if there's anybody who can do that, i find it very hard to sleep i've got some ideas i think the all the time. this guy just goes out, , lies down, goes out. pictures of him. it's pretty sad when you think about, okay? we will, we laughed but it's sad and nobody told us he was cognitively impaired. she didn't say it. she didn't say it and that puts our country at great danger because president xi is at the top of his game. all of these guys that we are competing against are all at the top of their game. he's not. he hasn't been for a long time and that puts us at great risk in great danger. we will rebuild our cities including washington, d.c. making them safe clean and beautiful again and we will keep the u.s. dollar as the world reserve currency. >> we are going to leave this

here for live coverage of u.s. senate. you can continue watching c-span now our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. e clerk: m. mr. barrasso.

the clerk: 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. 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: senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, bennet, capito, carper, cassidy, collins, cramer, duckworth, gillibrand, hassan, heinrich, hickenlooper, kelly, king, klobuchar, lujan, mullin, padilla, peters, rosen, shaheen, smith, warner, welch, and wyden. senators voting in the negative --

barrasso, blackburn, britt, crapo, daines, ernst, fischer, grassley, johnson, kennedy, lee, marshall, mcconnell, moran, paul, ricketts, rounds, schmitt, scott of south carolina and young. ms. lummis, no. mr. blumenthal, aye. mr. wicker, no.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mrs. murray, aye. mr. lankford, no.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: mr. helmy, aye. ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, aye.

mr. romney, no. mr. kaine, aye. the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. mr. tuberville, no.

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

the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. braun, no.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mr. rubio, no.

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

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

the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye.

ms. cortez masto, aye.

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

mr. hagerty, no. ms. sinema, aye. mr. graham, aye. the clerk: mr. thune, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no.

vote:

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. budd, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. booker, aye.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. the clerk: mr. schatz, aye.

the clerk: mr. tillis, aye.

the presiding officer: yeas are 5, the natos are 36. the -- 5, the nays are 36. the nomination is confirmed. the motions to reconsider be 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 new jersey. mr. booker: thank you, mr. president. i'm rising right now to speak about the urgency to quickly confirm two bipartisan members of the u.s. -- to the u.s. sentencing commission. time is really of the essence, as the term of two voting members -- judge claria horn boom, and judge john gleason, will expire this congress. for decades, the senate has come together and confirmed all commissioners to the sentencing commission by a voice vote. and on one occasion two members by unanimous consent. after they had been considered by the judiciary committee. this used to be something easy done. there's no reason to depart from this incredible bipartisan precedent. we must confirm these two nominees today. now, just as a reminder, congress created the sentencing

commission in 1984 as an independent agency housed in the judicial branch to reduce sentencing disparities and promote transparency and proportionality in sentencing. by statute, the commission must have bipartisan representation amongst its members. it calls for us coming together. this mandate reflects the consensus-driven, evidence-based approach congress has envisioned in making federal criminal sentencing fairer and more balanced for the united states of america. the sentencing commission plays a critical role in our federal legal system. it establishes sentencing policies, practicing for -- practicing for federal courts and promulgates and amends guidelines that serve as a cornerstone for every federal judge when deciding a criminal sentence. it is deeply imperative that the commission maintains a full slate of voting members to continue this profound work.

recent history has shown us what happens when the commission is deprived of its full membership. from 2019 to 2022, the commission lacked a voting quorum and could not update the sentencing guidelines in response to a new federal criminal statute, including the big bipartisan work we did to get the first ex step act and passed by donald trump. without direction op how to implement the new provisions and criminal penalties, circuit courts split over the proper interpretation of the guidelines, resulting in disparate sentences for people that depenaltied solely on -- depended solely on which circuit court they were tried in. in other words, there wasn't fairness or proportionality. consistent with this mandate, these nominees have and will be -- will need to continue to function in our bipartisan way, the vision. it's up to us to work in this bipartisan way. ther therefore, i ask now for

unanimous consent to confirm two bipartisan members of the u.s. sentencing commission, judge claria horn bloom and judge gleason. mr. tuberville: mr. president. mr. booker: i ask for unanimous consent for the senate to consider the following nominations en bloc, calendar number 602, 603, that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc, without intervention, action or debate. that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified to the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. tuberville: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: mr. president, reserving the right to object, therefore i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. booker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey.

mr. booker: supercalifragilistic- expialidocius. that word is difficult to say, but it seems like that happened quicker than even me saying that word. with something so important as this, i was hoping for more of an understanding of why this is being blocked. again, perhaps one of the greatest marks of this institution in my ten years of experience has been the times we've come together, multiple times, to make our justice system more just. this seems to me to be obstructionist to the hopes we can be a nation that ends this partisanship, ends this unnecessary partisanship, excuse me, and ends the sort of tribalism that's making this institution less operative. we all come here from various parts of our great nation to get things done, and it seems to be this pattern in the united states of us finding less comity, less togetherness. i love what martin luther king

said, we're all caught in an escapable network of mutuality, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. when to comes to the exercise of justice in our country, it's clear by not having a bipartisan majority sitting on this body that we create injustice, which ultimately hurts our democracy, and our highest ideals. we started this day by pledging allegiance to that flag, where we said liberty and justice for all. it pains me today, with this stopping of this unanimous con consent, that we are not fulfilling the hopes and aspirations of that pledge. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

publicans have already wasted once the house asked some of the senate will move quickly get the are done. i encourage

elites on both sides to prioritize passages or. both sides keep working together, if we stay away from poison pills and spectacles, the american people can rest assured will be a government shutdown but we still have work to do. of course nothing was inevitable the tight deadline, bipartisan cr negotiated speaker johnson and peters mcdonald's and jeffries or less -- he quorum ca dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 789. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the

nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, april m. perry, of illinois, to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. 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 debate on the nomination of executive calendar numb 789, april m. perry, of illinois, to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor and note the absence of the quorum. i just yield the floor, excuse

me. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: there is no quorum call. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent that valerie ofer, a fellow in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i come to the floor today to support the nomination of david kostelancik to be u.n. ambassador to albania. for over 45 years mr. kostelancik served as a career officer and a qualified and exemplary candidate to represent the united states in an allied capital. he also served in congress as the senior state department

advisor to the helsinki commission. and like so many of our career foreign service officers, mr. kostelancik has dedicated his career to serving the united states at home and abroad. he served in albania before as well as overseas assignments in russia and hungary. most recently he served as foreign policy advisor to chairman of the joint chiefs. it is clear that we have a highly qualified candidate to serve as ambassador to albania. but i also want to talk about why it's so critical that we confirm an ambassador to albania and that we do it without delay. albania is a real success story for american foreign policy. just 30 years ago albania was waking up from more than four decades of communist rule. today albania is a flourishing

democracy, a fully engaged member of nato and an aspiring member of the european union. and it was alabbania who answer calls to take in dissidents from camp ashraf. it was albania back in 2021 who didn't think twice when they answered the call to take in afghan refugees. what message does it send to albania? a critical partner, a stalwart ally of the united states that we can't confirm an ambassador for over a year? albania is l currently the only nato capital in which we do not have a confirmed ambassador. and be as the u.s. -- and as the u.s. confronts challenges around the world we need our allies, we need albania. and i can tell you, china and russia have ambassadors in

albania's capital right now. it's up to the united states senate to determine whether we cede ground to our adversaries. mr. kostelancik has the necessary experience. he speaks albanian and is qualified to fill the post for which he was nominated. for these reasons i urnl no further delays in confirming mr. kostelancik's nomination, and i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nominations, that the senate vote on the nomination, that david j. kostelancik be ambassador to the united states of america to the republic of albania. that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: reserving the right to object. united states diplomats serve a singular purpose, to advocate for and protect u.s. interests all over the world. the constitution makes abundantly clear that the security of the american homeland and commerce with friendly nations are fundamental core interests of the united states of america. the promotion of woke cultural imperialism is never in the core interest of the united states. the constant crusade of career diplomats to evangelize woke ideology on behalf of the united states often works decidedly against our interests and vifrnl undermines -- actively undermines the reputation of our nation. like many biden-harris nominees, mr. kostelancik has proven unable to set aside his personal partisanship while representing the united states interest

abroad. his past performance as charge d'affaires in hungary should disqualify him from diplomatic mantell again. it engaged in be ivfism which the hungarian government. all when he was essentially a place holder until the donald trump could nominate an ambassador. now the biden-harris administration wants to make him the permanent man in charge of the u.s. government's interest in albania. the biden-harris administration had every opportunity to submit a new nominee for this position when mr. kostelancik's nomination was returned to the president at the end of last

year. rather than submit a nominee with a more favorable reputation, a less controversial background and a demonstrated track word of focus, president biden is doubling down and promoting mr. kostelancik. the cultural imperialism continues to dominate, to distract and destroy the reputation andesquiveness of -- and effectiveness of our diplomatic corps. i will not be complacent in such efforts and on that basis i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. shaheen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. s mrs. shaheen: i don't understand what my colleague is talking about in terms of woke ideology and imperialism. that is not my understanding of how the state department works. the state department and our ambassadors are there to carry out america's foreign policy, no

matter who the president is. and that's what david kostelancik did when he was in hungary. and so i'm perplexed by the arguments that are raised by my colleague from utah. his objections are grounded in baseless rumors that are being spread by viktor orban. they are not grounded in facts. here are the facts. mr. kostelancik received overwhelming support, bipartisan support when he was voted out on two occasions of the senate foreign relations committee. and in the 35 years, 35 years, of mr. kostelancik's service to the united states government, he has never been accused of any political bias until viktor orban decided that he didn't think he was executing america's foreign policy properly. mr. kostelancik has served the american public faithfully

across administrations of both parties. he's represented elected leaders' positions. i've spoken with a number of my republican colleagues. i wish my colleague from utah were going to stay so i could talk to him about this, because he's got support from those republicans, precisely for the reasons that i outlined above. it's up to my colleagues whether they will listen to the recommendation of former administration officials and their own republican colleagues or take heed of the baseless allegations of a foreign leader who is ostensibly an ally, who's making false, unproven claims of impartiality. i've looked for evidence. there is zero evidence to that effect. in fact, i have letters here from former gorge, republican governor of new york, george

pataki. and what's more, a number of senior government officials including the u.s. ambassador to hungary whob served under the trump administration have repudiated this claim. so i don't know why my republican colleague today is willing to believe a government who has shown more loyalty to vladimir putin and president xi than he has to the united states. why my colleague from utah is prepared to trust the repeated commitments made by the nominee and senior level republicans that he served in budapest with the utmost professionalism. that's the question, is he willing to trust that, trust all the people who have weighed in on behalf of mr. kostelancik? who, by all accounts in reading his public remarks as charge, defended the trump administration policy ably while in budapest.

that's what ambassadors do when they're serving overseas. they defend the policies of the united states of america and whoever the president is and whoever the secretary of state is. those charged with the conduct of u.s. foreign policy are proud civil servants. they believe in our institutions and they represent the american people no matter which party is in office. mr. president, i am disappointed that what we have today is a number of people, a number of our colleagues who would rather denounce the united states and our foreign policy, who would rather oppose career ambassadors who have been in the job for years because they support viktor orban, because they are

spreading rumors about what people have done that have no basis in fact. so, i intend to come back to the floor on a number of occasions whenever i can to ask for unanimous consent again. because what is happening now is not in the best interest of the united states. when we refuse to confirm ambassadors, we are hamstringing our foreign policy. we are harming u.s. national security. right now there are over 30 state department nominees who are waiting for senate confirmation. by grinding to a halt state department nominees they have engaged in brinkmanship. it's one i don't understand because i know we're in an agreement that the united states is threatened by adversaries

that iran, that china, that russia, that north korea are all threats to the united states. and yet, they're willing to allow president xi's diplomats to get placed in countries all around the world, and they're not willing to let our own diplomats get placed. so i hope that they will re con consider, because what they're doing at its core is putting at risk america's national security. with that, mr. president, 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.

quorum call:

because of the northern for the

ongoing, i ransacked the tax against u.s. personnel led see iraq and syria offered the reminders lack the resources nor motivation to tackle. democrats and republicans alike recognize this, the security interest in the middle east not served in the region iran, russia and china but with the biden -- harris administration is cap grappling with right now in response to iran backed

aggression the construct rules out serious preparation and multiple threats at the same time. the planning construct, under resourcing and interconnected threats our adversaries pose our interests. responded to a question -- lifte the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i come to the floor to make a unanimous consent request but out of courtesy to somebody that may object since there's nobody here to object, i won't make the motion.

but i would like to give my remarks at this point. today i'm going to discuss a decades long priority of mine, and that's reforming the foreign agents registration act. around here it's known by the acronym fara. this legislation is necessary to give it teeth that it needs to be effective. just a little bit of history about fara. until maybe six, seven years ago now it's being enforced a little more often by the department of justice. but prior to that, a law that had been on the books for decades was not really being enforced. so that means people could be hired to lobby for a foreign country before the congress of

the united states, and question didn't even know who they were. well, the fara act passed deck days ago -- decades ago was supposed to make that public. because we ought to know who is working for foreign countries as they try to influence foreign policy in this country. now it's being more attention paid to it. it's being enforced. but i come to the floor today, as i'm going to explain to you, because we had a recent court decisions that have made it even weaker than it should be intended to be. since 2015, to give you a little history of my involvement with this issue, over four congresses i've investigated potential fara violations to ensure the justice department equally enforces fara without regard to power, party,

and privilege. in 2017 as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, i held a fara oversight hearing which contributed to the disclosing foreign influence act that year. i also introduced the bipartisan foreign agents disclosure and registration enhancement act in 2019 which was supported on both sides by the senate judiciary committee and the senate intelligence committee. the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee also signed off on that legislation. so then senator cornyn and i requested unanimous consent to pass that bill at that time. however, then-ranking member of the foreign relations committee senator menendez objected. the foreign agents disclosure and registration enhancement act

is one of several fara bills that i've sought to advance. today i'm here to talk about the bipartisan bill entitled retro active foreign acts registration act. and the purpose of that legislation is to overcome the court decisions that i've already spoken about. chairman peters, my democratic colead, and senators warren, rubio, and young are cosponsors of the bill that goes by the number s. 2229. the bill overturns a recent court ruling that held a person doesn't have to register as a foreign agent if their relationship with the foreign principal has stopped.

it's understood that fara imposes a continuing obligation for persons to register as foreign agents. otherwise, once a lobbyist for a foreign country is caught not reporting, it's pretty simple for them if they don't want to be prosecuted or registered. they just have to server their representation with that country, and they're off the hook. and of course that's not what congress intended. my bill, the retro active foreign agents rental tryings act -- registration act fixes that problem, overrides the court decisions. remember fara doesn't prohibit any activity. you're free to do anything you want to. it's a disclosure statute. it simply requires lobbyists and

public relations groups on k street representing foreign interests that might be friendly to the united states or unfriendly to the united states in the halls of congress, all they have to do is disclose, just disclose. they can do anything they want to, but they have to disclose who they're working for. if a lobbyist doesn't want everyone to know that they're working for the communist chinese government, then i guess that person shouldn't be working for the communist chinese government. now, it's pretty simple what the spirit of this fara legislation is all about. it's all about transparency and with transparency you're more apt to get accountability. and who shouldn't want

transparency because the public's business ought to be public and you ought to be accounted for what you're doing. my retro active fara fix is supported by almost a decade of oversight, hearings, legislative vetting, and discussions with the department of justice. congress must send a crystal clear message to foreign actors that they can't hide in the shadows. so now that we have other people on the floor that might want to speak on this, at this point i want to ask this request, mr. president. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2229 and the

senate proceed to its immediate consideration. 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 objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. the foreign agents registration act was enacted in 1938 and requires individuals working on behalf of foreign governments to disclose their relationships and activities. violations of the law are subject to criminal and civil penalties. generally a person who willfully violates these regulations may nice up to five years in prison and $10,000 fine. now, many thought leaders have written about the overcriminalization of regulations, the fact that we add criminal penalties to people

with paper violations. ed meese has written about this extensively. justice neil gorsuch has written a new book called overruled talking about so many regulation crimes, paperwork crimes, having criminal penalties. a 2016 inspector general audit reported that historically, the department of justice's practice has been to pursue voluntary complies rather than the prosecution of agents who fail to register under the act. more recently though, the department of justice has signalled that it is shifting from treating these violations as an administrative obligation to one that is increasingly an enforcement priority. in 2022, doj reported that it had charged a record number of criminal cases for this regulatory breach. in other words, what was once considered a mistake that could

be rectified simply by encouraging voluntary compliance is now a weapon that can be used to silent dissent by threatening individuals with prison times. just two weeks ago, four members of the african peoples socialist party, two of whom are 82 and 78 years old, were convicted of conspiracy to violate a law similar to fara by acting as agents of russia. the department of justice press release states that the defendants face a maximum penalty of five years in prison. and what had they done to potentially lose their liberty? the specific acts they were accused of, including intending an international conference in russia, publishing a petition to the united nations on the crime of genocide against the african people and the united states of america, and accepting financial

support for a speaking tour to discuss reparations and speaking in support of the russian government. the african peoples socialist party was founded in 1972. for decades the party has criticized the united states and maintained the government owns trillions of dollars in reparations for the crime of genocide against black americans. while i don't agree with any of their policy statements or any of the things they're for, i really don't wish to put them in prison. highlighting the disturbing nature of doj's prosecution of this minuscule fringe group, patrick eddington of the cato institute writes that the party and its related political movement can only be described as bit players on the american political scene whose statements and stances already mirror the kremlin's line for decades. eddington continues.

it makes one wonder why the fbi targeted such marginal groups with little to no impact on the broader political process and whether an unstated goal of these doj raids and imprisoning people was to put the entire domestic political advocacy community on notice that a domestic group with foreign connections is considered fair game for fbi scrutiny even if legitimate first amend activity is involved. according to an article in the nation magazine, since its initial enactment into law, the doj has invoked fara, the statute at hand, to stigmatize and criminalize political advocacy that is contrary to the interests of the government. early examples a of this include the 1951 indictment of w.e.b. dubois who was prosecuted for having promoted and circulated

the stockholm appeal, calling for a ban on nuclear weapons. you can see how this gathers pup political speech. you don't have to agree with the speech, but if the speech happens to represent the viewpoint of another country, the speech may be stifled and you may be arrested for it. i understand the senate will be asked to pass unanimously two bills today that would allow the doj to retro actively require this registration or this paperwork and another that would effectively write an enemy's list into law. both give the doj prosecutors greater ability to selectively -- yet, these bills have not been marked up by the committee of jurisdiction, the senate foreign relations committee. at the very least, the senate foreign relations committee of which i am a member, should

consider these bills before being rushed into passage. therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection heard. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: yes, i'd like to speak to this. this legislation was passed in 1938, and you heard me say in my opening remarks that for a long period of time, until about, i think, less than eight years ago when we started bringing attention to this legislation not being enforced by the department of justice, there were probably only about a dozen people or less convicted under this legislation. and i heard what my colleague from kentucky said about this legislation. i think you could read his remarks to indicate that a

violation of freedom of speech is we might as repeal the lobbying act or lobbying registration act, whatever the law is in 1946 that lobbyists have to register if they're going to lobby the congress of the united states. doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. what it has to do with, it has to do with transparency, so we know who is spending money to influence the laws in this country. that's got nothing to do with freedom of speech. you can say anything you want to. it's just about transparency and the accountability that comes with transparency. and i think it's very important. i don't find a lot of fault with what senator rand has said about

regulatory criminalization and too much federalization, but this is a law that's been on the books since 1938 and really hasn't been enforced until recently here. and i think when you enforce the law, you get respect for the law, and there ought to be respect for a simple little law that says nothing more than we just want to know who you are, who you're working for, and particularly if it's a foreign country we ought to have a record of who's being hired to influence public policy in the united states as a result of your work. it could be a national security concern. it could be a business concern. it doesn't matter what that concern is. you can do anything you want to -- lobby congress -- but we ought to know who you are. so i have great respect for

senator paul and of course as you just found out, i happen to disagree with him on his decision not to let this bill move forward. i know a thing or two about government abuse and weaponization. my investigative staff has been surveiled by the justice department as an example, and you find out that from whistleblowers. you don't find out that because there's transparency of what they're doing. i and my investigative staff has been subject to briefings from the justice department that were targeted to interfere in my investigative work. i've seen government weaponization firsthand that data point shouldn't be a basis to object to this bill. the due diligence has been done. the oversight, the hearing, the negotiations. this bill is bicameral. this bill is bipartisan.

i thank my colleagues, including the objectors, to their giving attention to it, even if we couldn't agree on it. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor to offer a simple resolution, one that reaffirms the basic principle that when you go to the e.r., the emergency room, they should be allowed to treat you. your life is in -- when your life is in danger, doctors should be able to do their job.

when you need emergency care, including an abortion, no politician should stop you from getting it. now, this seems incredibly simple to me. it should not be controversial, especially if everyone who talks about protecting the life of the mother seriously means it. after all, that is what emergency care is for -- saving the life of the mother. and yet when the biden-harris administration tried to make clear that these women should get care, many republicans actually opposed them. i really want to emphasize, we are talking about women whose water breaks dangerously early or who are experiencing uncontrollable hemorrhaging or sepsis or preeclampsia and still republicans actually filed a brief in court saying actually, no, we don't think doctors should be able to provide

abortion care. when a patient's life is at stake, the brief rejected the idea of abortion as a stabilizing care. that's really shocking to me, and it should be shocking to everyone. after a brief like that i am note going to let any of my colleagues off the hook just for saying they care about the life of the mother, not if they won't lift a finger to actually protect women and to actually make clear that emergency care can include abortion. we need to send a very clear message on this, mr. president. the senate needs to speak with one voice and tell the american people, yes, we want to make sure your doctor can save your life. your doctor can save your life. and before my republicans get up to object, let me be clear. you will not get by by pretending that a resolution like this isn't necessary. not when we are hearing now firsthand from doctors racked

with guilty about decisions that republican politicians made for them. not when they are hearing firsthand from women who have bled, suffered, and nearly died because their care was delayed. and certainly not when texas saw maternal deaths now skyrocket because of its strict abortion ban. the data in texas paints a clear, brutal picture of the reality -- these abortion bans are killing women. republicans are also not going to get by by trying to shift the blame and argue emergency care is already protected because the whole point of this resolution is to say emergency care is protected. so if you oppose the senate actually saying that, don't you see how this could be part of the problem? don't you see how that could be very dangerous for women? if you don't see and if you don't understand, listen. women are speaking out, mr. president. doctors are speaking out.

they are terrified. they are heartbroken. and they're angry. and they are watching right now to see if we can just pass this simple resolution and do the very bare minimum of saying with one voice, women have a right to get an abortion when their life is at stake, when their life is at stake, mr. president. so, i ask unanimous consent -- so i ask unanimous consent -- mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 828 on the right to emergency health care, including abortion care, that the resolution be agreed, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: reserving the right to object, this resolution

itself and the words that it has in this resolution says it's the sense of the senate that every person has the basic right to emergency health care, including abortion care. let me be very, very specific on this -- we had a hearing today in the finance committee where this same subject was addressed. we had ob-gyn's from both perspectives on this, those that perform abortions and those that have a moral objection to it. we had a very good argument to be able to lay some facts out, to be able to walk through this. we had two sets of attorneys there were there to be able to walk through the law. here's what became very clear during that conversation this morning and that open hearing -- there is no state in america in which a woman faces persecution or prosecution for having an abortion. no state criminalizes miscarriage. no state criminalizes removing an ectopic pregnancy. no state prohibits lifesaving care for the -- for the mother.

no state requires a woman to be actively dying in order for her doctor to care for her. we heard story after story about doctors being concerned that they may face this because they're hearing political rhetoric, political rhetoric like vice president harris in a speech that she said recently, where she said women were being arrested and facing prosecution for experiencing miscarriages. that is not true. so all of this rhetoric that is being put out there is making doctors afraid but what's very clear from the conversation in law that none of those things are actually true. every physician

every doctor has already the ability to be able to make that decision to be able to protect the life of the mother. they have the protections to be able to do that. so this is a false claim that somehow that what happened in the dobbs decision and what's happening in states is limiting that. it's actually the political rhetoric that's making people afraid. what also came out during the hearing this morning was the very real risk of chemical abortions, that we've recently had tragic situations where women used the chemical abortion pills that they're being told are as safe as tylenol and then it has life-threatening and in some cases recently life-taking consequences. chemical abortion pills are not tylenol. yet they're being sold as that.

and what we're seeing is more and more cases of the diminishing of this is no big deal to be able to end this pregnancy when they haven't seen a doctor because the biden administration is now saying you don't have to see a physician, so the woman doesn't know if she has an ectopic pregnancy or not, if she takes the bill while she has an ectopic pregnancy, she is at risk. but the biden administration is saying they can just mail it to you. it's just as safe as a tylenol, when it's not. we're also not being tested for their blood type to be able to make sure this doesn't affect future pregnancies during this chemical abortion, and they're also not determining by sonogram how far along the mom is in this process because there are limitations to this where it becomes more and more dangerous. all those things are restrictions that used to be there that the biden administration has taken away to say, no, we want more people to

have access to chemical abogs oz, but it's make -- chemical abortions, but it's making it more dangerous for women. and we have seen that recently. so we want to engage in a conversation about how can we put some of those basic, humane, doctor-requested restrictions this there so we're protecting the lives of all those women. that's a better conversation for us to be able to have is to say, what is it that the fda had actually said it was appropriate in the past and what can we dough to be able to protect the lives of women? so, yes, i object to this resolution ton based on the wording on the one hand what we're doughing -- and what we're doing. but, yes, we should be able to continue to have this conversation because there is a real concern that more and more doctors are afraid to do basic health care in an e.r. because more and more people are laying rhetoric out there that they're going to be arrested and that is not true. there's not been a single physician in the country that has been

arrested lifesaving care for a mom in any e.r. room in the country. with that, i be 0. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i disagree with the senator from oklahoma. let me be perfectly clear about what is happening here in america, in the 21st century pregnant women are suffering and dying not because doctors don't know how to save them, but because doctors don't know if republicans will let them. there are skyrocketing maternal death rates in states like texas. and as i spoke out on the floor last week, there are at least two women dead in georgia today because of republican abortion bans. those kids are now growing up without a mother. that is the harsh reality. republicans can't ignore that. donald trump can't shout over it. the american people will not ever forget it. and every day we are going to

continue to hold those people who are opposed to this accountable for the cruelty of these abortion bans. the fact is that the resolution that i offered simply says that doctors can provide emergency care for the life of a mother. i don't understand where the disagreement is, mr. president, and i hope that we can pass this and give doctors and women the confidence that in the united states of america, when you are pregnant and having severe emergency medical situation, you'll be treated. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

[applause] >> my fellow leaders, today is the fourth time i've had the great honor of speaking to this assembly as president of the united states. it will be my last. i have seen the remarkable scene of history. i was first elected office of the united states of america as u.s. senator in 1972. i know i look like i'm only 40. i know that. i was 29 years old. back then, we were living through an inflection point. a moment of tension and uncertainty. the world was divided like the cold war. the middle east was headed towards war. america was war at vietnam. at that point the longest war in american history. the country divided and there

were questions about our staying power. and our future. but even then, a matter of public life with a lot of optimism. the united states and the world got through that moment. it was not easy or simple. without significant setbacks. legal want to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons through arms-control. and then go on to bring the cold war yourself to an end. forging a historic piece. the war in vietnam, last year meeting with vietnamese leadership. we elevated our partnership to the highest level. a testament to the resilience of the human spirit and the capacity for reconciliation. today, they have a partnership

with friends. proof that the horrors of war there is a way forward. things can get better. we should never forget that. i have seen that throughout my career. in the 1980s i spoke out against part-time south africa. i watched the regime fall. in the 1990s war crimes. he was held accountable. at home i wrote to end violence against women and girls americae cost of war as many of you have as well. we have so much more to do. especially against rape and sexual violence as weapons of war and terror. we were attacked on 9/11 by osama bin laden. bringing him justice. then, i came at another moment

in crisis and uncertainty. i believe america had to look forward. new challenges. new threats. new opportunities in front of us we need to put ourselves in a position to see the threats, to deal with the challenges and to seize the opportunities. we need to end the era of war. vice president for president obama. asking me to work to wind down the military operations in iraq. and we did. as painful as it was. afghanistan had replaced vietnam america's longest war. i was determined to end it and i did. it was a hard decision. but the right decision. four american presidents have face that decision. i was determined not to leave it to the fifth. it was a decision he -- decision

that was accompanied by tragedy. fifteen great americans lost their lives with hundreds of afghans and suicide bombers. i think those lost lives and i think them everyday. all of the u.s. military deaths over a long 20 years of that war 20,744 american service men and women wounded in action. the surface sacrifice and heroism. i know other countries lost their own men and women fighting alongside of us. we honor their sacrifices as well. to face the future, also determined to rebuild my country 's alliance and partnership to level not previously seen. we did. we did just that for traditional treaty alliances to new partnerships like the quad. the united states, japan, australia and india. i know many look at the world today into difficulties. and they react with despair.

but i do not. i won't. as leaders, we do not have the luxury. i recognize the challenges from ukraine savanna and beyond. would save her life. in my home state of wisconsin, women lived for 15 months under a criminal abortion ban that was passed in 1849, a law on the books from one year after our statehood and 70 years before a woman won the right to vote. and while there were no women in the room when the statute was crafted, two years ago whi whiches -- wisconsin women found out their health would be -- they woke up to find out they had fewer rights than their mothers and their grandmothers.

that day began 15 months of confusion and chaos and heartbreak for families across wisconsin. we heard stories of women bleeding out from miscarriages, developing life-threatening infections or being forced to carry unviable pregnancies until they could find an appointment out of state. for countless women that meant driving hours, paying for lodging and child care and taking time off work just to make their own decisions about their own body. patients from every one of wisconsin's 72 counties traveled to illinois just to access health care. some traveling over 500 miles. prior to the dobbs decision, only one in six wisconsin abortion patients received out of state care. during our criminal abortion

ban, that number skyrocketed to nine out of ten patients seeking care out of state. those families were being forced to drive on average 103 minutes to exercise their right to control their own bodies and get the care they needed. nearly double the time that they drove to access care before roe fell. and i'm talking here about women who could afford the more than $1,000 in costs to access that care. we must also be aware of those who could not. for example, patients traveling from out of state had to fork up an average of $330 just for lodging. in 2023 alone, illinois and minnesota providers saw over 6,000 patients from wisconsin. you heard me right. 6,000 wisconsin women were forced to travel sometimes

hundreds of miles just to access health care. and even though wisconsin has restored access to abortion in three counties, planned parenthood of illinois is still seeing three times as many patients from wisconsin compared to before the dobbs decision came down. the reality is that abortion care is still only available in three of our 72 counties. exercising this fundamental freedom is out of reach for far too many in america. 22 states across the country have abortion bans and that means one in three women of reproductive age live in a state where they cannot get the health care they need because politicians are telling them that they know better. well, women and families deserve better. that is why last year i

introduced the reproductive health travel fund act to give millions of women without access to care in their home states a lifeline. this bill would ease the tremendous financial burden republican abortion bans have placed squarely on women who are trying to access critical care. women are spending, if not thousands of dollars to pay for travel, lodging, meals and child care just to make their own health care decisions. these past two years we've heard shocking stories of women often desperate for help, having nowhere to turn. last week we even heard the story of a woman who died because she was denied abortion care until it was too late. if my colleagues insist that this issue is a decision for the states and not for women, then i hope that they can at least recognize the tremendous hardship their patchwork of laws

has created. the rights you have as an american should not depend upon what state you live in. if we cannot restore roe this congress, we should at the very least extend a lifeline to the millions of women who are unable to access care in their own communities. so as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor and pensions be discharged from further consideration of s. 2152, the reproductive health travel fund act, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: reserving the right to object. mr. president, if my democratic colleagues were honest they'd call this bill what it really is, the elective abortion travel slush fund for all act. this bill authorizes $350 million taxpayer dollars for radical abortion groups to facilitate elective abortions, this is not limited to just americans, it would give it to noncitizens, illegal aliens seeking abortions. this bill would use federal funds to cover the cost of flights, food, hotels, and other expenses for any individual in the united states seeking abortion paid for by the american taxpayers. it would even cover lost wages for those traveling to get abortions. $50 million of the taxpayer

money in this bill would go directly to groups like planned parentedhood to pay -- parenthood to pay for building maintenance and construction, all of which will go to encouraging, if not coercing women to get abortions, not to seek alternatives. now there is a fact the democrats are hiding. the hyde amendment is clear no taxpayer funds may be used for abortion. my colleagues will say, well, no, this money is paying for abortions, but let's be clear, this taxpayer money is being used for one purpose, to take the lives of unborn children. while the actual abortion procedures aren't covered by this bill, it covers every other cost associated with insuring

abortions happen. democrats know the hyde amendment prevents and prohibits federal dollars funding abortions. it's been the law of the land for 48 years of it was democratically agreed to then and it still stands today. still, today 60% of voters agree with the hyde amendment, on both sides of the aisle, that taxpayer dollars should not be used for abortions. i'm sure that percentage is even higher for illegals getting taxpayer money for abortions. but democrats really don't care despite what they say they'll override american voters if democracy gets in the way of their latest left-wing pet project. democrats know states have -- have democratically decided what their laws on abortion are now they're trying to override the

will of the people and the will of the states by using the federal government and millions of taxpayer dollars to achieve their goal. this is not only to counter to the spirit of the hyde amendment, it is contrary to the principles of federalism and the will of the american people. as i pointed out for months last year with a similar illegal abortion policy, secretary lloyd austin implemented at the department of defense, no agency -- no agency is above the law. i called out the v.a. for implementing another illegal abortion policy. this bill is just another page -- another page out of the democrats' same extreme abortion playbook. this bill is a flimsy attempt to go around the law of the land. gone are the days of the democrats saying abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. democrats today want dangerous

illegal and limitless abortions at any cost -- any cost to the american taxpayers. so for that reason, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. ms. baldwin: mr. president. are the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i am disappointed with the objection. i will agree with the senator on one point, which is that this bill does not fund abortions. the senator referred to demo democratically passed laws relating to this subject, and i just want to remind him once more what i said in my opening statement. in wisconsin, women live for -- lived for 15 months under a criminal abortion ban that was passed in 1849, 70 years before women had the right to vote,

before the civil war. obviously women had no input in that democratically enacted law. but this bill simply breaks down a barrier that americans are facing to access sometimes lifesaving care, a financial barrier, i might add that republicans put up when they inserted themselves into our exam rooms and into women's personal decisions. i hope my republican colleagues understand that women take notice when you vote down bills that protect and defend their basic freedoms. they see who is fighting for their right to control their bodies, health, families, and future. i'm proud to be standing here today on their behalf. this issue is not going away. we're going to keep fighting day in and day out because women

want their rights and freedoms back. some of my colleagues are claiming that this is merely a messaging bill. well, send americans the message that you support their decisions to make their own health care choices. and pass this bill into law. i yield.

mr. president, ladies and

gentlemen, our world is in a world wind. we are in an era of ethics transformation facing challenges unlike any we have ever seen. challenges that demand global solutions. yet, geopolitical divisions keep deepening. the planet keeps heading. wars raged with no clue of their lands. nuclear posturing and new weapons cast that. we are edging towards any imaginable. this is engulfing the world. meanwhile, 2024 is the year that offer many. i stand before you and this whirlwind of two truths.

the world is sustainable. we cannot go on like this. second, the challenges that we face. it requires us to make sure the mechanism of international problem-solving actually solve problems. the assignment of the future was the first step but we have a long way to go. violation threatened the very foundation of international law. the unique quality. they even push them over the

edge. the uncertainty managing the global and all the future and unknowledgeable ways. it is politically indefensible. the growing number of endeavors feeling entitled to get out of jail free cards. they can tremble international law. they can violate united nations charter. they can turn a blind eye to international human rights conventions or the decisions of international parks. they can fund their nose at

national humanitarian law. they can invite another country. lay waste to all societies. disregard the welfare of their own people. and nothing will happen. we see this age of impunity everywhere. in the middle east, in the heart of europe, in the heart of africa and beyond. the war in ukraine is spreading with no signs of letting up. civilians are paying the price. shattering lives and communities it is time for peace based on the charters. international law and resolutions. meanwhile, a nonstop.

lebanon the people of israel and the people of the world cannot afford lebanon to become another gaza. let's be clear. nothing can justify the acts of terror committed by hamas on october 7 or the taking of hostages. most of which i have repeatedly condemned. and nothing can justify the collective punishment of the palestinian people. [applause] the speed and scale of the killing of the distraction and gaza are unlike anything in my years. more than 200 have been killed,

many with their families. and yet the women continue to deliver. and i know you will join me in paying a special tribute to all humanitarians and gaza. [applause] the international community must mobilize for an immediate cease-fire. the immediate additional use of hostages in the beginning of a reversible process for the two state solution. for those who go on. with more settlement with more incitement i ask what is the alternative.

how could the world except one state in which a large number of palestinians will be included without any freedom, any rights or dignity. in sudan, the power struggle has unleashed horrific violence. including widespread rape and sexual assaults. they continue with the approach to finding peace. the dramatic expansion of the varus threats required as a joint approach rooted in solidarity original and international transformation a broken dollar. to the democratic republic of the congo to yemen beyond,

we continue to see falling levels of violence and human suffering in the face of chronic failure to find solutions. meanwhile, missions and is simpe to keep. instability in many places around the world is a byproduct of instability and relations and geopolitical divides. the cold war rules. there were redlines and guardrails. it can feel as if we do not have depth today. and nor do we have moving to a world that we are not there yet. in this more and more countries are feeling the spaces of geopolitical divides doing whatever they want with no

accountability. that is why it is more important than ever to respect international law. to support and implement decisions in the international court and to reinforce human rights in the world. anywhere and everywhere. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> excellence leaders and gentlemen. they are a second driver of unsustainability and a stain on our collect if conscience. it is not a technical nor bureaucratic issue. equality is a question of power with historic roots. conflict, climbing up people in the cost-of-living crisis are pushing those root even deeper.

at the same time, the world has not recovered in the surgeon inequalities coerced by the pandemic. of the world's poorest 75 countries, one third are worse off today than they were five years ago. during that same time, the five richest and in the world have more than doubled their wealth. and the top 1% owned 43% of all global financial assets. some governments are supercharging inequalities. massive tax giveaways on the ultrarich. shortchanging investments in

health organization and social protection. no one is being more shortchanged in the world's women and girls. rampant gender-based discrimination and abuse are the most prevalent inequality across all societies. every day it seems that we are confronted by more cases of gender-based violence and mass rape. both in peace time and as a weapon of war. in some countries they are being used to threaten reproductive health and human rights. laws are being used to lock in the systematic oppression of women and o girls. i am sorry to observe that despite years of talk gender —-dash

unfortunately, fire chief comparitore was gravely killed and others were injured. in my home state of florida it happened again. it is thanks to the incredible work of president trump's secret service detail that another would-be assassin was unable to take a shot at president trump while he was golfing with friends. we thank god that these attempts have not been successful but each of these events have reminded the nation of the danger surrounding president trump and the need to make sure he, his family, and those around him are safe. that's why i introduced the protect our presidents act here in the senate and representative mike law letter and ritchie torres introduced an act in the house. security should be applied regardless of party. that's why these bills ensure all presidential nominees, both

now and in the future, are provided enhanced protection they clearly require and deserve. on friday the house-passed bill passed 405-0. this unanimous vote shows that we can act quickly to do what the american people expect of us. i am proud to lead this effort in the senate. i'm on the floor today to request the immediate passage of the enhanced presidential security act so we can send this good and necessary bill to president biden's desk so it may become law. mr. president, our action today goes beyond the simple language of this bill to increase the secret service protection for our party's presidential and vice presidential nominees. passing the act today with unanimous consent of the senate sends an important message to the american public and the world that we will not ignore these threats, which are truly an attack on our democratic process and have rightly shocked

the world. :

developing countries cannot be -- critical minerals is the find sustainable pleased to meet global demand which are essential to the renewable

revolution. the future we know is certain. that is in your hands. by next year every country must produce an ambitious new protection plan on national defense and contributions and this must bring natural energy strategy sustainable development priorities and climate ambitions together. they must align with the limits cover the whole of government to the consideration of h.r. 9106 which was received by the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 9106, an act to direct the director of the united states secret service to apply the same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect presidents, vice presidents, and major

presidential and vice pres presidential candidates and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. reserving the right to object. let me make it clear that i share senator scott's concern, deep concern that the recent attacks on former president trump's life have made it clear that there are security gaps in his protection. what happened in butler and palm beach was unacceptable and it cannot be allowed to happen again. that's why this week congress is coming together, poised to pass a continuing resolution that i hope the senator will support, that will give the secret service $231 million in additional funding to provide the agency with the authority to spend money at a faster rate so they can meet their mission.

and their mission is zero fail. i'm the chairman of the senate appropriations subcommittee on homeland security, which is charged with funding the secret service. i'm proud of the quick work that we have done to identify the funds that can be spent between now and the election and between now and the inauguration to make sure that any gaps are closed. the reason that i rise on this particular bill, though, is because i don't want to promise the american public more than this bill actually delivers. this bill says that the secret service shall use the same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect presidents, vice presidents, and major presidential and vice presidential candidates. now that may sound meaningful, but in reality my sense is that that is current law.

right now when the secret service makes a determination on the provision of protection, it is assessing the protectee's life, their work, their travel patterns, the potential threats, and the risk of harm to that person. the standard that the secret service uses is to provide whatever protection level is necessary to meet that zero-fail mission to protect the person under their charge. with a team of experts, the secret service determines the level and the type of protection that is needed. that's the process and those are the existing standards. and let's be clear, commanders in chief, presidents of the united states do have certain unique requirements regarding their protection.

for instance, the department of defense is supplying a traveling commander in chief with certain capabilities, chiefly amongst them the ability to stay in contact with our nuclear triad and communication assets necessary for the president to be in seamless communication with the department of defense and military command should a crisis arise. that is a unique set of capabilities that a commander in chief has, and it goes into the assessment that the secret service makes as to the level of protection that the commander in chief needs. they are using the same standard, do what is is necessary in order to protect the life of the protectee. but commanderers in chief,

because they are commanders in chief have a different constellation of assets that surround them, that mean if the standard gets applied accordingly. i am not actually going to object. i'm not sure that this bill changes anything about the way that the secret service approaches their mission. they are going to continue to do whatever is necessary in order to protect the detailee, to protect the individual under their mandate. and i think the much more substantive thing we are going to do this week is to get them the resources they need. my hope is that all of my republican compleegz who have been talking about the importance of secret service protection are willing to support this increase in funding that the continuing resolution will include. but i would end by expressing my

additional hope that we will seek to have a more holistic conversation here about how to protect former president trump, how to protect president biden, how to protect vice president harris. i'm ready to move forward with this bill. i don't think it does anything to meaningfully change the way that the secret service approaches their job. i'm ready to move forward on additional assets. but we also continue to choose to give weapons of mass destruction to assassins. other nations around the world don't choose to hand weapons with such accurate long-range capabilities, such powerful destructive force to these assassins whose brains are breaking. we also have a constellation of actors in this country that are engaged in a web of conspiracy theories. there is a justification of

political violence that exists in this country today, apologies for those people that tried to kill us, attacked us on january 6 that leads many others to contemplate that they will also be let off the hook for their acts of political violence. and so i take the protection of former president trump and vice president harris and everyone under secret service protection very seriously. let's move ahead with this bill. i don't think it actually solves the problem. let's pass the additional money so that they have everything they need, the secret service, in order to get the job done. and then let's sit down and have a broader conversation about why we have seen this spike in political violence and what other ways republicans and democrats can come together. only by having that comprehensive conversation about funding, about the lethal means

of assassination, about the celebration of political violence that happens in this country will we really do the job that is necessary and help the secret service reach their zero-fail mission. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. scott: i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: mr. president, i want to thank my colleagues for their support of this commonsense legislation which has now passed with unanimous bipartisan support in both the senate and the house of representatives. i will continue working with my colleagues to ensure nominees for president and vice president are never in jeopardy and are provided the enhanced protection they clearly require and deserve. this bill will now go to

president biden's desk. i hope he acts quickly to sign it into law. thank you, mr. president.

.

yesterday the senate announced the deployment of servicemember to the middle east. the cause of courses the threat of israel's northern border. ongoing iran backed attacks against u.s. personnel in the red sea iraq and syria offer

plenty of reminders that america's enemies resources or the motivation to tackle this. democrats and republicans alike should recognize that americans enduring security interest in the middle east are not served by abandoning the region to iran russia and china. but with the biden/harris administration is grappling with right now is a problem of its own making. it is a combination of a weekend ineffectual response to iran backed aggression. it's the that predictable and full warned inadequacy of a force planning construct the rules out serious preparation for meeting multiple threats at

the same time. i have spoken repeatedly about the naïveté of abandoning multiple will force planning contract under resourcing her military and ignoring the growing interconnected threat to our adversaries and what it poses to our interests. it's worth remembering form minister -- former prime minister responded to a question that the greatest challenge for a statesman is quote events dear boy, events. well events have president particularly challenging for the biden/harris administration. at the risk of repeating myself losing resolve to defeat adversaries who may threaten us only emboldened them. retreating from difficult challenges only invites even

bigger ones and most importantly there's no serious accounting of the global threat to america tour and just our allies that conclude can be dealt with one of the time at our leisure. the enemy gets a vote. the demand for u.s. military that can meet simultaneous challenges and we ignore it as apparel of the entire international order. it underpins our security and our prosperity. today when president biden addresses the u.n. general assembly you will no doubt hear about the greater challenge these interconnected threats posed to america and the entire world. but the president's concern will carry little weight without explicit hard power necessary to

address them. the president will assist that his leadership is quote results end quote. that is true but just not good results. for years they have for the the urgent requirement of the national defense anemic defense budget request and its ongoing preference for micromanaging allies over confronting adversaries for the biden/harris administration has compounded the challenges that we face. the commander chief is reckoning with this week is the product of nearly four years of failing to check iran and to prepare adequately for great power competition. four years of appeasement, hesitation, naïve and desperate nuclear diplomacy. as well as outright retreat.

it is indeed too late to undo this administrations record of net cuts in defense investments. likewise it's too late to roll back the efforts to withdraw from afghanistan. here in the senate after weeks of partisan show votes it is now too late for the senate to discharge a fundamental obligation of this body to provide for the common defense and debate the annual defense authorization and appropriation bills before an election. it is not however too late to stop treating israel is an escalatory regional force in need of finger wiping the manner micromanagement and instead like a sovereign democracy by the forces of the world's most active sponsor of terror. it's not too late.

to stop responding to proxy violence with the thumb wavering force necessary to change iran's calculus and for that matter russia and china as well. it's not too late to show her adversaries in a race to undermine america's global influence that threatens its global interest will meet determined opposition. on another matter help with your president biden's term he leveled weighty accusations at the opposition party. he said republicans quote did not respect the constitution end quote end quote do not believe in the rule of law end quote. that was pretty rich coming from someone who is already exploring the possibility of resurrecting one of the most migrant of france to the constitution in american history.

after less than 100 days in office the president informed a faux academic commission to revisit a plan to toss out the separation of powers and pack the supreme court. this idea had been vetted since the 1930s when it proved so inconceivable that even the most loyal new deal democrats that almost tore president roosevelt administration of part and just months after convening the president's own commission concluded that structural changes would listen to this, risk irreparable damage to an independent judicial area. that was the president's commission. the mission were quote in recent years we have seen democratic governments regress or backslide with respect to the judicial independence. this has come through electoral majorities using their power to restructure previous independent institutions including courts to

favor the political agendas of those governments. though this even though they haven't yet gone forward with a nearly 90 are planned to turn the nation's highest court into a beef up the presidency the campaign to undermine judicial in tendencies are alive and well right here in the senate. vice president harris and her part has yet to disavow her own openness to protecting heretical steps and 2019 when senator harris said quote we are on the verge of a crisis of confidence at the supreme court and we had to take the challenge head-on and everything is on the table to do that. everything is on the table? including the summer packing the

court? the vice president doors the presence call for quote imposing term limits on justices active service. it would be difficult to draw a more devastating to the public confidence. first of all, welcome to the -- mr. cramer: thank you, mr. president. federal centers for medicare and medicaid services is seemingly doing everything they can to prevent our veterans and seniors from receiving quality long-term care. that is their mission, but they seem to be doing everything they can to prevent it. instead of working to ensure quality care for our veterans and seniors, the agency seems to be hyper focused on what appears to be a warpath to push long-term care facilities to their limit. rather than listening to the substantial feedback from facilities and managers, health

care leaders and members of congress, the agency insists on implementing these overbearing unrealistic rules and procedures to flex its bureaucratic muscle as if to show us how big their muscles are. the actions of cms are far beyond misgayed -- misguided and it seems to be regardless of the care of the people they are charged to care for. in north dakota, our facilities are feeling the squeeze and the issue is really twofold. first, and most importantly for my state, the minimum staffing rule -- the minimum staffing rule in an attempt to ensure staffing levels, cms went over the top. in may, cms issued this minimum staffing rule which requires long-term care facilities to implement new staffing requirements. now, these are institutions that are already woefully

understaffed because of a lack of a workforce. most burdensome is the new requirement to have a registered nurse on site 24 hours a day seven days a week rather than the previous eight hours a day seven days a week. less than a quarter of north dakota facilities meet this requirement and among rural facilities, only 14% will meet that mandate. and we should make no mistake, this is an unfunded, one size fits all mandate coming from the bureaucratic bullies at cms. in fact, by cms's own low-ball estimates, this estimation, it is almost hard for me to say this number, by their low-ball estimate, this will cost

facilities over $40 billion to comply. why would you want to impose 4 billion more dollars of unproductive costs on our facilities that are there to care for our seniors and our veterans? to meet these elevated staffing levels, our facilities have no good options if they have any options at all. at existing staff levels, north dakota facilities would need to reduce the number of residents served per day by 74 people. to meet this mandate, north dakota facilities would have to reduce -- reduce the people they care for by 74. they're being required to hire more staff from a supply of registered nurses that simply does not exist. i don't know why they would be surprised by this. we have a nursing shortage. hello, cms. wake up, listen to one or two

people and know that we have a nursing shortage in this country and it is particularly challenging in rural america. now, if they don't get that, if they don't find the nurses, of course, they do have the option of reducing the number of seniors they serve, as i mentioned earlier, or just closing their doors entirely. that doesn't seem to meet the stated goal of cms. it's also clear this rule will disproportionately harm our rural states like north dakota and certainly our rural facilities. these are the same facilities already struggling to stay open. in my state we had six facilities closed since 2021, indicating the already challenging operating environment. and i fear this rule will supercharge this trend and deprive rural individuals, remember, these are people, cms, rural individuals, people the

opportunity to receive care in their home communities near the people they love and know the best. their families and their friends, their loved ones. mr. president, this math just doesn't add up. how does cms not understand that this mandate is impossible to meet or maybe they do? i fear they maybe actually do understand that. cms's intransigence seems to imply that it doesn't care. every state will feel the negative impact of this rule, but rural states like mine will be hurt the most. i have sent letters as far back as january of last year. and i have questioned sm -- cms officials on already stressed staffing challenges. and, mr. president.

, opposition to this rule has been bipartisan. it's been across the aisle and across the capitol. in one example senator king and i sent a second letter last october before introducing a bill together in march to require the veterans affairs to study the cms rules impact on our war heroes, our veterans. again in june, we made the same request in a letter. i also cosponsored a bipartisan congressional resolution of disapproval in june to overturn the rule cms is so unwilling to modify. in ie decision -- in addition, litigation is ongoing in two federal districts both of which argue the agency exceeded its statutory authority and the rule should be set aside. not uncommon for agencies lately to overstep their legal boundaries. mr. president, our concerns have not -- have simply to this point have fallen on deaf ears at cms.

the minimum staffing rule is part of a broader pattern of cms' bureaucratic crackdowns on facilities for no reason other than it can. and that's what bothers me so much about bureaucratic bullies is they're bullies because they can be. without materially improving the health and safety of long-term care residents. again, that's their goal. supposedly that's their goal. this brings me to the second part of the issue impacting our long-term care facilities. they're called civil monetary penalties or in bureaucratic speak, cmp's, punitive monetary actions that cms can take against long-term care facilities in situations where cms determines they do not substantially comply with medicare or medicaid participation requirements, the requirements that the bullies create out of thin air. these penalties are heavily used

to punish facilities beyond a simple correction. the goal should be to help them comply, not to punish them. during a sure vaf visit of a -- survey visit of a facility, to give a for instance, an inspector can issue citations for a range of violations. the inspector has the ability to issue citations based on perceived severity ranging from no actual harm up to immediate jeopardy which indicates an issue or situation that puts a resident's health or safety at imminent risk. again, as determined by cms. the problem only begins with the initial citation, however. cms can still issue additional citations following the survey or the visit. sometimes many months later. i'll try to explain this as simply as i can so you get the sense of just how awful this is. the agency it ins to expand its

ability to issue these citations and related penalties to exert even more control over the facilities. and there's where the real issue is, control over you. the irony here is that for every dollar spent on a penalty is one less dollar invested in staff. the facility itself. equipment. anything that might enhance the care for the senior or the veteran. mr. president, our seniors and veterans certainly deserve to live in safe regulated facilities. but this is not about letting facilities off the hook when infractions occur. rather, this is about the avalanche of penalties facilities face after a single infraction and the consequences of excess fines. but it gets worse. cms has updated its ability -- remember, every time i reference what cms is doing with

regulations or updating, that's them. arbitrarily, individually, unilaterally making up lies. for your benefit? i don't think so. so they've updated the ability to impose these penalties for up to three survey cycles. what does that mean? most of these survey cycles -- these are the visits again by a regulator -- most of them include inspections on average of every 12 months. to simplify the math, what this means is paper pushing bullies in washington could issue another penalty from the comfort of their desks on top of the original penalty imposed at the time of the survey. they don't even have to leave their desk. in fact, i suspect many of them never have except the ones that now work from home, that work from home. this could be months or years later and without ever having to set foot in a facility or in a state other than the district of

columbia and the surrounding counties. so what's the purpose of these additional delayed penalties? who thinks this would be a good idea? well, it's certainly not about taking immediate action to enhance the care or help them comply and help the safety of residents addressing noncompliance during the visit itself. no. to make matters worse, for certain citations -- now get this. when i read this i had to check on it and check on it and check on it to make sure this is true. for certain citations, facilities are financially incentivized not to challenge the findings. let me say that again because it's oom too hard to believe -- almost too hard to believe. for certain citations, facilities are financially incentivized not to challenge the findings. isn't that rich? in fact, cms offers a 35% extortion discount to facilities

if they waive their right to a hearing and just simply accept the penalties from the bureaucratic bully that was imposed. this of course only further empowers the bully and allows the initial citations to stand undisputed. it's unconscionable. i can't even believe it's legal and maybe it's not. i hesitate to even share this but i feel i have to. i've had facility managers in my home state plead with me not to use their specific example for fear of retaliation from the pure crock crazy -- bureaucracy, the very people who are supposed to be helping provide safe, reliable care for our veterans and our seniors. the recently finalized skilled nursing facility rule introduced yet another way to punish facilities with the addition of -- get this -- per instance

per day civil monetary penalties. only a bureaucrat could love a title like that. this is what's called an instance multiplier of fines. an instance multiplier of fines based on the number of residents impacted or the number of times the conduct is repeated. it's another flawed approach as citations already account for this. when the initial citation is issued, it accounts for scope. it accounts for -- how insulated the incident is or pattern, how widespread the pattern may be. all of that is calculated into the initial citation. but if that's not good enough, they can always go back and say, you know what? let's multiply instances and just see if we can't punish them a little bit more so maybe they could close down. mr. president, if these rules and penalties were really about

better care for residents, cms should yield to reason. however, the actions of the bureaucrats at cms prove they are out ever touch -- out of touch, simply out of touch with operational challenges, actually facing the facilities and the people that the facilities serve. if they in fact want to achieve the stated goal of improving quality, well, these decisions do just the opposite. in fact, what they do is -- they reduce choice. they -- and access and ultimately they close -- they lead to facilities closing. i don't think that's the goal. it's not the stated goal, maybe somebody's goal but not the stated goal. i hope those with the ability to do something about it enter reality one of these days and listen to our warnings. they are real. these are real people living in real places. and, yes, they might be in lead state -- red states -- i'm

sorry, some of them are. a lot of these rural places are. but that's not your job to worry about the politics. i have little faith that they're going to do the right thing and reverse course. but i prayer they will -- pray they will. i yield.

[applause]

my fellow leaders, today is the 4th time i've had the great honor to be at this assembly as president of united states. it will be my last. i have seen remarkable history. i was first elected to the office of the united states of america is u.s. senator in 1972 and i know i look like i'm only 40, i know that. [laughter] i was 29 years old. back then we were living through an inflection point. a moment of tension and uncertainty, a world was divided by the cold war. we were headed towards war. america was at war in vietnam and at that point the longest war in america's history. our country is divided and angry

and there were questions about our staying power and their future. but even then i entered public life not out of despair. out of optimism. the united states in the world got to that moment. it wasn't easy or simple without significant setbacks but we go on to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and then go on to bring the cold war itself to an end. israel and egypt went to war and forged a historic peace. we went to war in vietnam. i was meeting with the leadership in wheat elevated to the hires level to test the resilience of the human in the capacity for reconciliation. today the united states and vietnam are partners and friends

and that's proof even from the of war there's a way forward. things can get better. we should never forget that. i have seen that throughout my career. in the 1980s i spoke out against the parkside in south and then i watched the racist regime fall. in 1990 i worked with milosevic to counter war crimes that he was held accountable. at home i am wrote an act to end the scourge against violence against women and girls not only in america but across the world. we have so much more to do especially against and sexual violence and weapons of war and terror. we were attacked on 9/11 by al qaeda and bin laden and he was brought to justice and then they

came to the presidency in another moment in the crisis and uncertainty. i believe america had to look forward to new challenges new threats new opportunities that were in front of us. we need to put ourselves in the position to see the threats to deal with the challenges and to seize the opportunities as well. the war that began on 9/11 the vice president president obama asked me to work to wind down the military operations in iraq and we did as painful as it was. when i came to office as president america's longest war in vietnam i was determined to end it and i did. it was a hard decision but the right decision. for american president said based that decision but i was determined not to be the fifth. it was the decision accompanied by tragedy.

13 brave americans lost their lives along with hundreds of afghans in a suicide bombing. i think of those lost lives every day and i think of all the 2004 and 60 when u.s. military deaths over long 20 years of that war. 20,740 american servicemen wounded in action. i think of their service and their sacrifice and their heroism and other countries that lost their own men and women we honor their sacrifices as well. i was determined to rebuild the country's alliance and partnership to a level not previously seen. we did just that from treaty alliances to new partnerships like the quad with the united states japan australia and india. i know many look to the world today and see the difficulties and wracked with despair but i

do not. i won't. as leaders we don't have the luxury. i recognize the challenges with ukraine gaza sudan and beyond in the war hunger terrorism brutality. the climate crisis democracy at risk strains on our society the promise of artificial intelligence and the significant risk to the list goes on. maybe because all hate seeing and all we have done together over the decade i have hope rate i know there is a way forward. in 1990 the irish describe the world and i quote where things follow part the center cannot hold. some may say those words

describe the world not just in 1990 but in 2024. i see a critical distinction. in our time the center has held. people of every political spectrum in every region have stood together and turned the page on the worst pandemic in the century and we made sure covid no longer controlled the lives. we defended the u.n. charter to ensure the survival of ukraine as a free nation. my country made the largest investment in climate clean energy anywhere in history. there will always be forces that will try to pull our country a part in the world the part, aggression, extremism chaos and cynicism. desire to retreat from the world and go it alone our test is to make sure the forces holding us

together are stronger than those that are pulling us a part. the principals of partnership and became here each year to uphold came to withstand the challenges. at the center holds once again paid my fellow leaders a truly believe we are at another inflection point in our history. the choices we make today will determine our future for decades to come. we stand behind the principle of being united and we stand firm against aggression. we'll end the conflicts that are reaching today and will take global challenges like climate change hunger and we plan now with the opportunity and risk of new technology. i want to talk about each of these decisions and actions in my view that were taken. to start this body has made a

commitment to the principals of the u.n. charter. to stand up against aggression and when russian invaded ukraine. could have stood by and protested. vice president harris on my thought that was an assault on every institution and we wouldn't stand for it. so under my church in america rove humanitarian assistance. our nato allies and partners from 50 plus nations stood up as well. most importantly the ukrainian people stood up. i asked the people of the chamber to stand up for them. the good news is putin's war has failed and his core aim. he set out to destroy ukraine. ukraine is still free. he set out to weaken nato. nato is bigger stronger and more united than ever before.

with new members finland and sweden but we cannot let up. the world has another choice to make. will we sustain our support to help ukraine win this war or walk away and let aggression be renewed in a nation be destroyed. i know my answer. we cannot grow weary, we cannot look away and we will not let up on our support for ukraine. making sure ukraine wins with adjustable peace and a u.n. charter. [applause] we also need to uphold their principals as we seek to responsibly manage the competition with china so it does not veer into conflict. we stand ready to cooperate on the challenges for the good of

our people in the people everywhere. recently resumed corporation with china to stop synthetic narcotics and i appreciate the clever he. it matters to the people of my country and others around the world. matters of conviction the united states is unabashed pushing back against competition against military coercion against other nations in the south china sea. maintaining peace and stability across the taiwan straits protecting your most advanced technologies so it can't be used against us or any of our partners. at the same time we'll continue to strengthen our network of alliances and partnerships across the indo pacific. these partnerships are not against any nation. they are building block for free, open secure and peaceful existence. and we look to bring peace and stability to the middle east to

the world must not flinch from the of october 7. any country, any country has a right and responsibility to ensure such an attack will never happen again. thousands of hamas terrorists invaded the sovereign state and massacre more than 1200 people including 46 americans in their homes. acts of sexual violence. 250 innocents taken hostage. i met with the families of those hostages and i agree with them, they are going through. innocent civilians in gaza are also going through thousands and thousands killed including neighbors. too many families crowded intense facing dire situations. they've been asked for this war that hamas started. i'd pushed forward with qatar

and egypt a cease-fire and a hostage deal that endorsed by the u.n. security council. now is the time for the party to finalize and bring the hostages home and security for israel for gaza and the hamas trip. people are suffering in gaza and we need to end this war. october 7 -- [applause] since october 7 we have also been determined to end the wider world that engulfed the entire region. hezbollah unprovoked launching rockets into israel. almost a year later two men on each side of the border remained displaced a full scale war is not in anyone's interest even if the situation has escalated a

diplomatic solution is still possible. in fact a pact for -- lasting security and for hostages to return home safely and that's what we are working to achieve. as we look ahead we must address the rise of violence against innocent palestinians of the west bank and set conditions for a better solution including a two-state solution for israel and the world can enjoy peace and full recognition and normalize policies and palestinians live in security dignity and self-determination in a state of their own. [applause] progress toward peace will put us in a stronger position in the ongoing threat posed by iran. we must deny terrorist proxies

to call for more october 7 and insure iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon. gaza is not the only conflict out there. sudan and the bloody civil war in one of the worlds humanitarian crises. 8 million on the brink of famine, hundreds of thousands already there, trusted these there and elsewhere. nine states is has led the world in providing humanitarian aid to sudan and with our partners diplomatic talks to salvage the guns in the bird a wider famine. the world need to stop arming the generals and speak with one voice and tell them stop tearing your country a part. stop blocking aid to the sudanese people, end this war now. [applause]

people need more than the absence of war. we need a chance to live in dignity and they need to be protected -- protected from climate change hunger and disease. eric administration has invested over $150 billion to make progress in sustainable development goals. it includes $20 billion for food security and $50 billion for global help to mobilize billions more in the private-sector investment. we are taking the most ambitious climate action and history and will move to join in day one. today my country is finally on track to cut emissions in half by 2030. on track and i pledge to quadruple financing to developing nations of $11 billion thus far this year.

we rejoined the world health organization 700 million doses of covid vaccines to 17 countries. let's now move quickly to face mpox outbreak in. we are prepared to commit $500 million to prevent and respond to mpox to donate 1 million doses of mpox vaccines now. [applause] we call on her partners to match her pledge and to make this a billion-dollar commitment to the people of. beyond the corn is as agents of food food and health the united states the g7 and their partners embarked on an issue to mobilize security and finance in the developing world. we are working to help countries build out infrastructure and clean energy transition to the digital transformation to lay the new economics foundation for

a prosperous future. click on the partnership for global investment. we party started this and it has emerged in southern and southeast asia to plea to keep it going. we want to get things done together in order to do that we must build a stronger more effective and more inclusive united nations. u.n. the u.n. needs to adapt to new voices and new perspectives but that's why we support informing and expanding the membership with the u.n. security council. [applause] or u.n. ambassador just laid out a detailed vision with respect to today's world and not yesterday. it's time to move forward in the security council like the one itself needs to go back to the job of making peace of brokering deals to end the wars and suffering. [applause]

they must stop the spread of the most dangerous weapons and stabilize troubled regions in east and haiti and kenya led missions to work alongside the people to turn the tide. we are also have a responsibility to prepare citizens for the future. we will see more technological change i argue in the next two to 10 years than we have in last 50 years. artificial intelligence will change our ways of life and their ways of work and their ways of war. scientific progress at a pace never seen before and much of it could make our lives better. but the ai with profound recipe takes and misinformation in bioweapons. we worked at home and abroad on new norms and standards.

this year we achieved the first-ever general assembly resolution of ai to start developing global rules, global rules of the road. we announced a declaration of responsible use of ai signed by 60 countries in this chamber. let's be honest it's just the tip of the iceberg. what we need to do to manage this new technology. nothing is certain about how ai will evolve or howl will be deployed. know one knows all the answers. my fellow leaders in humility i offer two questions. first, how do we as an international security is countries and companies raised to uncertain frontiers. we need an urgent effort to ensure ai safety security and trustworthiness. as ai grows more powerful if we

almost -- we also must grow more responsible in our values. the benefits of viral must be shared equitably. should be harnessed and not deepening the digital divide. second we ensure that ai supports rather than undermined the core principals for human life has value and all humans deserve dignity. we must make certain that some capabilities of ai will be used to uplift and empower every day people not to give dictators more powerful shackles on the human. in the years ahead there with me you no greater test of our leadership and how we date -- deal with ai per the me close with this. as we navigate so much change one thing must not change. we must never forget who we are

here to represent. we the people. these are the first words of our constitution. they inspired the opening words of the u.n. charter. i made the preservation of democracy a central cause of my presidency. this summer i faced a decision whether to seek a second term as president and it was a difficult decision. being president has been the honor of my life. there's so much more i want to get done. as much as i love the job, i love my country more. i decided after 50 years of public service it's time for a new generation and vision to take the nation forward. my fellow leaders let us never forget some things are more important than staying in power. [applause]

[applause] it's the people that matter the most. never forget we are here to serve the people not the other way around. the future will be won by those who want the full potential for their people to think clearly to innovate, to educate, to live and love openly without fear. that's the soul of democracy. it does not belong to any one country. it's all around the world and the brave men and women who entered the parts i brought down the berlin wall fight for freedom justice and unity. we saw it in venezuela and the vote for change and has been recognized but can't be denied. the world knows the truth, we saw it in uganda lgbt activist

demanding safety in recognition of common humanity. we are seeing citizens across the world peacefully choosing their future from gone to india to south korea nations representing a quarter of humanity and will hold elections this year alone. it's remarkable the power of we the people who remain more optimistic about the future. since i was first elected the united states in the 1972 every age faces challenges. i saw this young man, i see it today but we are stronger than we think. we are stronger together than alone. and with the call -- people call impossible is just an illusion. nelson mandela taught us and i quote it will always seem impossible until it's done. it always seems impossible until it's done. my fellow leaders there's

nothing that's beyond our capacity if we work together. let's work together. god bless you all and may god protect all those who seek peace. thank you. [applause] [applause] [applause]

results of a faulty software update. members will seek to obtain details on the faulty software update and what airs but the widespread global disruption. we will discuss the extent of this outage and how it's impacted many key sectors of economy and will examine how malicious cyber actors have leverage to conduct malicious activity they recognize myself to five minutes. two months ago many essential disruptions and canceled worldwide acting processing and agencies were unable to act. shortly after detection we learned this global i.t. outage was the largest in history and is not new to malicious cyber attack but a faulty software

update by crowd strike but according to a company statement a configuration update triggered a logic error leading to system crashes and an inability to properly reboot the blue screen of death appearing worldwide. crowd strike software updates are essential for addressing vulnerabilities threat detection ensuring cybersecurity infrastructure of its customers remains robust and the cyber landscape evolves. it's available resource across the greater cyberecosystem it's not to build consumer, centrist figure here today to get answers from our constituents and what went wrong what was required to respond what we have learned for the future of our nation's cybersecurity posture. the sheer scale of this error was alarming. routine update can cause this level of destruction imagine what a state actor can do. this factors into the broader threat environment and without

question or adversaries have assessed the response recovery and true level of ability that. our enemies are not just nationstates with the dance cybercapabilities they include a range of cyberactors who often thrive on uncertainty confusion that are based during large-scale ip access. example a public statement that observes that actors taking advantage of this incident with phishing and other malicious activities but it's clear this outage created an event right for exploitation by malicious cyber actors. joined by mr. emerson serves as senior vice president for counter adversary uppers of crowd strike. we look forward to hearing from you in your testimony about how a software update was pushed out globally with crowd strike to prevent future outages and how crowd strike is working to restore its trust and what crowd

strike what support crowd strike has addressed it in cyberactors who attempted to take advantage of global outages. thank you for being with here with us today and i look forward to productive session. i recognize mr. swalwell for his opening statement. thank you mr. chairman for convening us today here. the bottom line is we need crowdstrike to be effective and successful because its effectiveness and its success is the success of the company's that it protects so i appreciate crowdstrike being a part of this hearing on the global i.t. outage that occurred over the summer. we are not here today to malign crowdstrike and i think you're going to see an obligation to get to the bottom of the circumstances and the failures that enabled one content updates to crash the operating system of 8.5 million devices worldwide. the impacts were as diverse as crowdstrike's customer base.

flights were grounded surgeries were canceled 911 was disrupted in stores had to close. their metrics and insurance companies estimated 25% of fortune 500 companies were affected in the incident caused by $.4 billion in losses. last year for the third year in a row crowdstrike ranked number one for security market share destruction with 17.7% of the market and a $.6 billion endpoint security dollars in that market. but the market share that size crowdstrike must make sure its product balances the need for access and an operating system against the risk that access poses and must consider the lessons learned from this incident as we move forward. and with exceptional level of access to crowdstrike has within the customers operating system crowdstrike has an altercation to employ a rigorous quality assurance practices with updates

and releases even if it's pico -- we are here determine if any base things happen before the july 19 outage appreciate crowdstrike's commitment to ensuring its customers are protected against the most novel threats that speed cannot come at the cost of operability. at the end of the day even the best security product on the market won't do any good if it breaks a customers operating system. this is not the first time this has happened to company. it it will happen again. 2007 different security firm released a faulty update that resulted in the dreaded blue screen of death. in the aftermath the company and entered to the thorough review of what went wrong and ultimately implemented a series of changes to its product architecture and the processes it uses to rollout an update and that's a process we want to see happen here. notably it developed him i can-ism to automatically roll back and offering system to a working state when errors are detected and begin releasing updates incrementally and

removed code from the operative system. as we discussed the july 19 outage of the interest in whether crowdstrike consider the 2007 incident as it defined its own processes for testing and releasing updates are defining the level of access. there -- for the record this is not the first time in congress we have had to ask the technology technology companies failed to integrate lessons learned from the incident of a competitive company into its own security practices vitiated. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. ms. klobuchar: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to again call on my colleagues across the aisle to take action to put in place commonsense guardrails to address the risk that artificial intelligence poses to our elections. there are some incredible innovations we are seeing and will see as a result of a.i., and our country is in the lead,

and i want those innovations to be good, and i want them -- us to lead the world, as we have for so long. if we don't put some commonsense rules in place, such as the bill senator thune and i have to create a regulatory framework for nondefense applications or some of the other bipartisan bills that have come out of the commerce committee, i think that we're going to lose the positive for the negative. so i'm trying to look at some commonsense rules, and one of the most obvious ways that we can put some rules in place is when it comes to democracy , which to me is kind of a hair-on-fire moment. like any emerging technology, as question know, a.i. brings both opportunity and uncertainty. as the columnist david brooks has said, the people in a.i. seem to be experiencing radically different brain states all at once.

he said, i've found it incredibly hard to write about a.i. because it is literally unknowable whether this technology is leading us to heaven or hell. we want it to lead us to heaven, and we want to get those new cures for medical diseases, and i've seen the work done right in my own state, at mayo. one of the things we must do, and senator schumer and senator heinrich and rounds and young have been leading the way to find a group of bills that we could actually pass, and perhaps we could do this at the end of the year, the ones that i would like to see today, which i know cannot happen, as we work on the budget, but at least by the end of the year, is to do something when it comes to democracy and the kind of videos and fake robocalls and things that we are seeing that could be a dangerous, and have already been a dangerous, threat to our

democracy. maybe the first time this kind of hit the national conscience was something that wasn't actually created by a.i., it was actually the voice, turns out to be the voice of a magician who pretended that he was president bi biden, and in the new hampshire primary called the people and said that they should not vote. that case, fortunately, has been taken up in new hampshire by the prosecutors, and being investigated and prosecuted. but these are the kinds of things when in the hands of a.i. is going to get very dangerous, because we are not going to know whether or not it is donald trump or kamala harris. we are not going to know if at this time really them or if it's a fake. and we're already seeing videos and voices and things. and so, i am asking my colleagues to join with me to do what people have already done in

so many states, including red states. texas -- texas has a ban on deepfakes. minnesota has a ban on deepfakes. states like mississippi and utah have put in labeling requirements, so that at least you know if something is being created by a.i., so when an innocent citizen looks at the video or looks at the ad, they see that at the bottom. and this can be not everything is the same. if you use a.i. to, say, change hair color or do something to make someone look better, that doesn't come under at least the bills we have for federal elections that we are proposing. but if you actually are trying to mislead voters about whether or not it is actually the person that would come under the bill that senator hawley and collins and i -- yes, that's right, senator hawley, collins, coons

and i, and a number of others have introduced that would simply say once you do something like that, then you have to take it down. we have a number of platforms, including open a.i. and microsoft and others, that are supporting this bill. this is not some kind of radical idea. we haven't had any serious pushback for this particular bill, because we were so careful in drafting it, because we understood that you couldn't include, say, satire. when you have a satire, a joke thing that comes out, the constitution says you can't really ban that, right? that speech. but for those kinds of products, we think you should at least say on it, which is allowed, this is what all these states have done, produced by a.i. that's the bill that senator murkowski and i have, the republican across our aisle, my friend from alaska. so these are both bipartisan bills, and i'm urging my

colleagues to look at it. election day is now less than 45 days away. we have voters already casting their ballots, absentee ballots have been mailed out, and truly this is not a democratic issue or republican issue. this is an american issue. people should be able to know that when they see a candidate, it is the candidate. we have a number of bills, as i said, that are before us, and i want people to know, and my colleague from georgia, the presiding officer, is well aware of how people can try to mess with elections. in his words, that will be more straightforward than any words i say today, when it comes to trying to stop people from voting or weaveding them with -- or feeding them with information, sometimes it just comes down to some people don't want some people to vote. that's what that radio ad was about -- or radio, i'm sorry, that call that was made in

new hampshire was all about, trying to get people not to vote, or trying to think things are so bad that they don't want to vote for the person. but there's something even more insidious going on, and that is that we've heard from our intelligence agencies, like foreign adversaries like iran, china, and russia, are trying to interfere with our democracy. just this month, the office of the director of national intelligence issued a public report confirming this. in may, the director of national intelligence, avril haines, testified about an increase in foreign influence efforts and how a.i. can make it easier to amplify deceptive content. by the way, this has happened before in our l.a.s, it's happened -- in our l.a.s. it's -- in our elections and around the world. sometimes as in the past, e.r.a. wants to -- russia wants to mess around, from the right and left,

just to create chaos. fbi director christopher way echoed this when he said the u.s. will face more adversaries moving at a faster pace, enabled by new technology. the department of justice took action three weeks ago to disrupt russian government-backed efforts to interfere in our election, which includes the use of a.i. to spread disinformation online. we have seen this technology being used to generate viral, misleading content, to spread disinformation, and to see voters -- and deceive voters about candidates from both parties. in july there was the deepfake of vice president harris' voice saying things she'd never say about president biden. according to reports, it was seen more than 130 million times in just four days. now, you know, maybe if you watch the whole thing, you know

that it's not her. not everyone does that, right? you look at snippets on the internet, you look at part of it, and again, many people, i had people say, wow to me, i know that seems strange for people in the beltway, and they watch everything, but if you just watch something for a few seconds, you may not know whether or not it's actually the candidate or not. that's why, in this case, because it was arguably satire, you would at least have a label through the whole thing, and that would be a requirement if we passed the bill senator murkowski and i have.officer. taylor swift talked about how a.i. was being used to look like she endorsed a candidate she didn't endorse. as the election approaches, now is when disinformation can have its biggest impact and when we could possibly see the worst of the worst. whether you're democrat or republican, no one wants to see fake ads or robocalls when you

cannot tell if it's the candidate you love or don't like. that's why, as i note, 19 states across the country, red, blue, and purple have passed laws in this area. on the federal level, the bill i have with senator collins, senator hawley, it is sitting there. we got it through the rules committee, unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked this bill from being considered in the past when i asked unanimous consent for it. i note it is a bipartisan bill. it is supported by 40 national security experts and current and former government officials, sclufg former secretaries of defense chuck hagel and leon panetta, secretaries of state from both parties, it is supported by former federal election commissioner chairman trevor potter, who was supported

by -- i it has a bipartisan companion bill led by derek kill mer of -- kilmer, and tony pollis, republican from texas. we must get this done and at this point we will have to rely on the pratt -- platform, some who have policies in place to take down the fake ads and videos. that is not all the platforms and we are better off if we have a standard legislation across the country that doesn't preempt the state laws for their own work but actually sets a standard for federal elections, the president, senate, and congress. so i hope that this isn't as bad as i think it's going to be through october, but i think we're already seeing signs that it is, and that is not democracy. we cannot have a functioning

democracy if our people can't tell if it's their candidate or not. it's going to make things much, much worse. we can't stand on the sidelines. let's work together for the sake of our democracy to put in place commonsense rules of the road on a.i. to uphold trust and faith in our election, and i stand ready to work with our colleagues in any way to get this done. thank you, mr. president, and i

this reality underscores a critical point.

none of our protective measures be standards, technologies or regulations can succeed without a well-trained workforce. addressing ongoing emerging cyber challenges is critical to our nation security for today's discussion is important thank you for being here. one contribute factor the widespread impact of the incident that brings us here was the inability of customers to control when they receive this kind of update. if customers have the ability to schedule the receipt of updates, is it possible fewer devices they would have been impacted. i am please crowdstrike address this issue giving crowds greater control over when they receive content update. can you elaborate what kind of options customers and now have

in regards to receiving these updates and how are you ensuring customers are understanding their ability to control content update? >> think of your question, congressman. moving forward and what we have implemented is a system the internal release process will be the first step in releasing new content update. from their customers can select to be part of the early adopter program. where they can choose to receive content updates as quickly as we can make them available. from there, there's another factor they can select could come after early adopter. before the updates get pushed

out and were choose not to receive as well. if any is safer. >> think you congressman. the early adopter is appropriate for systems for testing purposes. if an organization would like to receive the content updates in a timely manner and make sure there is no outcome or unexpected behavior. and then from there the general availability for mission-critical systems or things they would prefer to wait longer for they can choose to do that. but that comes of course with the risk they're not getting the most up-to-date threat intelligent information provided to their system. >> is their capacity to overrule those options and to automatically push forward an

update because of the sensitivity of the risk? >> no, sir. >> given the revelations that we have had, is there a mechanism for there to be a greater amount of cooperation between crowdstrike microsoft and the other good actors as opposed to the bad actors who seem to have a leg up and being nefarious. are there mechanisms you have in place your coordinating and working more closely in sync to prevent these types of issues in the future? >> it is a great question, congressman. in fact the weekend of july 19 we began work very closely with microsoft in order to ensure our mutual customers have the benefit of us working together. subsequent to that, just last week there was a meeting in

microsoft that was already mentioned crowdstrike and others participated in a sit down with microsoft to plan for future improvements and to ensure continued resiliency by crowdstrike and microsoft and other companies as well. >> lastly before my time runs out is there a mechanism for the community to be made of our underwear in a sense of what can consent does not do to better better protected ourselves entirely aware? we know there scams out there are what might the general consumer be doing to help educate the general public? >> thank you. awareness is a key factor as you point out. during this incident we were able to push up threat intelligence in order to advise the general consumers left

threat actors trying to take advantage of these situations. and general better awareness of these threats is absolutely critical on something i would be happy to continue to work with you and your staff on to come up with strategies to help educate the public about some of these threats. >> thank you. my time is expired and i yield back. >> did not recognize the gentleman from mississippi for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the global outage we experience joint 19, 2024 impacted millions of people. estimated to cost billions of dollars. disrupt and impacted a wide range of services including airlines, hospitals, emergency service, call centers, and more impacting our nation in the global economy. while i appreciate how quickly crowdstrike identified deployed and fixed the problem turned out the solution was a minimal

reboot process. workers in rural areas like many communities in mississippi, this means it could have taken them days to find the right it person to get the computers up and running. why was that the only solution was a manual fix? >> thank you for your question, congressman. initially there is a manual hands-on process required which we mobilize our entire team to support we activated our partners. we worked around the clock. i offered myself to drive 10 hours to visit a customer to help get some of the systems back online. within the next day or so we were able to identify some automated systems that would enable us to facilitate the recovery in a much faster pace. that was where the bulk of the

recovery occurred with massive uptick coming back online once we deployed the process. >> what steps to be taken to protect the systems from difficult recovery process of something like this happens again? >> think you congressman. we, and the testimony i referred to this earlier, provided a new system to ensure the content of these haven't popped in and the ability to choose when you receive this updates. prior to this our sensor power r packages, our source code had established best practices already in place. now we are applying this as well to the content update >> i represent south mississippi. can you please describe the crowdstrike offered to rural communities such as in my district? >> i will need to get back to us

and details on that, sir. >> okay. recent article stated i quote engineers forgiven just two months for work that would have normally taken a year. additionally the article noted crowdstrike confirmed its use of and again i quote existing engineers instead of hiring a new team of cloud threat hunters. humidity river college many other my district offered in excellent cybersecurity technology program for my next generations of students to help build this unsettling skills gap. do you make staffing decisions because of the lack of adequate job force in the industry? >> thank you sir. we have a robust internship program. we bring some of the most -- a lot of our talent from internal and external internship programs. and recruit from all over the

country and all over the world in order to fill positions. >> what steps do you take to better support your staff and ensure they have the right tools and skills to succeed? >> quickset is a good question, sir. we have extensive internal training programs. we also send our team to various trainings across the globe for different industry trainings at conferences and other programs where they can learn new skills and develop assistance. we also have some of our own researchers conducted trainings at the same events to help train individuals who are not yet in the workforce or working in other companies in order to learn from the critical skills that are needed to identify enter track advanced threat actors. >> we know there are many single points of failure in our cyber ecosystem. these can be exploited through a

eight mistakes are intact and cause and impact similar to what we saw from the crowdstrike incident. additionally modified or updated, another single point of failure is created. what do you suggest this committee focus on to mitigate single points of failure and improve the stability of the symptoms? quickset is a tough question. there is a lot that needs to be done in order to identify and mitigate simple points of failure. we have been acting at crowdstrike in terms of identifying systems across the globe doing the research to try to determine where vulnerabilities may exist and come up with mitigating strategies for that. it is a continuing effort something takes everyone, it is a team sport and we all need to work together for that for. >> thank you, mr. chairman, yelled back pickwick not recognize the ranking member of the gentleman from california for five minutes of questions.

>> crowdstrike releases content configuration update into the kernel of a core part of the operating system where an error will crash the entire system rather than just one single application. some competitors of yours have claimed this kind of kernel access is a dangerous and better practice is to deployed such updates directly to the user mode for the impacts only affect the application. can you explain for folks who may not understand this dialogue, why crowdstrike issues updates to the kernel? how it balances the benefits of colonel access to the risk it creates? is crowdstrike planning to make any changes to how a use access to reduce the risk crashing entire systems? >> thank you, congressman. the windows is in all operating

systems have a colonel. this is the essential most of part of the operating system. many cases you'll hear it referred to as ring zero for the colonel is responsible for interfacing with all the hardware associated with that operating system, or that computer. crowdstrike is one of the many vendors out there that uses the windows kernel architecture which is an open architecture is a decision made by microsoft to enable microsoft operating system to support the vast array of different types of hardware in different systems. the colonel is responsible for the key area you can ensure you have performance. you can have visibility into everything happening on that operating system. you can provide enforcement and other words threat prevention and as well to ensure anti-

tampering which is a key concern from a cybersecurity perspective. it's very concerning.

we continue to see china and others as well. with regards to what activity we've seen this far, espionage continues to be the primary motivator for countries like china and russia. we have seen certainly in the past these adversaries have stolen sensitive information and link them. we also see a rich array of disinformation and misinformation occurring as a result of foreign adversaries

using social networks and things of that nature to drive in narratives that are supportive of their agendas. >> leo beckford settlement yields back i recognize a gentle lady from florida ms. lee for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. myers, your root cause analysis attributed global it outage of failure in your validator tool. it seems another important contributing factor here closely related to how you release the software update. i would like to go back to the topic of a phased rollout approach. i believe you were describing this change when you use the phrase concentric circles. starting here, it was this update pushed out in a phased way? >> thank you for the question

congresswoman. first, let me state the configuration update that occurred the content update was not code. this was threat information being provided to the sensor. the code is pushed out and that is the sensor itself a been pushed out using a phased appointment methodology the code would go through extensive quality assurance and quality checks it would be deployed internally and what we call. from there we rolled out the customers who select and minus one, and minus two they can wait some set period of time before they would actually roll out the new sensor. this sensor was rolled out in february 2024. the content updates are not code that not previously been treated as code they were strictly configuration information.

what we have undertaken since the incident went i referred to earlier in the testimony is we are now treating the content updates as code. which is something i do not believe to be an industry standard at this time. by asserting that as code it is now going through that process it. again the internal testing before it goes back to early adopters, general ability and then and minus x strategy. >> thank you for that distinction. would you agree that in this case while it may have been content update, clearly the failure to have it implemented or take effect in a phased approach which ended up being catastrophic. >> we have moves to a phased approach as a result of incidents of july 19. we have put a lot of time and effort into making sure that phased approach will ensure

customers have the ability to choose when and how they receive those updates. >> going back to the ranking member, his comments are two were discussing the fact crowdstrike has really extraordinary access to the kernel of the operating system. you all were talking a bit about having this kind of access and within the colonel. share with me your thoughts on whether this incident could have been averted or future incidents would be the user's face of this kind of update. >> thank you for the question. the enforcement mechanism as well as the anti- tamper they can be conducted in user mode

rep perspective but kernel usability is critical to ensure the threat actor does not insert themselves into the colonel themselves. and disable or remove the security products and features. >> is that your assessment that it is not possible in realistic terms of outside colonel? >> with the current kernel architecture this is the most effective way an adversary from tampering with security tools. >> thetective ways of the old the weight possible? >> it is certainly the industry-standard to use the colonel for visibility enforcement and anti- tamper to ensure you can stop a threat. >> you testified thus far you

have made modifications to the phased rollout approach and also pre-deployment testing. what other modifications has crowdstrike made or changes to your internal practices to avert future similar incidents? >> i pushed the wrong button. that is the primary changes we have made. we have come up with an entire new mechanism we distribute the content updates. again making sure customers have in their control the ability to select those updates. what will prevent that from happening. >> mr. chairman i yield back. talk to gentle lady yields a back without objection a judgment from texas and from south carolina are permitted on ask questions of the witnesses a wreck as a gentleman from texas

for five minutes of questions for. >> think it mr. chairman. can you explain to me in a more granular level as a human element involved in this. you use the method inside your company correct? great job. redoing internal testing read this from happening. it's not artificial intelligence pushing out this information can you walk me through that please? >> thank you congressman. the process for testing the content updates was reliance on validator's. >> how many? >> i have to get back to an exact number. tested each of the channels so each of the different rules that

were inside of that content file were tested individually. those validator's insured rules conformed and were compliant with the very structure that crowdstrike had built for this contact updates for quick to the chest individually is there something to be said about not testing them collectively? gotta touch a lot of things. week something we count on you for what you've been doing a great job outside actors are trying to get us every day we shot ourselves in the foot. i'm curious to protest the sinks individually as our point at which we test collectively before push it out? >> thank you sir. that is where we are now. the new methodology is to test all the content updates internally before they are

released to the early adopters. that is where the fault was paper testing individually on one of them was off. >> the testing process in each configuration and made sure it conformed to the standard is now being tested internally before it's rolled out the customers. customers have control what systems get the updates for. >> i'm trying to figure out exactly how this thing got launched. with that not being absolute. >> thank you. the rules that validate or in place for over a decade. we have released 10 -- 12 of these updates every single day since we started using the configuration updates.

that was tested against the standard to make sure they configuration conforms with the standard that crowdstrike had written texas tested positive wesent it out. i think i'm trying to find out that it tested positive and we launched it? or did it fail that we launch it accidentally. >> yes. it tested as clean or good. that's was allowed to roll out. >> the content file trigger an issue and so that when the sensor process of the

configuration, it is almost like think about a chessboard, trying to move a chess piece, someplace with his and square, is what happens inside of the center, so when it tried to process the rule, it was not able to do with the rule was asking it to do which triggered the issue within the sensor. >> should we have known that come up should crowded strike we know that about the col. correct or was a something we were not aware of. >> this was in a perfect storm of issues that resulted in the sensor failure. >> i'm going to need about 20 more seconds of knowing what we know now, what is the response mechanism worst case scenario, this happens again.

for all of the user. >> so this would trigger it would be detected with in crowdstrike's peanut because we doing it within a code. >> yes. >> the gentleman yield back and very little to be joined by prevent from new jersey mr. bend and does minutes of questioning. >> mr. chairman ranking members, and often get to sit with a privilege it is to serve not just this committee but with two chair and ranking member i'm so thankful for your friendship and stewardship this committee. as we discussed today global ideology triggered by crowdstrike sensor updates critical services were up in my district passengers in newark liberty international airport at delays and cancellations some

new jersey hospitals that delay or canceling procedures and some 911 dispatch centers been rendered inoperable jeopardizing public safety. this is it was only significant disruption but also preventable event that could and should been avoided it basic quality assurance practices and government services rely constituents deserve the highest level of security and reliability crowdstrike temperament robust measures to ensure their technology truly protection serves our communities effectively pretty cybersecurity risk continue to evolve month is crucial economies not only provide robust secured a solution scott also empower customers to control tailor the defenses and await that best suits their needs predict root cause analysis also mentions increase customer control over rapid response content deployment ands providing customers with control over rapid response content, improve overall security.

>> thank you for the question congressman enemy for state by start by saying, that again we apologize. we are deeply sorry for the impact for the folks at the airport in the hospitals. we have a long legacy of something threats that is our primary objective is a company. and in terms of how the controls will enable customers and constituents to have more control over what happens on their systems, effectively gives them the ability to select which systems that can themselves test on. elizabeth the early think they can select any number of systems that can enroll in that early ar program in order to receive those content updates, before

any of the other systems in their environment and then from there, they can have the rest of their systems on general availability other systems that are particular sensitivity want to withhold even a few more iterations, they can't do that gives them complete control over where updates go when they get them. >> and thank you for that and i appreciate i want to make sure that this all works right and you customers and our constituents and so i should be open same page when one type of support does crowdstrike's provide is the customers making these individualized decisions to make sure that having this approach to adopting this new technology etc., that we as they are, getting the full suite of options that need for their particular industry. cybersecurity is quickly evolving field and so we want to

make sure there are no gaps to a particular customer or industry. none of the control over what bring on mine, under systems. >> thank you congressman. crowdstrike i would say in my experience has been a customer focused organization from the very beginning 13 using out we launch the company, in the wake up was called operation aurora, where security tools failed to detect chinese adversaries are conducting espionage operations against western businesses. in the moment we launch the company, we been very focused on ensuring that we hear our customers and we are here to support of customers that will be a part of the mission about whatever that may be. we continuously hear from customers an advisory board, we are constantly engaging with the customers on the 19th of july, run the clock phone calls talking every customer that we

could get a bullet in order to hear was going on some how we can help. we've also been briefing and government agencies with her be since the brothers, and working with congressional staff in order to interface questions answered we get this throughout the year, not just in the wake of that incident. i'm so as i said earlier, it's a team sport we need to work together with the customers with the government everybody involved to ensure the work of marching in the right direction. >> i appreciate that label to a second round and i yield back. >> now recognize the gentleman mr. menendez for five minutes of question. >> thank you mr. chairman, many of answered this but did you say that crowdstrike issues hundreds of updates daily?

>> congressman, he said that the ten — 12 times per day, we have issued content updates which contain that is threat intelligence information to its matter sensor tool, to understand what threats are evolving landscape changes, sometimes by minute and so in order to keep ahead of those threats that allow the crowdstrike platform to detect and prevent those threats, needs routine updates. >> so ten — 12 times it crowdstrike will update his systems to react to a new threat that you seen, is accurate. >> that's accurate would say that it updates the configuration information to the system itself. >> the deviance july 19th about was that the system upgrade what was that was a something different than this ten — 12 per day think.

what was it? coming with that was. >> thank you. those configuration of an update. >> how often do you do that. >> is a sycophant ten — 12 times per day so ten — 12 times that you have these updates. you have done them every day even thousands of these updates. >> what made this one different. >> any run system tests on each ten — 12 times they come you run the system tests to make sure this thing is not going to do more good i assume right. >> we were boys that question what causes update was that the configuration update had a mismatch in fields that resulted in when the fields not being

linked to a rule and so you may have stepped out earlier but i said that it was kind of like a chessboard, the testes moved to a square, it was not present, that would be an example effectively what happened there. >> so since you've gone through and i don't want to go through again and so you do this ten — 12 times a day, you done this thousands of times in this one of the testes assigned the board and therefore the computers did not know how to figure well that is outside of the game and therefore i'm going to crash. in this never have before you have removed the piece outside the board? >> this the first time that this issue has manifested to my knowledge. >> i'm trying to move assistance the piece outside of the board wasn't quite some time before.

>> to validator's, that the configuration information with through, was matted to ensure that it did not move outside of the board. >> so was the was your internal process followed and then you just saw this problem with the internal processes that you have to fix it was a went outside of your processes. >> thank you, that's a great question and it was not an echo following the process, this was a issue with the content validator. we have subsequently ensured that there is no additional steps in place so this cannot happen again. >> so it is the process. >> okay well i'm going to switch gears and go to a.i. because i only have about a minute. a.i. do you consider aia threats for cybersecurity. >> that is a great question. a.i. >> i just ask great questions. [laughter] >> it can be a threat or benefit

any can be used to facilitate into ensure that cyber defenders have more tools at their disposal they can leverage a.i. quickly process information and analysis. >> so before ago we have 30 seconds collapse make statement itself some of the nation that leads in a.i., will be better protected against the nation somewhat behind us in the better your is the better you will be protecting yourself that you are at a.i., i guess the better you are going to be a attacking read the siri, is that correct. >> i agree with your statement. >> will be thank you hopefully you have a second round and think you and i yield toxic gentlemen yield that i know recognize myself or five minutes. >> only into this perfect storm happening but can you talk about what was the perfect storm and

why will never happen again. but a perfect storms and i want to make sure that you all know what happened and explain it and how you're making sure it won't happen again. >> i'm good to well this could technical. >> thank you chairman, the content validator was looking at the content channel file which had 21 fields. the content validator allow this 21 fields to go out to the sensor fleet had the sensor was working for a configuration rule would not go through when it tended to use that rule, that's with the sensor failed. so that's what caused the thing

and so those detailed in rca and i don't want to i don't know if i can explain it, but effectively because the perfect storm content validator contact configurations to go also the sentences are able to rule looking for. causing the issue. >> so, you fixed it. >> is a combination of process and methodology of which we are now deploying those configurations configuration now being treated as code, whereas before the configuration information for providing a lot more overscan site is ability to see the systems is out, to minister for some point help out at once to everyone and if it does happen again, you fixed it

where, it won't affect everyone all what's and another problem with fixing what happened there was a will be on site and you had to go to the different computers and reboot them individually. this how we got everything back up and running, correct. >> initially, the systems we need to be rebooted of the file deleted, the system allowed to boot from there. subsequently, we came up with a usb boot disk that could be plugged in the system could be rebooted that with other medically the removal of the file and finally we were able to have an automated solution which allowed us to do this without manual intervention. >> there was reporting about crowdstrike update none focused

on commercial services. there's also a big impact federal agenc such as social security, and of the systems although networks are becoming increasingly interconnected government networks should be isolated from the commercial ones and why were the federal agencies affected by this outage is a process for pushing out this include what are the different updates to test for commercial versus government business. when you're dealing with clients or are they all the same as one computer system and one computer error. >> the updates went to soft windows operating system sensors that crowdstrike had a pulse of that was impacted any system running microsoft systems that particular version of crowdstrike falcon and it was online during the time that the channel file was distributed.

>> so as long as microsoft was on that computer using a system, whether was governmental commercial did not matter is affected. >> as long as the crowdstrike since was running on the microsoft operating system of the systems at the time yes. >> what did well, i will come back to my second round because it's a much longer question that i have time for some going to yield back and recognize that donovan from texas mr. gonzales, provided. >> thank you chairman and think you mr. myers, for testifying before our committee. he went, i was very non- surprise it is appointed to see how everything went down but it's kind of the way that it works in this space and i was grateful now quickly crowdstrike responded when it did find an error and i'll tell you what i i

do not hear people like you see people defense up say we made a mistake, were to fix it and then as you're doing that in the report out so that the people don't find that same mistake and usually is hard to cover it up and move on and the next thing and so i was grateful how hard you guys were to get ts backup and i'm interested i wast on literally just days after it occurred, clearly you know your stuff inside and out i'm interested in heavily make sure you know, if this happens again, when a spot we can fix it. i would argue that crowdstrike's claim of the better organizations that are out there is a with a visit different vendor, the baby does not have the same resources and the same integrity and what not. so i'm looking at it through the lens of the speed is the name of the game in this industry a lot of times want to get ahead of the problem before, as it's evolving. new technical report, this time

to that event, how's that been received in the industry and how's that been receiving government, if you had conversations with sister brothers on the technical piece what went wrong heavily fix it. >> thank you for the question. we start by saying that we were immediately in contact with si sa many understaffed about the issue happened. and once we had gotten the recovery of the way, we issued a preliminary this is available the website which was effectively put out to ensure that everybody is what we do at that point in time right then we gather as many of our engineers that's me needed to order to start work on the company has it

positive analysis we brought it external parties as well. then we produced that analysis as soon as it was available which wasn august or so, the dates are a little bit fuzzy at this point only had the rc out in response that it hurt from most of the folks i've spoken to, have been they appreciated the level of depth at that report when into nothing more importantly that the planet would put in place to prevent this from happening the future, something that everybody acknowledged to me was going to enable our customers to have more control happens every company does it bit differently like is no standardized process to it is just a little bit troublesome because you know, when everybody's doing it differently you are relying on never had this problem before

been more about have a lot of problems that we never had before and i want us to get ahead of it i just want this to be a flash in the pan were like a hearing the flash today and 70 else's and flash more like we are on this thing together some really focused on solutions getting ahead of it when you think about 8 million people may have gotten impacted but how fast turn that around was i thought i was grateful for that but what happens when next time, so the fast is only question is on one trying to figure out what role the government place and this is my question is, and introduces piece of legislation called the national digital reserve for which would recruit cybersecurity professionals to help three major incidences that occur based on your experience with large scare her large-scale cyber incidences do you think that having a reserve of cybersecurity expert on standby come up with improve response and recovery efforts. >> thank you the question congressman and i think that the

first i was a transparency is the answer to the initial question. it is important for crowdstrike and others to be transparent when these things occur. because every system is different every product is different than they all have different components and so we cannot all be uniform and we thought of fix one problem with one product is not necessarily directly applicable to other products and that said, transparency is absolute critical why we endeavor to be so transparent when this occurred as far as having initial reserve forces, standby i think in a situation there's a cyber threatening and this was not an attack and i think we've that is certainly beneficial. there is never situation where less skilled operators is going be better. >> amount of time and appreciate you coming to testify for the committee and once again, being transparent throughout the

process. the good and bad and without i yield back. >> the gentleman from south carolina for five and a. >> thank you. appreciate we've done with regarding to the to make sure this cannot happen again. and for better or worse, the number one reason probably what is well it ensures that an excess of $5 billion of damages to your customers i'm sure that there will be lawsuits and settlements for days pretty coming up about making the victims helper whether it's the airline other infrastructure. must •-ellipsis crowdstrike taking to i guess make a right other than making sure it does not happen again is fantastic and your responses. full but how do we make sure any other one future incidences is held accountable as it relates making victims of the breach

making victims of the incident whole how does it work. >> thank you we been working with our customers to a short their up and running. identified that as of july pretty 9 percent of the centers backup running and we are working with customers to ensure that we are able to help them through any issues that they are dealing with. in continuing to support them in any way they need. >> i mean,, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people missed flights and businesses were inoperable for days or weeks and this is not necessarily about crowdstrike, stuff future cybersecurity incidents of creating a system through which people can be made whole and so in addition to getting back up and running their systems were down from a

you have insurance policies, there is a wide variety of legal mechanisms, that will create accountability. are you able to speak to that was a something your lawyers are helping you are selling not talk about. >> congressman, people are impacted by this as well. as a sinner, deeply sorry for what happened. we're working with the customers when so they have everything they need to get back online and most are back online into ensure that they have what they need to feel comfortable working with crowdstrike continuing to rebuild that trust, teachers make's in seconds to break and we understandably broken that trust and we need to work to earn it back. >> you think customers care that this was done innocuous, that thinker is supposed to actual breach and i mean, there's still damages associated with us and again going forward, the global

economy needs to have consequences all types of cybersecurity shortcomings. you distinguish between a breach in this faulty update. >> yes, i would say their artist and what is the difference between a breach and when cement when i'm intently constituents that missed flights and study reports for a week do they care, probably dos weekend, you don't want to talk about the damages to become whole. but i think that's an important part of this and are taking additional steps which are important to make sure that it does not happen again but at the end of the day, part of this is making a bright with people that missed flights that were not able to engage in commerce this part of the conversation we need to be having and that is the deterrent threat for the future

the future incidences will occur reason that businesses major cybersecurity ends up selling for hundreds of millions of believes of dollars in certain circumstances because that is how they are made whole again this is well it is not the same as a breach think it would you think that damages are still the same in many respects. i'm sure will hear more about the manner in which your customers and their customers, were made whole as a result of this incident. i think that's an important part of the story and ultimately, that is the accountability system provides to make sure it doesn't happen again the deterrent. with that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentlemen yield betting think you for joining us today were storm segment of questioning and start by first recognizing that gentleman from florida, five

minutes of question. >> thank you mr. chairman, i want to continue on with i ended up with was a.i. and the problems that a.i. because it does a.i. pose a threat right now. and what do you see as the threat from a.i. in the future? if you can elaborate on that. >> absolutely and thank you congressman. the threes from a.i., that i've seen today primarily and what we've seen in the adversaries using various a.i. forward with therapy language models or diffusion or different algorithms that can be used to generate new content has been primarily around disinformation. enabling faster research in other words, that actors have use artificial intelligence to

allow them to automate writing scripts while they can use during intrusion during rent somewhere operation. >> them i could interrupt, will that mature and today i writing code. there will be malicious in nature. >> i personally doesn't research in that area. i think right now, it is not there. still need to be very familiar with the toolchain and to be able to compile the code bucket and understand where whether there are issues every day the technology gets better, and something that we need to keep our close eye on to ensure that we understand how threat actors may use that as well is good actors. ... quorum call:

cybersecurity, i am concerned about the fact a program that was supposed to protect systems against cyber attacks, actually destroyed the system they were trying to protect her. did not destroy it but certainly disrupted it. so in the future, i can see this to be a tremendous problem and a tremendous risk.

but we cannot be connected anymore because of the vulnerabilities involved. do you pursue such a future? because they do not foresee a future things need to get disconnected out. we need to be very careful and thoughtful as we roll out. happy to work with your staff and your self with the ligament the best interest for you to disconnect. i'm not sure if it be in our best interest for security reasons to disconnect somewhat. that somehow, no matter what comes in the system will not be disconnected. i just got punched in the face but i'm not going to get knocked out. that's the problem we have. my fear is an adversary will try to knock us out.

i think we are vulnerable. our electrical systems were knocked out. transportation can get knocked out all on the same time causing massive disruptions. i don't think anybody can tell me no, it's not possible because it is possible, right? works but i would suggest her as i think in the future we can see organizations will have their own ai workloads. will deploy artificial intelligence to sell the business challenges and it won't be a handful of ai there been used across the globe. will seek a localized artificial intelligence workloads and this is something we need to be thinking about. how do we because adversaries can leverage the ai workload. they can poison the data that goes into ai training. there's a whole new wave of horizon threats that pertain to

ai we should be talking about her quick thinking my time is up a guild backup. trucks recognize a gentleman from texas for five minutes by mr. gonzalez. >> think you determine and thank you again for allowing me too speak today. i would highlight, there are very few people in congress that really understand this issue. this is one of the committees we have a chairman, you have members on this committee that want to find solutions and pray that what to get ahead as was just mentioned. the future is already here i worry what role the government is going to play. i would once again highlight this is not just a one off. your team and you all can be working with our staff as we build out meaningful responses through legislation. i think it is very critical.

i do worry we will get it wrong or we will be delayed and it will have meaningful intentions but have a second and third order impacts that will make it more difficult for you whether it is self-inflicted kind of incident or an intrusion. i just highlight. once again thank you for coming and testifying but let's work towards affixing this long-term and other issues that happen. the question i have for you is from an industry standpoint. is it more impactful that government get out of your way. i am trying to frame at the right way. i'll not continue on the spot i went to it as real an answer as possible. i will put it this way. and you're dealing as you went through this or i was human to

this incident, i'm sure you're probably dealt with them far more than you have in the past. what was the take away you think we could improve on from a government response? government interactive industry on doing the real world situation to get things back on track for it but was money or take a ways this committee could work on? like sink a congressman. first we say it's an honor to be here. thank you for having me. we work on a daily basis. but jc d.c. working hand-in-hand across the u.s. government as well as other government. every single day. the weight we succeed in my mind is to public and private partnership. we need to be able to share and work up the same sheet of music we track over to a 50 threat actors today that are coming from places like iran, russia, north korea.

other countries that have not made it into the press so to speak. i hold a bevy of threat actors engage in ransom more i'm glad extortion operations wells activists who hacked operations. so i guess the wind take away i would say is that in this situation our job is to inform the government and inform your staff being transparent so they could know this one was in a cyber attack and to come with the impact was what we're doing to remediate that. i think in the situation where there is a cyber incident than the responsibilities change becomes a supporting the government helping to understand who the threat actors are. what they are after and how to stop them. on so it depends on the situation. i would reiterate private/public

partnership is absolute essential. this is a team sport we are all on the same team. courts appreciate the response and i would close with this for this is a committee want to work with. because guess what this is where it legislations going to come out of. i do they're going to make your job easier or harder. the intentions are going to be there for the best intentions for our country and our allies to defend against these adversaries that are trying to kill us every single day. that's what we're up against a weenie partners are going to make sure from a legislative standpoint we are getting it right. we are committed on our side but we need partners. not everybody up here is the same level of expertise. i read the outage report right before went to bed for a reason. it's very technical. once again thank you for coming and testifying. you are a brave man please continue to work with the committee as we find solutions thank you. click the gentleman yields back.

i did not recognize my cell for five minutes. other cybersecurity providers, competitors of yours have said the access to the colonel so much how many updates are pushing out a goes against industry standards. and it is not safe. what would you say in response to that? >> i am not aware of nbc standards how or what to do with regard to any one operating system. more best practices that regard. i can tell me at lunch crowdstrike 13 years ago we did sell with the mission to stop bad things from happening to good people.

we have worked tirelessly in the last 13 years to ensure our products, our services, and our intelligence information is the best possible product our customers can consume. and i would say that we got it wrong in this case. we are learning from what happened and we have implemented changes to ensure that does not happen again. >> i understand that. we do think now i believe you testified before may be a dozen a day updates. because that's what you do you find that threat and update to protect that threat from do you think you will still continue to do 12 a day for as many as needed? i'll them know if conservative is the right word but more conservative and your approach on how many updates you will hae daily?

>> will continue to update our product with threat information. i was frequently as we knew to to say head of the threats we are facing. >> and your belief that's access to the colonel is much as you have an update as much as needed for your client cybersecurity? i can think as we said earlier ter in this domain in order to stay ahead of the threat actors. the performance you gain through using the colonel. the ability to stop bad things, the enforcement mechanism provided through that kernel. anti- tamper to stop a threat active in the threat actors we track very closely is scattered spider who has amazing techniques into the colonel to disable security tools on a regular basis.

in order to stop that from happening we will continue to leverage the architecture of the operating systems we are on and the most effective way that we can to stop the threats. >> it just unlucky of this have happened to pretty much any other operating system? it was just an unlucky coincidence or is microsoft. >> a lot of businesses rely on microsoft for their operating system. that's where the number of impacted systems from his update came from. >> proxy problem was with the update was not within microsoft system? it was with the update was faulty? >> this is a crowdstrike issue. folks are you developing any to scan for infrastructure remotely

which could avoid this in the future? what are you a developing agentless technology to scan infrastructure remotely which could avoid this type of out in the future? i've have a number of platform to provide our customers include included attack surface management tools which can scan without an agent or a sensor in place. about or in order to protect and prevent threats you need to have that enforcement mechanism in place on the operating system to keep that from occurring. >> was last week i'm going deal back in a second period is there something in place? someone didn't catch it there is additional parameter before he went your content interpreter.

is there now a process or something new and place to prevent that from happening again? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. the gentleman from california is a recognize for second round of questions. >> thank you bert owned the follow-up on the line of questioning ms. lee and i were going back and forth with regard to the colonel. part of the discussion at the microsoft onpoint security summit involved reducing reliance on the colonel. my understanding is microsoft agreed at the summit to make additional capabilities available at the user level. do you know the timeline for that process and do you have a sense help microsoft security vendors will engage to reduce the colonel on more additional activity to the user space? how would you reduce risk to the

colonel? and move it to the user space i guess is a question. >> thank you print don't have that timeline available. i'm happy to follow up with you on that. things can crash in user space two. this is not unique to the crawlspace. i'm brick one set of risks for another. there is a definitely thing that can break in user space as well as in the colonel space. >> yes, sir. >> the relevant update in this incident only affected as you pointed out, windows systems my understanding is apple restriction on colonel access might have prevented a similar incident from taking place on. >> systems. do you view apple's restrictions to be beneficial? or do that negatively impact the effectiveness of security software like yours?

>> we have security products that work on windows systems, apple systems and lenox systems as well. we leverage all the features of the various operating systems. they have pros and cons of for each and for those platforms. the window architecture open architecture we mentioned earlier, apple has a tighter supply chain and with the lenox shift of precompiled the colonel for every possible configuration of hardware you'd like to support. there's different features of each colonel. >> would you agree if something crashes in the app space it is limited in its effect to the app? or as if something crashes with the colonel and microsoft they could crash the whole system? >> yes. >> got about two and half minutes left. is there anything we did not

cover new think would be helpful for us to understand? anything you want to revisit and further articulate? >> i think it is important to note this is not a cyber attack. this is something that happened within the system during the update process we have spent a considerable amount of thought and effort to ensure this does not happen again. my concern is cyber threat actors across the globe this is something we need to pay close attention too. we have seen the constant evolution of the threat actors looking to subvert systems. they have moved into the identity space and ceiling usernames, passwords and art leveraging identity access to move into new environments and to conduct additional rent somewhere in a data extortion attacks. this is an area that they would

like to continue working with the committee on and anything we can do to help. >> mr. chairman anything want to add? >> we don't work with speed here in congress. quick speed, what is that? we do not recognize that. i yield back. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed wept the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: so, mr. president,

i ask unanimous consent that when the senate receives h.r. 9747 from the house, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that there be up to two hours for debate, equally divided, and with no amendments or motions in order to the bill, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: so, mr. president, there is very good news tonight. i have just locked in an agreement to pass the government funding bill tomorrow, without amendment, and avoid an unnecessary government shutdown. american families can rest assured now that their lives we will work on you phone your

your motion and order nomination report number to reauthorize wil

and conservation programs, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the carper-capito substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the bill as amended. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of

s. 91 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 91, a bill to award a congressional gold medal to 60 diplomats in recognition of their bravery and heroism during the holocaust. the presiding officer: without objection. the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the hagerty substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended 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: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 815, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 815, a bill to award a congressional gold medal to the female telephone operators of the army signal corps, known as the hello girls. the presiding officer:

without objection. the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the tester substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended 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: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions be discharged of s. res. 812, and the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions -- s. res. 812, s. res. 847, s. res. 848, s. res. 849, s. res. 850, s. res. 851, s. res. 852, s. res. 853, s. res. 854, s. res. 855. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding en bloc? without objection.

the senate will proceed en bloc. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate committee on rules and administration be discharged from further consideration of sure 6513 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6513, an act to amend the help america vote act of 2002, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection. the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i further ask that the mcconnell substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, september 25. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the conway nomination. further, that notwithstanding rule 22, at 11:40 a.m. senator paul be recognized for up to 20 minutes, and that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate resume legislative session and senator paul be recognized to make a motion to proceed to s. con. res. 41. further, that if the motion to proceed is not made or not agreed to, the senate resume executive session and vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the conway nomination. that if cloture is invoked on

the nomination, all time be considered expired at 3:45 p.m. finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until in that position newly created in 2022. also congress is facing a government funding deadline and must pass additnal spending legislation by september 30 to avert a shutdown by the houses scheduled to take up a bipartisan bill tomorrow to fund the federal government until september 20 if approvedt heads to the upp chamber for debate. watch live coverage of the u.s.

senate when lawmakers return here on cspan2. ♪ since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress. from the house and senate floors, two congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front receipt to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ the house will be in order to break this year it c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source for capitol hill. providing a balanced unfiltered

coverage of government. taking you to read the policy is debated and decided all the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. senator bernie sanders is calling on the pharmaceutical company to cut prices for as epic and it will go v in the u.s. and other parts of the world. he spoke to the company ceo while chairing the senate health committee hearing and asked why he thanks is appropriate to charge americans nine times more for the same product being sold elsewhere. next, ceo testifying on the drugs which are used to treat diabetes and obesity. [background noises]

took the health education labor pension committee will come to order. i want to begin by thanking mr. lars jurgenson ceo of notice for being with us today. for this important hearing. the issue we are discussing this morning is not complicated. it has everything to do with the chart behind me which shows diabetes drug owes them pick is sold in canada for one or $55. and in denmark for one or $22, and france for $71. an journey for $59.

in the united states kamala harris charges us $969 they sell that product in germany. all will go v weight loss drug is even more expensive. the chart behind me also shows it sold for 200 $65 in canada. $186 in denmark, $137 in germany and $92 in the united kingdom. in the u.s. that list price is 1000 $349 a month. nearly 15 times as much as a cost and the united kingdom. what we are dealing with today