentment to the president of the united states. you have to pass the same legislative text down the hall, also here, doesn't matter in what order unless it's a revenue bill, but that's not relevant here. but it does have to be the same text passed by both bodies. then and only then can you present it to the president for signature, veto or acquiescence. that's how you make a law. that's what the constitution requires. on top of that, we've got a number of other procedures we've added by senate rule, precedent,

procedure, common practice. those are not required by the constitution, but those rules and practices are acknowledged as legitimate by the constitution. yes, most of the time we pass those, but it is ultimately up to us to decide when, whether, to what extent and in what ways to follow all of our procedures. i agree with the senator from illinois. it does make sense whenever we can do it. we always should follow our own procedures. it generally works out best if we can move something through committee, if we can have a full committee hearing and have a mark-up where we introduce and entertain amendments to proposed legislation, pass it out of committee, then bring it to the floor ultimately. i think we generally have much better legislation when we do it that way, and i would love to follow that procedure with this particular bill. if what the senator from

illinois and chairman of the judiciary committee is offering is for us to have a full committee hearing and mark-up on this bill, i woulded lover that -- i would love that and glad pli entertain that -- gladly entertain that. tragically, we've seen a deviation from that same practice to which he tributes great -- attributes great significance, understandably, today. fully 94% of all legislative matters passed by this body are passed by this same procedure i'm attempting to utilize here today, by unanimous consent. the way it works, essentially somebody makes a request, and they ultimately come down to the floor, like i've done today, say let's call up and pass this bill. why do that? well, in many instances committee chairmen have somewhat stingy what bills they'll hold hearings and markups. we've been unable to get a hearing or mark-up set on this bill. so this bill, like so many others, in fact like 94% of all

legislation passed by this body, comes to the senate floor today without the benefit of having had either a hearing or mark-up. that doesn't stop the 94% of the legislation from moving forward. in addition to those 94% of the legislative proposals passed by unanimous consent, an additional number of them, i'm not sure what the number is, it probably varies a little bit from year to year, an additional number are brought to the floor and passed, not unanimously but by roll call vote without having had the benefit of either a full committee hearing or a mark-up. this too is unfortunately. sometimes it's necessary and unavoidable, other times it's not. the point is this, the constitution, neither the constitution nor senate rules prohibits passing legislation this way. sometimes it becomes necessary, where the other path has been made unavailable to us by the majority party and committee chairman. in this circumstance, there's an additional reason we need to bring this forward.

we talked a minute ago about the legislative process required by the u.s. constitution to pass a raw set law, to make -- to pass a law, to make or change any statute that is federal in nature. you have to go through that article 1 shgs section 7 form -- formula. bicameral passage, followed by presentment to the president. what the constitution does not countenance, certainly pro prohibits, is the making of new law or the modification of existing law by the executive branch of government or by anyone or anything outside the framework of article 1, section 7. that's what we've seen with our immigration laws, including and especially with this administration. with regard to laws that are relevant here, laws, for example, involving asylum standards. the asylum standards have morphed over the years, many decades, and the pract of applying -- the practice of

applying our asylum laws has become so different under this administration than what the law actually says. this is comparable in many respects to another great frustration of mine, closely related to this, where we outsource de facto law making authority to unelected, unaccountable bodies in the executive branch, allowing them to just make new law. we call them regulations, to get around the obvious awkwardness that would otherwise be created by this thing called the constitution to which we've all sworn an oath, but we allow, in effect, the executive branch to make laws that way under the form of rules and regulations. either way, whether it is by the stroke of the executive pen or whether it's through an administrative agency, we've seen laws being made and changed entirely outside the constitutionally authorized process recognized by article 1,

sections 1 and 7. that's why we're here today, because we've had the executive branch making and changing law, not authorized by the constitution, and we've had a lack of access to committee hearings and committee markups, and so that's why we come here today and do this and while it's not ideal, it is how 94%. legislation passed by this -- 94% of the legislation passed by this body is pass. that provides some helpful context. we talked a little bit about asylum and about how the asylum laws have been abused, modified. you know, the idea behind asylum is if you're -- if you're subject to certain kinds of persecution in your home country, we want to provide people with a place to go. the problem we've had in this administration -- the way it's supposed to work is if you show up without documents at the u.s. border and you make the case that you're entitled to stay

here as an asylee, well, you're supposed to be detained until such time as they can decide the issue. you don't have a statutory or a constitutional right to be granted asylum. it is a discretionary grant of authority given to the secretary of homeland security. no one has a guaranteed right to it. and so you're supposed to be detainedwhile they consider your application whether or not they're going to grant it. but instead what this administration has been doing is just saying, okay, come in -- you claim assay lull and they let you -- asylum and they let you go. they decide that the best thing to do is not deport them because they can't handle all those asylum applications, they can't adjudicate them. just let them go. at some point you might hear about a hearing that will be scheduled before an immigration judge. we hope you'll come to your immigration hearing.

at the current rate, many are being told that their immigration hearing may not happen until the mid-2030's. this doesn't make any sense. this amounts to a de facto change in law. definitely a de facto change in law that we've got things like what's called immigration parole. immigration parole is supposed to exist as a discretionary grant of authority allowing the united states government to allow someone to come into the united states either for a specific humanitarian purpose or a public purpose, but it has to be individualized, not generalized, by country, not broad categories, and individual person. the law specifies that. and an example of a humanitarian purpose is somebody is in a foreign country, they have -- maybe their mother lives here. she's about to die. that person needs to come in and be there for the funeral with the understanding that he or she will promptly leave thereafter. the public use -- the public

benefit example would be someone who maybe speaks an obscure language we don't have adequate interpretation services in that language here. we need somebody to come in and translate nor that language. we allow them to come in, be a translator for that trial with the understanding that they'll leave. well, this president has grant a, contrary to what the law allows, he's effectively written the law -- rewriting the law to grant huge category blocks of immigration parole, according to country -- like we're talking to the tune of hundreds of thousands of people who have been admitted in a single year on these things. that is lawless. that is outside what the law requires. so, yeah, that is a change of law. that's why we need to tighten this law here. now, i do want to get to this point about the so-called border bill. the border bill that my friend and colleague from illinois claims, mistakenly but very

wrongly, that was killed only by one man, donald j. trump. it is not what happened. not what happened at all. and i don't agree with his description of the bill either. the senator from illinois and i share a common friendship with and great affection for the senior senator from oklahoma. the senior senator from oklahoma did a fantastic job, has done a great job on so many things that he decided that he'd try to negotiate this. and i think it was done at the request of the minority leader, the republican leader in the senate, to try to negotiate something. the senate republican conference wanted legislation that would in one way or another tie president biden's hands so he couldn't continue to abuse and negotiate that system of laws. and so he went in there, he did his best to negotiate that. at the end, most of the members of our conference didn't feel

comfortable with what he had negotiated because it wasn't adequately tie president biden's hands a. it's not his fault and it's not donald trump's fault. but the fact is most of the members of our conference didn't feel it did enough to tie president biden's hands. perhaps under the jurisdiction of another president, that legislation might have worked. but it certainly didn't tie president biden's hands. it wasn't president trump that killed the bill. it was the if a fact that we didn't have the votes here. i reject fundamentally the premise that we can't reform any of our immigration laws without so-called comprehensive reform, which is usually code for something else, including allowing large numbers of persons entering illegally,be deemed legal. so let's make sure we have the facts right -- both on the way laws are made and based on what happened with this legislation andia it's necessary to -- and why it's necessary to pass the

stopping border surges act. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mrs. britt: i appreciate the remarks from my distinguished colleague from utah. and while my colleague from oklahoma gets set, i just with a with to recap a couple of things. i mean, here we have today a fracking bill that's been put on the floor but yet blocked by democrats. we have a bill here just now closing asylum loopholes, helping unaccompanied children get back to their family, but that's been block by democrats. earlier you saw us put a bill on the floor that would actually help build a barrier on our southern border, but yet that was blocked by democrats. when we look at how vice president harris is running, it's obviously very different than the way she served. if you look back in 2020, vice president harris said, and i quote, trump's border wall is a

complete waste of taxpayer money and won't make us any safer. i'm wondering if she'll put a disclaimer that says that underneath her commercials this focus on the one hand show the border wall. she said as a senator that she vowed to block any funding for the border wall and urged her colleagues to reject any funding for the border wall, which is actually exactly what they continue to do, and you saw them do here today. here's the deal -- you can't have it both ways. kamala harris either wants to secure our border, which she'd have ample time to do, building barriers that help us keep americans safe, or she doesn't, which is what we've seen throughout her tenure both in the senate and as vice president. but now she is campaigning as something different. her newfound supporter a border wall is not supported by her

democratic colleagues here in the senate. i look forward to hearing more about what we've seen on the campaign trail versus in actuality where she stands. and on that i see my distinguished colleague from oklahoma and would love the opportunity to hear from him. mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: madam president, i come to the floor today to be able to talk about an issue that apparently there's a large belief among some doesn't exist. so i wanted to be able to pull the veil back and 10 say -- and to say this is actually an issue. and i can't believe i even have to have this conversation and in

many ways it's an incredibly difficult conversation to be able to have. during the presidential debate that happened just a few weeks ago now, there was a debate ostensibly between vice president harris and former president trump. it ended up being a debate between vice president harris, david muir, lindsey davis, all against donald trump, and there were multiple moments where the abc moderators decided they were going to debate or correct donald trump when he spoke and it became this very odd interchange that all of america watched and thought, well, that doesn't seem like a debate in that sense. one was a very odd moment. there is a conversation about abortion to president trump. that's a fair conversation for the moderators to bring up a question and to be able to talk about it. he's openly talked a lot about abortion and obviously the vote that had happened in the supreme court with the docks decision has -- with the dobbs decision

has highlight add lot of that conversation since his presidency. president trump during that debate talked about children that are aborted in the eighth and ninth month and some even after and mentioned that, to which the abc news moderator lindsey davis stated there is no state in the united states where it is legal to kill a baby after it is born and then immediately turned to vice president harris where literally she jumped in to be able to debate the president and to, quote-unquote, be able to correct him. the problem is there was no one to be able to moderate here in that debate and to make the simple statement, there are not only states in america where that can happen, there are states in america where that does happen. in this simple map of the united states, this lists out the states where there are strong ex-prosecutes for a child after birth -- now, this is not an

abortion. this is a botched abortion that has occurred. this is a woman went in with the intent of having an abortion, late-term. the child was fully delivered, and in medical practice in many of these states that are listed here, the child is fully delivered during the abortion and if the child cries, breathes, the practice is to back away and to allow the child to slowly die on the table. because the intent was an abortion. and so everyone just steps back in the facility and watches the child die on the table. however long that takes. now, before people say, that doesn't occur, eight states have a requirement -- eight states have a requirement that in an abortion, if it's botched and the child is actually fully delivered and they're still

alive, they were to report it t -- though report t and in those eight states, only those eight that lyle do that, there were 2730 cases of that -- 270 cases of that. let me give you an example. a young woman named melissa odon, she actually didn't know until she was an adult that she was actually the product of a botched abortion. her mom had been compelled to have an abortion, was a teenager, had been compelled to have an abortion by some family members around her. she didn't want to do it, but she did. it was a late-term abortion, sheens with in to have the abortion -- she went in to have the abortion, had the abortion, and after the abortion was over, one of the nurses looking through the, quote-unquote, medical waste that was there on the table saw the young girl crying.

she scooped up the infant, took the infant on her own to an emergency room, the emergency room said, there's no way she'll have a full, meaningful life, but they took care of her because she's in the emergency room, and i know melissa odon. she is a remarkable lady. no disabilities, no other challenges other than the knowledge that she was supposed to, quote-unquote, have been aborted. but there she is alive. there are a lot of women that are scattered around the country that are all finding each other online telling a story that they are a product of a botched apportion. -- abortion. that they were born alive and they were given medical care when, quote-unquote, they weren't supposed to be there at all. and they're there through one

rare social media event. not only is this happening, it's happening all over the country. and i'm full li a wear -- fully aware that the abc news moderator thinks it isn't happening anywhere. but not only is it happening, it's happening before, it's happening probably today. the question that this body has not resolved is, what are we going to do about it? now, this is not about reducing abortion. quite frankly, the bill i want to bring for unanimous consent today won't reduce abortions at all in america. i would tell you it would be my preference to be able to stand for the value of every single child in america and to say there's not a child in america that's disposable, that children in america are all valuable, not some disposable, some valuable. all valuable. this is not a question of are we going to legalize or not legalize abortion.

this is about a fully delivered child crying on a table, if they will get medical care or if we will back up and watch them die. that's the question before us. and what we're going to do about that. there's been a lot of conversation about this of late in the last several years. let me give you an example of several of these states. new york state recently passed a law that not only allows abortion all the way until the ninth month, but they protect if a child is fully delivered and is breathing on the table and it was a botched abortion, that they would be protected, quote-unquote, to be able to die there. when this bill was passed just a couple of years ago in new york, new york legislature cheered, cheered at protecting the rights

of a child to lie on the table and die after a delivery. they lit up the freedom tower in new york city to celebrate the passage of that bill. that's in new york. in minnesota, nine years ago in a wide bipartisan vote, they determined they should actually track how many of these botched abortions happen, that they should actually keep track of how many occur like this that a child is actually born alive. it's rare, but they wanted to just be able to keep track of it with basic records. so in a bipartisan vote in the minnesota legislature signed by the government, they passed a law nine years ago to track how often this occurs. in the state of minnesota, they determined over the next several years there were 24 children that were born alive during a botched abortion.

again, that's not many, but i bet it matters to those 24. but for those 24 children that minnesota discovered, this is not only a, this is not a myth. this is really occurring. they tracked it. the governor of minnesota, current vice presidential candidate on the democratic side, worked to get a repeal of that law, and the simple repeal was we don't want reporting anymore. literally it was we're finding out this was happening, so in minnesota we declared we don't want to know that this is happening anymore. that's unbelievable. that is old school, put your hands over your ears and scream la, la, la kind of stuff. that's not what we should do as a nation. we should actually know about it and then determine through debate in this body what we're going to do about it.

madam president, i'm getting close to conclusion here. may i ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak just three more minutes and so we can wrap up, and then prior to the roll call schedule senator britt to have one minute to be able to conclude. the presiding officer: are there objections? without objection. mr. lankford: thank you. here's the issue. we brought this bill to the floor several times before. in fact we've had bipartisan support for this bill several times before. the bill is very, very simple. the bill says when a doctor performs an abortion but the child is born alive instead of actually born dead, that care would be provided to that child the same as any other child that is born. now we're fully aware that many abortion clinics do not have a full hospital that are also attached to them. but we're also very aware that if there's a problem with the mom at an abortion clinic, they take her to a hospital.

this is a simple statement to say if a child is born alive, which we know 100% this is happening, even in states like minnesota, that this is happening, what is america going to do with a fully delivered, crying baby on the table? will they get health care or will they not get health care? that's all this bill does. it doesn't reduce abortions, unfortunately. it doesn't do that. it doesn't change abortion processes across the country. it doesn't do that. it just says when the abortion is unsuccessful and the child is actually delivered instead, we're going to give medical care to that child. that's what i bring this, and it is absolutely, to me, the simplest of all possible statements to make. so, madam president, as if in legislative session

notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 204 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask consent 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 objection? mr. durbin: reserve the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, this is a serious topic. to rush through in a matter of minutes is unfair. more time should be devoted to it, but i'm going to do my best in a short period of time to be very direct. first, to anyone following this debate at home, pull out your cell phone, go to your search engine whatever it happens to be and look up the following name. i'm going to spell it carefully. kermit gosnell. kermit gosnell.

this bill that's been proposed by my friend from oklahoma creates new standards of care for doctors providing reproductive health care and these standards are not based on medicine, fact, or science. the goal of this bill is to target and intimidate reproductive health care providers and make it harder for women to access comprehensive, compassionate health care. let me be clear. despite former president trump's wild claims, it is not legal in this country, in any state to kill a child after it's born. doctors already have an obligation under the law to provide appropriate medical care to any child that is born alive. how do i know this? i voted for it, explicitly codified into law which president bush signed born alive infacts act in 2002. 2002, it's been on the book over 20 years. when doctors harm babies in

violation of state and federal laws, they are held accountable. for example, in the year 2013, 20 kermit gosnell, a pennsylvania doctor, was convicted on three counts of first-degree murder for murdering babies after botched abortions. i want you to read, if you brought this up on your phone, the story of this man. what he did was an outrage. it was disgusting. he would held accountable for it and is serving life in prison as a result without any possibility of parole. so to argue that we are talking about an area of law that is not addressed by current law is just plain wrong. our nation already has laws in place that protect newborns. to suggest otherwise is simply false. alleging that doctors are wantonly killing infants after birth is as ludicrous as accusing immigrants in ohio of eating cats and dogs. here we are. this is today's republican prim campaign. rather than create meaningful protections for women and infants, what this bill would

actually do is put politicians into private health care decisions. abortions occurring late in pregnancy are incredibly rare, incredibly rare. why don't we hear the same level of concern for women being denied reproductive care and pleading out in a parking lot of a hospital because of decisions by state legislatures? let's be honest, that is a real problem and a real challenge. and these heartbreaking situations, it's not for congress to dictate the course of medical treatment. those wrenching decisions must be left to medical professionals and individuals in their care. it is the only compassionate outcome. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. britt: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mrs. britt: i appreciate my distinguished colleague from illinois and would like to say with regard to the remarks from my colleague from oklahoma, actively killing and saving are actually two different things. and so for the people watching

this, they should take a look at that. and i think what we're seeing is how far left this has dpon. this is truly beyond comprehension. i also just want to say that we spent time yesterday on an ivf bill that nobody actually tried to use to get to 60 votes. ivf is legal and accessible in all 50 states. and in fact, the great state of alabama, when forced into a decision talking about this immediately acted. our state legislature and our governor made sure that women had access to ivf in every corner of our state. and so i would wish that we would spend time on real things like the appropriations bills that we've marked up, amongst others. but if you're looking at where we are today, i think what we've seen is kamala harris has said that she is for a border wall. she has said she is for fracking. she has said that she's for cracking down on illegal border crossings all during her short

campaign tenure. but the truth is is all of those things were just blocked. it's clear that her flip-flops aren't real. there's much more to dig into and discuss as this campaign moves forward. thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. ask for the yeas and nays. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. snafl 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. helmy. 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. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina.

mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye. the clerk: senators voting in the

negative -- booker, cantwell, cardin durbin, hickenlooper, markey, peters, shaheen, and welch. senators voting in the negative -- britt, budd, capito, lankford, moran, murkowski, and rubio.

the clerk: mr. risch, no.

mr. cotton, no. ms. lummis, no. ms. collins, aye. the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no.

mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. romney, no. the clerk: mr. daines, no.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. the clerk: mr. tester, aye. mr. warnock, aye. ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. mrs. hyde-smith, no.

the clerk: mr. thune, no.

the clerk: mr. johnson, no. mr. marshall, no. mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. paul, no. the clerk: mr. fischer, no. ms. hassan, aye.

mr. hagerty, no. ms. baldwin, aye. the clerk: ms. smith, aye.

the clerk: carper, aye. -- mr. carper, aye. vote:

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

the clerk: mr. cornyn, no.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. mrs. blackburn, no. mr. barrasso, no. the clerk: mr. helmy, aye.

mr. boozman, no. mr. schumer, aye. mr. scott of south carolina, no.

the clerk: mr. cramer, no. mr. crapo, no. mr. ricketts, no. mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: mr. padilla, aye.

the clerk: mr. grassley, no.

mr. lujan, aye.

the clerk: mr. reed, aye. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. kelly, aye. mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: mr. schatz, aye.

vote:

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

mr. casey, aye. mr. young, no. mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye.

the clerk: ms. duckworth y, aye . the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye.

mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. mr. lee, no.

mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, no.

ms. warren, aye. ms. ernst, no.

the clerk: mr. warner, aye.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no. vote: the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

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

the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye.

the clerk: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the ayes are 49, the nays are 44. 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 actions. ms. klobuchar: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. on behalf of the majority leader, i ask that the chair execute the order of july 23, 2024, with respect to the taylor nomination. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, margaret l. taylor of married to be legal

advisor of the department of state. the presiding officer: sufficient? -- is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. the clerk: mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman.

mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. the clerk: 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. helmy. 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. merkley. mr. moran.

mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney.

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

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

mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, durbin, hassan it heinrich, helmy, hickenlooper, murray, rosen, stabenow, and tester. senators voting in the negative -- barrasso, braun, budd, cassidy, grassley, kennedy, lee, mullin, and schmitt.

the clerk: mr. thune, no.

the clerk: mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no.

the clerk: ms. smith, aye.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. mr. peters, aye. the clerk: mr. romney, no. mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no.

the clerk: mr. cardin, aye. mr. murphy, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, no.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, no.

vote:

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mrs. capito, no. ms. hirono, aye. mr. markey, aye. mr. johnson, no.

ms. warren, aye. mr. cotton, no.

the clerk: mr. crapo, no. the clerk: mr. schatz, aye. mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no. mr. manchin, aye.

the clerk: mr. young, no. mr. cramer, no.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no. the clerk: mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no. mr. ricketts, no. mr. boozman, no. mr. whitehouse, aye.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, no. mr. moran, no.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye. ms. duckworth, aye.

mr. rubio, no. the clerk: mr. bennet, aye.

the clerk: mr. coons, aye. vote:

the clerk: mr. hagerty, no.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye. mr. welch, aye. the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. wicker, no. mr. reed, aye.

mr. lankford, no. the clerk: mr. padilla, aye. mr. lujan, aye.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. the clerk: ms. ernst, no.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. mrs. shaheen, aye.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no.

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye.

the clerk: mr. booker, aye. the clerk: mr. kelly, aye. vote: the clerk: mrs. fischer, no.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: ms. collins, no. the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

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

vote:

the clerk: mr. paul, no. the clerk: mr. king, aye.

#

. the clerk: mr. warner, aye. the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 50. the nays are 44. 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 presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: thank you. madam president, climate change as we all know has caused major disastrous -- disasters all across america. from vermont's catastrophic flooding in july of 2023 and again exactly a year later, this past july, to the devastating wildfires in hawaii to hurricanes in texas, floods in san diego and southern minnesota, tornadoes from mississippi to new york. just this week, louisiana was hit by a hurricane in -- and north carolina was hit by historic flash flooding. in north carolina earlier this week saw 18, 18 inches of rain in 12 hours with the national weather service in wilmington calling it a once in a 1,000 year event. that's not normal. from 2023 to 2024, there were 48 climate disasters that incurred

losses of billions of dollars and more. these events were devastating for the communities. many demolished moms and businesses, washed away roads, destroyed fields and barns and the loss of life. while we can count 48 from the noaa today, we know that this list will only grow as storm damage is assessed from vermont and louisiana and north carolina. disasters literally from coast to coast hit the united states. 35 severe storms, three tropical cyclones, three winter storms, two wildfire events and one drought. this is just going on and on and on and it's not even the full picture. we've had 125 from the same period. madam president, i've shared the pain and anguish of vermont's homeowners, farms, and businesses and for over 430 days they've waited for congress to

act when it comes to supplemental relief for the disaster relief fund. vermonters need that help, as do folks in hawaii, as do folks in north carolina. and there's bipartisan support for this effort because it is, obviously, a bipartisan crisis. these weather events don't have any favorites, whether you're in a red state or a blue state means nothing. it is the weather. it will do what the weather decides to do. this week i joined with senator brian schatz of hawaii and our colleagues from louisiana, maryland, mississippi, north carolina, california, and alaska in sending a letter to senate leadership urging them to quickly pass disaster funding so our states can recover. we've got a solid bipartisan group, and regrettably it's a growing group. the need is immense. so we do need more financial support immediately through

fema's disaster relief fund. it's depleted, and it needs to be replenished. in one critically important program for long-term disaster recovery is through our department of transportation's disaster relief program. senator sanders and i have seen the damage in vermont. we've suffered brutal damage to our transit system. more than 6,000 tons of debris were removed by the state of vermont, 409 miles of rail have been closed, 149 miles of rail trail closed, 64 bridges in vermont closed, and 46 state roads were closed. and as of last fall, vermont incurred $150 million in damages related to transportation alone. then more flooding came, and both senator sanders and i have traveled across vermont, talked with communities leaders about the financial stress they face right now. we've also talked with my

colleagues about the needs of our community leaders in their states and their needs -- and their needs as they rebuild and plan for the next climate disaster. the reality is the numbers don't paint the full picture. but we do need that relief to get people moving ahead. but when your town and your street and your home and your lives, the lives of the people you represent, are so devastated, you really can't articulate a number. it doesn't capture it. we need the disaster relief fund replenished. we need transportation funding to reimburse our state governments for the costs they pay up front when a disaster hits. we need more money for the highway emergency fund. our need is extreme. our states and communities cannot do this alone. and that's no less true for every other colleagues' state than it is for vermont. madam president, today i'd also

like to voice vermonters' continued frustration -- and this is on a slightly different topic but related to the flooding -- is that 14 months after our post office was destroyed in montpelier, the capital of the state of vermont, we still don't have a fully functional post office. after the july 23 floods, the postal service shifted its montpelier post office operations to a series of temporary locations, and that included parked trucks milesway from where the old post office was. these were unsafe for the postal workers and they failed to ensure anything close to reliable service. there was no air-conditioning in the summer months or heat in the fall and no lighting. people literally were using, like, their iphones to try to read what the labels were. that's not acceptable. after public outcry and demands

from senator sanders and me and our congressional colleague, congre congresswoman balancent, the -- balent, they moved operations to another temporary location. we thought that was progress when the post office signed a new lease downtown in april. they said it would be open in summer. it's september. the location is still not open and reportedly little progress has been made. the capital city of the state of vermont has not had a functioning post office for over a year. it's not a distinction we value. you know, the postal service has an internal benchmark of restoring retail service within 180 days of a natural disaster. they are now 256 overdue. this failure is real and has very practical impacts on our

constituents. right now vermonters who live in montpelier, they have to drive seven miles if they want to buy a stamp or mail a package. and it's obviously very burdensome for our businesses. the united states postal service and the postmaster general louis dee joy, let me be frank, they've really failed to deliver. and it's shocking to me, but we've had instances where senator sanders and i and congre congresswoman balant have tried to interact with the postmaster and he is silent and nonresponsive. so this is not your standard run-of-the-mill failure, management failure of the usps. no, this is real lay dereliction of duty, in my view, by postmaster dejoy. he is choosing not to hope a

post office, a task his agency has done thousands of times in their 250-year history. while the postal service may be independent, it is not without oversight. it does not have the authority to disregard the input of the public, who so needs the services, or congressional representatives, and it does not have the authority to act contrary to its statutory obligations. i want to close by saying again that i stand ready and willing to work with any of my colleagues to get this disaster relief done. we cannot recover or rebuild without the federal assistance that all of us in every state that has had a catastrophe weather event. we need the help, and we all need to help one another. not only for vermont but for every community that needs help or will need help in the future. madam president, you know we can get this done. we've done it before for our constituents, but the delay is

going on too long. it's that simple. madam president, i yield back. mr. sanders: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i'm here for another reason this evening, but i wanted to concur with senator welch. obviously we need more federal disaster relief. we need reforms in fema, and we certainly need a permanent postal office in montpelier, vermont. so i want to thank senator welch for his work in that area. madam president, in a few weeks' time, we will mark the one-year anniversary of the war in the middle east.

it has been almost one year since hamas' horrific terrorist rampage on october 7, which killed 1,200 innocent israelis and took hundreds of hostages, including americans. as i have said many times, israel had an absolute right to defend itself and respond to the hamas attack. but, tragically, prime minister netanyahu's extremist government has not simply waged war against hamas. it has waged all-out war against the palestinian people. israel has conducted this war with little regard for innocent civilians, bombing indiscriminately and severely restricting the humanitarian relief operation needed by

desperate people. after nearly one year of this carnage, out of a population of some 2.2 million people, more than 41,000 palestinians have been killed and nearly 95,000 injured. 60% of whom are women, children, or elderly people. let me repeat, 60% of whom are women, children, or elderly people. madam president, netanyahu's policies have trampled on international law, made life unlivable in gaza, and created one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern history. we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the scale of the suffering caused by this all-out

war against the palestinian people. 136,000 casualties, most of whom are civilians. the full toll is likely even higher, with thousands of bodies buried beneath the rubble. madam president, 90% of gazans, 90% of the people in gaza have been displaced from their homes. 1.9 million people. many families have been displaced again and again and again, forced to uproot their lives and pick their way across a war zone with their children and what little they can carry. these are poor people going from place to place amid bombing and total destruction. when these families find finally

a safe place to seek refuge, perhaps setting up a tent in a so-called safe zone, they are often then forced to evacuate due to renewed israeli bombing. madam president, few of these people even have homes to ever return to. more than 60% of gaza's housing has been damaged or destroyed, including 221,000 housing units that have been completely destroyed. imagine -- imagine going from place to place knowing that you're never going to be able to return to your home. today, as a result of the devastation of housing in gaza, more than one million people are homeless. and i would ask my colleagues to

try to think for a moment what it means to be carrying your children from place to place in the heat, without food, without water, knowing that your home that you came from has been destroyed. and that's what's going on today. madam president, what we are witnessing now is not just the loss of human life, as severe and horrible as that is. gazan civilian infrastructure has been devastated, including water and sewage systems. raw sewage runs through the streets spreading disease. clean water is still in short supply. most of the roads in gaza are impassable, torn up by bombing and bulldozers and there is virtually no electricity right now. but it's not just gaza's

infrastructure. the netanyahu government has systematically, systematically -- and i talked to doctors about this -- devastated the health care system in gaza, knocking 19 hospitals out of service and killing more than 800 health care workers. you got 95,000 people that have been injured, including a lot of children, and you have 19 hospitals that have been knocked out of service. the world health organization has recorded thousands of attacks on health care facilities. not surprisingly, with the collapse of the health care system under this strain, diseases like hepatitis, dysentery, polio and other infections have taken hold. madam president, gaza has 12 universities. every single one of them has

been bombed, as have hundreds of schools. 88% of all school buildings in gaza have been damaged. every university bombed. 88% of all school buildings in gaza have been damaged. and more than 500 people have been killed while sheltering in u.n. schools. there are many, many hundreds of thousands of children in gaza -- it is a young palestinian population. it is by and large young, a lot of chin. virtually -- a lot of children. virtually none of them have been in school since this war began. madam president, as horrific and unspeakable as all of this is, there is something even worse taking place in gaza now, and that is as a result of israeli restrictions on humanitarian

aid, people in gaza are now starving to death, leading experts from the u.n. and other aid organizations estimate that some 495,000 palestinians, a quarter of a population, face starvation. these groups estimate that more than 50,000 children require treatment now for acute malnutrition and are at risk of starving to death. 50,000 kids facing malnutrition. and i'm not a doctor, but i know enough to tell you that will impact these children for the rest of their lives. that's what childhood malnutrition does. malnourished women struggle to breast feed their newborns. formula is inaccessible. and even when available it cannot be used without reliable sources of clean water. according to the u.n., virtually every humanitarian organization

functioning in gaza, there is one primary reason for this starvation and suffering, and that is that israel has severely restricted the amount of humanitarian aid, including food, water, and medical supplies that can reach the desperate people of gaza. this, madam president, is a clear violation of u.s. and international law. not just immoral, not just outrageous, but a clear violation of u.s. and international law. and, madam president, every day, every single day the bombardment continues. bombing and shelling carried out with u.s.-provided weaponry, often financed in large part by american taxpayers.

u.s. weapons financed by u.s. taxpayers. in the last year alone, congress has voted to send more than $10 billion in american taxpayer dollars to the extremist israeli government to buy more of the bombs and more of the weapons they are using to wage war against the palestinian people. madam president, enough is enough. u.s. complicity in this horrific war must end. with a group of colleagues, i will soon be introducing a number of joint resolutions of disapproval which would block $20 billion in new arms sells. resolutions of disbe approval are the only tool congress has

to block arm sales which is inconsistent with established u.s. and international law. the senate will vote on these measures. let me outline briefly why it is critical that we prevent these sales from going forward. madam president, i have laid out the horrible reality of the situation in gaza, but the sad truth is that much of this carnage has been carried out with u.s.-provided military equipment. put simply, providing more offensive weapons to continue this disastrous war would be immoral. it would also be illegal. these sales directly contradict the stated purpose of the foreign assistance act of 1961 and the arms export control act. these laws require that u.s.

arms transfers to foreign countries must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, advanced u.s. foreign policy interests, and avoid u.s. complicity with any human rights violations. that is the purpose of these laws. madam president, during the august recess, the administration sent to congress official notice for several sales to israel that clearly do not meet these criteria. the arms sales total over $20 billion and include transfers of joint direct attack munitions or jdam's, 120 millimeter rounds and up to 50 new f-15 air fighter aircraft as well as upgrades for air f-15's.

all of these have been used in gaza causing massive death and suffering to innocent women and children. the jdam's have been used indiscriminately and are responsible for a significant portion of the civilian casualties. reliable human rights monitors have painstakingly documented numerous specific incidents involving these systems leading to unacceptable civilian death and harm. there is a mountain of documentary evidence regarding this. hundreds of high witness testimonies, photographs, videos and satellite imagery all underscore one simple point -- these weapons are being used in violation of u.s. and international law. i have a list here of some of the most egree jus incidents.

the list is too long to be read but i ask the list be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, the administration's report pursuant to national security memorandum 20 concluded that, quote, it is reasonable to assess that defense articles have been used by israeli security forces since october 7 in instances inconsistent with its international humanitarian law obligations or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm. end of quote. that's the administration. the report stated that, quote, high levels of civilian casualties raise substantial questions as to whether the israeli defense force is using effective civilian harm mitigation effectively in all cases. end of quote.

that's the administration. madam president, it's not just the civilian casualties and the violations of international human rights. other provisions of u.s. law are also applicable. section 6201 of the foreign assistance act also states that, quote, no assistance shall be furnished to any country when it is made known to the president that the government of such country prohibits or otherwise restricts directly or indirectly the transport or delivery of united states humanitarian assistance, end of quote. madam president, the whole world has witnessed israel's restriction of humanitarian aid. the u.n. in virtually every humanitarian dprup says that israel's restrictive policies are the primary cause of the humanitarian catastrophe now

taking place in gaza. the administration says as much, admitting that, quote, israel did not fully cooperate with the united states government efforts, and the united states government supported international efforts to maximize humanitarian assistance flow to and distribution within gaza. end of quote. frankly, that severely understates the reality. madam president, no matter how people here in washington may try to spin it, the simple fact is that we must end our complicity in israel's illegal and indiscriminate military campaign which has caused massive civilian death and suffering. madam president, the law also says that arms sales must advance u.s. foreign policy interests. we're going to sell arms, they must advance u.s. foreign policy

interests. these transfers again fall far short. these sales would reward netanyahu's extremist government even as it flouts, openly flouts u.s. policy goals at every turn and in fact drags the united states closer to a regional war. for months the biden administration has been trying to reach a cease-fire deal that would secure the release of the hostages and allow massive amounts of humanitarian aid to flow into gaza. every time a deal appears close, netanyahu moves the goalpost, introducing new demands and torpedoing the deal. it is clear to me that netanyahu is prolonging the war in order to cling to power and avoid prosecution at home for

corruption. that is why hundreds of thousands of israelis routinely take to the streets to protest his policies. but it's not just his sabotage of a cease-fire for hostage deal. netanyahu has also overseen record settlement expansion in the west bank and unleashed a wave of violence there that has killed nearly 700 palestinians, including 150 children killed over the last 11 months, because so much focus is on gaza, we're not paying attention to the disaster taking place in the west bank. madam president, americans have also been caught up in this bloodshed. on december 6 israeli forces shot an american recent college graduate in the head near a settlement in the west bank.

in january they shot and killed an american high school senior from louisiana. in february they shot and killed another 17-year-old american from florida. in october of last year they nearly killed a constituent of mine, from vermont, a journalist with two tank rounds. six journalists were wounded in that attack. the dprup was clearly -- the group was clearly marked as press. these are the same tank rounds the administration would provide to israel. needless to say there has been no, zero, accountability for these deaths. and of course there has been no accountability for the repeated israeli settleer attacks enabled by security forces of palestinian towns and villages. no meaningful response to the burning of palestinian homes and businesses. nothing but silence in the face of a concerted right wing israeli effort to illegally annex the west bank.

yet those are the netanyahu extremist government policies that is sales would reward. i say that to my colleagues. all of this is going on, and should our response to mr. netanyahu say keep it up? here are more arms. here are more money. a government that has caused mass civilian deaths, flouted u.s. law and undermining key u.s. policies, goals in the region should not be receiving more financial aid from america and should not be receiving military weaponry from the united states. madam president, passing a joint resolution to block these sales will make clear to the netanyahu government that they cannot continue to ignore the u.s. government's demands for an immediate cease-fire and the release of the hostages. it will put pressure on his

extremist government to change israel's military approach and avert a regional war. and it may, just may begin to restore a shred of u.s. credibility abroad. madam president, passing a joint resolution of disapproval is not only the right thing to do, it is not only the legal and appropriate thing to do, it is also what the american people want us to do. according to a june 5 poll from cbs news, 61% of americans oppose sending weapons and supplies to israel, including 77% of democrats, 62% of independents and many republicans as well. and that poll is consistent with earlier polls. madam president, this is not a new or radical idea. the united states routinely conditions military aid, arms

sales and security cooperation with every other country. this ain't new. we have done it over and over again. and we have done it many times before with israel. not a new idea. it is only in recent years that the idea of leveraging aid to israel to security policy changes has become controversial. president ronald reagan, i is an i to my republican colleagues, suspended delivery of f-16 fighter jets to israel over its raid on the reactor in iraq, threatened to suspend military aid to end israel's bombardment of beirut and again stopped it to in 1982. president jimmy carter in -- in

1991, then-secretary of state james baker threatened to withhold loan guarantees unless israel stop expansion. using this as leverage is not a new idea. done under republican presidents and democratic presidents. there is also recent precedent of congress acting to stop indiscriminate bombing. arms sales were blocked to saudi arabia over its bombing campaign in yemen. at that time the saudi coalition was responsible for roughly 8,000 civilian deaths, israel has killed more than 41,000 in less than a year. madam president, blocking these sales would also be in keeping with actions taken by the international community and some

of our closest allies. what i'm suggesting here is not unique in the world. it's taking place all over the world, including some of our closest allies. there has been widespread condemnation of israel's conduct during this war from governments from around the world, international institutions and humanitarian organization. the united kingdom recently suspended 30 export licenses for a range of armaments after concluding there was an unacceptable risk they could be used in violation of international humanitarian law. germany has not approved an offensive weapon transfer since march, kennedy, belgian and others have taken similar steps. the united nations have called for an end for the armed shipments fueling the conflict. madam president, we cannot ignore -- continue to ignore

what the extremists netanyahu government is doing in gaza. we cannot continue to be explicit in this humanitarian disaster. the time is long overdue for the u.s. senate to act, and we must act. i hope my colleagues will support this effort on the floor and my office is ready to answer any questions that senators may have. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. kennedy: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. with me today is one of my colleagues from my office, mr. henson webber, who i thank for giving so much to our state and our country.

the first topic that i want to touch briefly on today, madam president, for folks, both sorrow and pride. i am sorry to report that last week my people in louisiana were hit by yet another hurricane, hurricane francine. it was a category 2. it was right on the line between a category 1 and category 2. we had winds of 100 miles per hour, we had nine to ten inches of rain, we had a vicious storm surge. my people did what they always do. they got ready for it. they reacted to the storm with grace and with pressure. my people filled sandbags and we checked on our neighbors and we listened to our local officials,

we said prayers for our first responders. my people are tough as a pine knot, but they're also compassionate and we made it through. some have said, well, compared to past hurricanes francine was -- was not as bad as some in the past. and that's true. it could always be worse. but that is cold comfort -- cold comfort for the thousands of louisianans who sustained damage from that storm surge and those ferocious winds and that rain. and i want to assure my people that as we have in the past, we will persevere and we will make it through. i have never in my years in the

senate voted against providing relief for any of my -- of our sister states and my fellow senators who have asked for it, who have been the victim of a natural disaster, and i never will. that is the first role of government, to protect people and property. and i will never vote against aid if one of my sister states through no fault of their own is struck by nature. i say that because i will be asking the people of america to help the people of louisiana one more time. we won't ask for a penny more than we need. the help i will seek will be for personal assistance and for

housing, infrastructure assistance and mitigation grants. i want to thank president biden, governor landry whom i toured with by helicopter last week. governor land ry asked for assistance. i want to thank our fema administrator, ms. dana criswell, she came to louisiana immediately after the storm came through and i want to thank our administrator for being on the ground and her personal touch. one of the things i talked to her about, as you know, fema has implemented a new flood insurance premium program which is breaking the backs of every

insured in the flood insurance program. premiums have gone tlau the roof -- through the roof. i can assure you that the damages would have been much, much worse if respect to francine had it not been for the investment that the american taxpayer, and the taxpayers of louisiana, have made in new flood protection systems and new le levees. and -- and that money that we have spent, including but not limited to the money by louisiana citizens who taxed themselves to build these levees, our people should be given credit on their flood insurance premiums for that investment that they made. all you have to do is take care of terabone parish. in louisiana we call our

cou counties parishes. terrebone parish has spent over a billion dollars of their money, and we're not a wealthy state, my people there taxed themselves -- for a levee system which will mitigate the damages from this last storm. had it not been for the levee that my people taxed themselves to build, and, look, i don't want to be unfair. the corps of engineers and the american taxpayer helped us too. but we did our fair share. had it not been for those levees that my people contributed to, the damages would have been billions and billions and billions of dollars just from storm surge in south louisiana. for a category 2 storm that moved through quickly.

and that investment by taxpayers should be reflected in the flood insurance premiums and they should go down. topic number two. this is not a news flash, madam president. americans are struggling to pay their bills. the reason, of course, is inflation. the inflation that the -- the inflation for the american people. let me strike that. i don't want to call it inflation. let me call it what it is, the high prices. the high -- high prices were made in washington, and as a result of the high prices, people are struggling to pay their bills. i was looking at a report this week, madam president, and i know you feel this in your state, people are having to

borrow money to pay their bills and they're having to borrow money on their credit cards, and i don't need to tell you that the interest on the credit cards have gone up dramatically as a result of inflation, and the interest on a credit card is not like going to a bank where credit is tight. because of inflation interest rates on those credit cards have gone through the roof. credit card interest rate in march was 21.5%. delinquent payments on credit cards are also through the roof. 9.1%, the highest in a decade, credit card balances are higher too. auto loans, the average interest rate on a 60-month new car loan was 8.2% last may. that's up from 5.3% in 2019, and

delinquency rates on auto loans are the highest they've been in ten years. if you look at consumer debt, it's now -- last year it hit $17 trillion, not million, not billion, $17 trillion. it hit that number for the last -- last year for the first time. inflation adjusted debt is at its highest level since 2009. now, i know some folks are thinking, yes, but inflation has come down. yes, it has. and i want to thank the federal reserve for that because they had to do it alone. they sure didn't get help from congress. but what does that mean? when inflation comes down, that's called disinflation. what does that mean? when inflation comes down, that just means prices are not rising as quickly as they were. that's all a reduction in

inflation means. prices are still going up but they're not going up as quickly as they were. that's called disinflation. but prices are not going down. if prices were to go down, that would be called deinflation. that would be called deinflation. and as federal reserve chair powell and treasury secretary yellen have both testified in front of the banking committee, and i hate to say this, unless we do something, these high prices are permanent. they are permanent. now, there are only two ways to reduce these prices. one is to go into a recession. china is in a recession. prices in china are going down. it's too big after price to -- of a price to pay. i don't want us to go into recession, people to lose their jobs in order to get prices down. the only other alternative is to

grow out of the inflation, to lift people up, to increase wages at the low end of the wage scale, at the middle, and at the upper end of the wage scale. help everybody. and 5,000 years of human history has taught us that you cannot increase wealth, you cannot increase individual's income, it can't be done without increasing output. so, madam president, we in the senate are going to have to put our -- our heads together and figure out how to grow this economy, not at 1.5%, not at 2%, which has become the norm. we break 2% gross domestic product growth now and we want to have a toga party, we shouldn't settle at 2%, we need

3% growth to lift everybody up. final point, madam president. we are losing not america to -- to -- we in the senate are losing one of our best and brightest. she's sitting right down here. her name is katherine foster. katherine grew up in missouri. she went to the university of mississippi. from 2008 to 2012. you'll notice katherine finished in four years, she didn't hang around for six or seven years and string it out. she got busy. she graduated. she started as a senate page. she's worked as a staffer, including senator kit bond.

her first full time job was with senator roy blunt. then in 2015, katherine moved to the cloakroom. now a lot of members of the public can't see the work that our cloakroom staff does on both sides. they make this place run. they keep us on time. they help us interpret the rules. how can i put this? the senate rules are written like somebody has lived in outer spacest -- space most of their lyles. -- lives many they make no sense. the point is the rules are the rules and we depend on our

cloakroom staff to interpret it for us. we depend on people like katherine foster. katherine is smart, she's a good mama, she's a good spouse, she's steady. she never panics. she's very pleasant. she puts up with a lot and she's headed into the private sector. and we wish her well. i hope she makes bucket loads, truckloads full of money. and i hope she has better hours than she has in -- in the -- in the united states senate. this is her last week, folks, and when i count my blessings, i count the members of our cloakroom staff on both sides,

democrat and republican, and i especially count katherine foster twice. so thank you, katherine for your extraordinary work and for giving so much to the united states senate and for giving so much to your country. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. .

.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: madam president, i come here periodically to speak about issues about the national flood insurance program. i will today but first i want to talk about resiliency, environmental resiliency in particular. i'm going to talk about acts of heroism, north carolina and south carolina, and then i'm

going to end up with the national flood insurance program. let's talk about resiliency. hurricane francine just hit my state. and where the federal government, state and local government have invested and completed that investment in building resiliency, we did well. our country did well. from the infrastructure investment and jobs act by itself $360 million have come to build flood control structures and where those structures have been completed, they did not flood. it reminded me of a couple of years ago when hurricane ida made a direct hit on new orleans. and i was with a mayor and a local elected official, and one -- we looked at each other and one of them said, the ground is dry. contrasting with katrina when

the levees failed and the whole city flooded, the mayor was making the point the ground is dry. we can build resiliency. that is important for my state. it's important for your state, madam president. it is important for our country, wherever there is the threat of environmental disaster. with wise planning and public investment, we can build resiliency. that is the good news and we saw that from hurricane francine. but every now and then there's still a need for heroism. so i'd like to give just some recognition to some folks in my state who did some really positive things. folks in louisiana have seen the story, heard the story of a guy named miles crawford, a nurse in new orleans. in the middle of the storm he gets a text from his brother.

someone had driven into the water and was sinking beneath the bridge. so the truck goes in and then the truck begins to sink. and miles goes out there. it's on the tv. somebody videoed it. he walks out there. i don't know how he broke the window but he breaks the window. and the front is going down but the person trapped inside comes out the back. i say that because whenever we invest, there's always going to be something that slips through. i want to give a shutout to a fellow american who in an act of heroism -- by the way, there was firefighters down in what we call the bayou section. the utility linemen who went out after the storm and quickly put the electricity back up. but the point is as much as we invest, still we can look to individual americans doing incredibly positive things for the sake of their fellow americans. i just want to give a shout out to that and that will kind of lead into what i speak of in the

national flood insurance program. by the way, it's not just miles and lafourche parish, the sheriff department says a total of 26 -- saved 26 people from rising waters. they got calls. they went out. they rescued. heroism almost becomes routine. n now, i'm speaking in my state. it's easy to say louisiana floods. but let me talk about who else floods. the carolinas just had -- oh, by the way, take that down for a second. by the way, i mentioned lafourche parish but this is morgan city. it was through our region that you see we had rain but they were able to address it. next. now, this is cherry grove, south carolina. so rain events occur throughout our nation.

i remember doing a reform for the national flood insurance program when i was in the house of representatives, and the representative from new mexico suddenly got on my bill. what's happening? we just had a rain event in our mountain and we had a gully washer and flooded people in the gully. there was a similar incident from colorado. this could be not just on a coastal system but a river ravine system where there's a sudden gush of water for whatever reason and those who are in the valley of the river or the gully also flood. now, this is south carolina. and i'm using this to make the point that, one, you can build resiliency. as much as you build it, we still need people helping -- people helping people. by the way this is not limited to louisiana, it is across our nation. and this picture just gives us the opportunity to make that recent rain event september 2024

in the carolinas that this is something across our nation. which brings me to the national flood insurance program. you know, we speak of building resiliency. but still we see either the resiliency has not been built or whatever circumstance there is still flooding. we see that we have these acts of heroism in which individuals help individuals. man, that's what makes america great. and we see that this is not just louisiana but it's across our country. and that's where we get to how fellow americans help fellow americans, not just by a brave firefighter, sheriff, or a nurse doing something at the moment but by ways public policy -- wise public policy. the wise public policy as we mentioned is also building resiliency but it is also doing things like strengthing the national flood insurance program to make it affordable, to make

it accountable, and to make it sustainable, and that should be our goal. now, the national flood insurance program was created for a moment like this. somebody -- the water is beginning to recede but you can see water is in here now. those folks are going to have to pick up the pieces. it was an event that was unexpected. and they're flooding and now they need help from their fellow americans. they purchased insurance. they've done their part. but we need wise public policy to make sure that that flood insurance is affordable when the high water comes. national flood insurance program covers about 4.7 million americans across our country. it enables people to rebuild when a flood destroys their home or just kind of washes out their belongings. now, there's two challenges we have in congress regarding this program. we have to reauthorize it so it doesn't expire on september 30.

my colleague senator john kennedy is sponsoring that straight up reauthorization and that straight-up reauthorization is important for at least maintaining that minimum of coverage. but we also have to make it affordable again. and right now it is unaffordable. it's unaffordable when it doesn't have to be unaffordable. at the heart of the problem is something called risk rating 2.0. risk rating 2.0 is a way in which fema is adjusting premiums, not to make sure they're still affordable but to basically pay back a $20 billion debt that was accumulated after hurricane katrina and there were so many claims upon the system. people in louisiana consider that a little bit unjust of the it was decided by a federal judge that those levies failed in new orleans by a faulty design by the