fact that now when you look at every single american, their portion of our nation's debt is now $107,000. $107,000. i was talking to a friend this week who has a new baby. just arrived, brand-new, and they are so excited to once again have a little baby in their family. and as we were talking about politics and all that was going on and the excitement of the baby, i said, and when you look at the federal debt, their share, their welcome to the world present from the u.s. federal government, you now, as a u.s. citizen share in this $36.5 trillion debt to the point of $107,000.

i think is the american people know that our fiscal path would lead us to disaster if we do not change what we are doing. if we do not look at where we are spending this money. and thank goodness that president donald trump has taken the time to look seriously at what the federal government sp spends, and, yes, to work toward moving us to a balanced budget. now, one of the ways that he is doing this, and yes, there have been executive orders, and there's also been the implementation of the department of government efficiency. we refer to this as doge. and today, mr. president, some of us have had the opportunity to listen to elon musk and his team, who are carrying out the

work at the department of government in -- government efficiency. and doge, so far, has found $105 billion of inefficiencies in the federal government. $105 billion. they are -- they're fining about $4 billion a day. and the president went through a list last night of some of the waste that is there for projects that maybe really do not yield a result that will benefit the hardworking taxpayer. we also heard about fraud and people that are receiving social security checks, that maybe don't exist. people that would be 125, 150,

160 years old, even over 300 years old. that is fraud. and we all are very hopeful that we are going to be able to close that loop, find out who these individuals are, and make sure that they are -- certain that they are prosecuted and that money is returned to the u.s. taxpayer. this is a huge step toward getting our fiscal house in order. y yet, these savings that we're finding are only going to be made official and permanent when we put them into the congressional budget. now, mr. president, we all know that this requires us to go through the rescission process.

this requires us to codify these reductions so that they're removed from the budget in future years. and we know that that is going to require us to get back to regular order on the budget as we go through this process, as we work through reconciliations. making sure there is a clear path to end continuing resolutions, return to regular order, return to a budget document, and be able to deliver. i will tell you this, when i talk to tennesseans, they want trarments. mr. president -- they want transparency. i think one of the things they've so appreciated with doge is they have a website, they're putting all this information on the website, they're putting it

on their x account, but they're showing the american people what they're doing, where they're finding waste, where they're finding fraud, and how they are being able to address this. this means that as we work through this, we are going to have to take our actions. we're going to have to return to that regular order. we're going to have to bring these spending bills to the floor. and we're going to have to insist and vote for and support a balanced budget, so that we begin to reduce, first, eliminate our deficit for the year, and then target balancing our federal budget and beginning to reduce our debt. i am so pleased that president trump talked about this last night in his state of the union

address. because it is important, not only for today, tomorrow, but for our children and grandchildren's future. he mentioned this, the sovereignty, the stability of our nation, what we want is to take the tough choices today, to make the spending reductions to today, so that in the future our children have a nation that is firmly sovereign and is able to stand whatever comes our way. i think it is so interesting that in 2010, the summer of 2010, admiral mullen was asked the question, what keeps you up at night? what worries you the most? what is our greatest threat to

our nation's freedom? his response, mr. president, was our nation's debt. and we all know that debt has doubled since that point in 2010, when he made that comment.

mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, this body knows from just my conversations in the hallways, i am a proud dad of two amazing daug daughters. they're remarkable young ladies that i am terribly proud of. i was also one of those dads that was up way before dawn when they were in middle school and high school because they were cross-country runners, cross-country runners in high school have a long-term saying that their sport is other sports' punishment. they're at 6:00 a.m. stretching out, running a mile, to then prepare to run five or six more, just to be able to start getting ready for cross-country meets in the fall.

they were remarkable athletes in high school, and they enjoyed that. they ran with guys and ladies when they were training, and all of their time in the training time, because the team was a team of guys and girls. but when they got to competition day, my daughters competed against other girls in that competition, because what we all know to be a fact to be true, that boys in cross-country that are training for cross-country and girls training in cross-country, both great athletes, have different times to the finish line. that's just a reality. it's not one negative on another. it's not diminishing one to the other. it's a reality. and the last summer olympics, the woman who was a remarkable athlete that won the women's mar marathon, as the greatest runner of our time, when she came in as

the gold medal winner, her time would have been beaten by 67 of the men who ran in the olympics, in the same sport, same distance, same track, gold medalist for the women, the top 67 men running in the marathon would have beaten her. where am i going with this? this is common sense that we all know and have all seen in our families and communities. it's the reason we have protected women's sports for years, to be able to make sure women and girls have the ability to be able to have great competition, to enjoy the joy of, sports and all the lessons you learn from sports, and to be able to have equal competition levels. but in the past few years, really, very, very recently in our country, there's a movement to be able to say if a

biological male or transgender individual wants to be able to compete in the women's sports area, they should be allowed to do that. the question is, who is that fair to? is that fair to this transgender individual or is that fair to the other female athletes? because culturally, there seems to be a push to say i don't care if it's unfair to the female athletes, i picked this one tran tr transgender individual and i want to be fair to them. i look at a team of other folks and say who is this fair to? this seems like basic common sense that 15 years ago wouldn't have even been a dialogue in our country. 50 years, wouldn't have been even in discussion in our country. but now we're having this dialogue now. this is not about disrespect for any individual, or the rights of individuals to be able to make

choices in their life. it's about respecting the rights of women and girls in their sport to be able to compete on a level playing field, to make sure they're able to thrive in their sport, the same as men are able to thrive in their sport, and to enjoy the thrill of competition without the intimidation of someone crossing over into their sport to be able to take it away from them. that doesn't seem unreasonable. but for some reason, in this room, contrary to the rest of the country, this is some kind of irrational conversation. it's not. it's basic common sense. but in this room, we just had a vote this week to be able to say women should compete in women's sports and men should compete in men's sports, and in that vote, just to begin the debate on the bill, to say let's open it up for amendment, let's talk about this as a concept, every single

republican for just that simple of a bill said let's start debate on this and figure out where we're going to go. every single democrat said i don't want to even debate this, this is not up for discussion. well, it is up for discussion. but where it's up for discussion is in homes and families and communities all over the country. because in homes and families and communities all over the country, there are lots of dads like me, of amazing daughters, that are saying, i don't want my daughter to compete against a biological male. because there are inherent advantages in some sports and in some speeds, just based on bone density and muscle structure. again, it's not negative towards female or male on that. it's reality and basic biology. families across the country are talking about this, and for some reason this room is allergic to

talk about it. we're going to continue to be able to bring this up, because americans have an expectation this is going to be resolved. i'm grateful to president trump that he has rescinded the biden administration's executive order allowing transgender individuals to compete in girls sports. that's a good thing. that sets ladies across the country at ease to say let's go play soccer, let's go run in cross-country, let's go to the sports we want to be able to to do and not have to worry about somebody hitting me in the face at high speed in a volleyball game, but to go compete on a level playing field. that's a good thing, but it's an executive order. it means it adopt last from president to president to president. i don't know what the next president is going to do, but i think i know where americans are still going to be. they're going to want to say let's compete. we may all train together, we may be all friends together, we may all hang out with each other at school, but when the

competition comes, give me a fair, level playing field for competition, and watch people compete and enjoy the sport. that's what sports have been about. at least that's what they used to be about. now they seem to be about political messaging instead. so we're going to continue to be able to bring this up. i'm grateful to coach tuberville for the work he's done on this. grateful to president trump for the work he's done on it. but it is unfinished business at this point. but to great frustration to a lot of families around the country, including my home state of oklahoma. with that i yield the floor.

it means we support and fund our law enforcement. it means we fund our behavioral health system. it means we support our mayors, our tribal leaders and are state officials. it means in them. it does not mean we drag them in front of congress for four hours, yell at them, tell them were going to give them criminal

referrals. the doj is intimidating our mayors and my colleagues across the aisle are producing tv ads to try to pretend they're making this country safe again. it's total bullshit. absolute bullshit. they are not making america safer again and what they're doing is terrorizing immigrant families. that is what they're doing. there are too afraid to send their kids to school. parents who are afraid they won't come home again. kids who are afraid to leave their houses. refugees of waited for years to come into this country, and our mayors are sitting here in during this ridiculous, ridiculous hearing as they have been threatened in front of the american people. so i will say in the words of my sister in the front row who brought forward the words of one of our faith leaders just a few days ago on the house floor, i hope my colleagues cause of like

until most of whom come from immigrant stock will have this same mercy that our ancestors had shown to them by this country so that you consider and be a congressperson. >> gentleman's time is expired. we are going -- >> unanimous consent. >> ms. crockett. >> from the economist, the safest big city in america, murder is declining across the country but boston has led the way. i have one more use request that it is some insight trying to overcome gang violence in haiti continued surge in 20124. following the trend to begin at the assassination of their president 2021. a record number of homicides in 2024 with over 7000 over 7000 murders for a rate of 62% of from 40.9% in 2020. >> without objection, so ordered. at the request of the witnesses we're going to do one more question and will be messing

sessions from texas, then the committee will take a 15 minute break. last question or before the break at the request of the witnesses will be mr. sessions from texas. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. to the panelists thank you for taking the time to be here. i hasten to say that i'm probably not going to yell at you. i will not live up to the things that we have been accused of today but i will say that i want to defend some actions that are being taken. i remember a few years ago when boston had to make illegal aliens who were, they were known as criminal aliens but they were not as on the watch list. they created a bomb that went off at, at the boston marathon. only killed a couple people that

caused jews disruption. and abroad to light that the administration at the time had allowed people who are on watch lists that we understood the terrorism, criminal. and we were allowing them in the country. we have watched forward as we moved about the rule of law being ignored. united states of america allows 1 million people to go through our process, the largest amount of anywhere in the world. 1 million people and they go through a process. and i spoke at one of these ceremonies naturalization ceremonies last may. and and i spoke to the peoplet were there, and they all unequivocally stated thank you to the united states of america. but they learned what they were entering, what they were

expected to do, that their customs from where they came from some could be kept but the things which did not correspond to america long now needed to be followed. that they're going to become american citizens not where they came from but they wanted to be americans and had to follow those rules and regulations or laws. that we were very open for them to be and they were legally perform the duties they wanted. what has caused this mismatch is more than just the boston bomber or people being killed, but rather the public interests in looking at what the charade that across all across this country, in particular in larger cities, chicago yes. new york city yes. other cities around the united states where people felt not only threatened but it was

activity that was seen as unbecoming to people who should be where they were and giving respect and thanks to a group of people who were allowing them to be here, i.e. a city that was not going to arrest them. but you see what we really understood is if you were here illegally they weren't going to rest or even for a crime. they might have arrested someone who was the citizen, put them behind bars. but unless they really created a heinous circumstance, they were not going to be arrested. and so this created an aura around the united states that the american people understood. and that is one of the reasons why you saw the american people not only vote with their hands but vote with their emotions

about the need to bring back not just law and order, not just rule of law but the ability that we had as american people to rethink the entire issue. and i do understand you think that this is all broken and washington, d.c. because you disagree with this. but what we have been allowing is the next president, whether he beat barack obama, whether it be george w. bush, donald trump, joe biden, to insist upon their own way instead of the law. the laws have been misguided. they have been misused and they are taking advantage of. i think what we're trying to do today is to hear from you not as we are accused but rather thoughtful people to hear you talk about your cities, the things which you encounter, as

the things which you think are right. and by and large, and i been in and out of this committee today, but we and by large herd it's, it's, it's more safe. it's not less safe. it's more safe because of what we do. and yet they comes at a cost and a price, and it creates circumstances. so i want to thank you for being here. i want you to remember that not everybody yelled and screamed at you. some people actually showed up to listen, and that is what i did today. i want to thank each of you because you are modeling that you have been doing is something that we do need to pay attention to. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> very good. the committee will take a 20 minute break. pursuant to the praise at her order that chair declares the committee in recess for 20 minutes.

>> a lot going on in washington, d.c. that's an understatement but i want to highlight a meeting that i had that i attended along with many of my senate colleagues last week with elon musk and the department government efficiency team. topics that got a fair amount of information, visibility in the press but much of its been misinformation and i'd like to address some of that and the importance of this effort here in the next few minutes. we had a very informative meeting with mr. musk and his team about the work they are doing on behalf of the american people. i first met elon musk maybe 15 years ago when he came to my office and said he had a new

company called spacex, and he wanted to be able to compete with other companies that have all of the nasa contracts for space, for space. and i guess looking back on it that was quite a long time ago but cfr spacex has come , ww carries the vast majority of payloads into space for the united states government and for the private sector. interestingly and to the point of the department of government efficiency, mr. musk had to sue the federal government in order to compete, which tell you a lot about the problems that the federal government has that is not open to competition, and thus creates a lot of the problems now that i think the department of government efficiency is now looking at. but in addition to all that mr. musk has to moved personally

his family and his businesses to texas. so i'm happy to have him as a constituent, and he's creating a lot of jobs in my state, everywhere from boca chica south texas in cameron county which is now i think officially renamed starbase, and the tesla to get factory which is right outside of austin which i visited a few months ago with mr. musk. star link obviously providing internet access to people in remote parts of the planet that would never hope to have access, all sorts of interesting things that he's involved in. and certainly i think we can all acknowledge whether you like mrr you don't like him. he's obviously a brilliant individual. and certainly among the most brilliant people i know.

so you have to ask yourself why would a guy maybe one of the richest may be the richest human being on the planet do what he was doing for the u.s. government? i think that's an important question comes from his not doing it for the money. he is certainly not doing it for the glory because all of, any time you start messing with the status quo here in washington, d.c. you can be assured you will become a target. you will be criticized. you will be demagogue against. you'll be lied about. it just goes with the territory and something i'm sure that he has not necessarily experienced before and, frankly, i'm glad he's going to put up with all that in order to do some important things. of course what the department of government efficiency is focus on is efficiency, something that

we purport and claim to be focus on here in washington, waste, abuse and fraud. but we talk about it a lot but that's basically what we end up doing is talking about it and not doing much if anything about it. right now the u.s. national debt, that's like a credit card, sits at over $36.4 trillion. now, i'm sure that the american people certainly it's true in my case can't really get your head around how much money that really is. to me one of the most telling indication of how big a number that is is we are now spending more money on interest on our national debt and we are on our defense, which is the most fundamental and important role that the federal government place. i know sometimes when you have

such a big number or a big challenge or big problem, it's easy to say well, it's just too hard. we can't do anything about it. and in the case of politicians, some may say and i, i bet there's more than a few losing well, it's too politically risky to try to deal with the status quo here because i'm sure it will be some sacred cows or some pet projects that individual members of congress or may be constituent groups, or special interest groups want to preserve. so they don't want you looking at that. they don't want you disrupting the status quo. but the reality is and as we heard from president trump last night as well as news reports, there are many examples of outrageous expenditures of

taxpayer dollars that need to be exposed, and they need to be addressed, and there's no time, we have to start somewhere and i would submit that there's no time like the present. well, if you spoke to someone struggling with a substance abuse problem, and addiction, you would never say to that person well, the situation with your addiction is just so bad that it's hopeless, it's simply too hard to change. there's nothing you can do. well, the truth is washington, d.c. is addicted to spending, and has been for a long, long time. and we have no responsible choice but to address it. so i'm glad that mr. musk and his team have stepped up.

while doge may not erase that national debt overnight, they are certainly highlighting the problems that bad, those taxpayer expenditures present. and i think this effort will be part of the answer to how we get back on track and correct our fiscal challenges. here in our country. now of course there are many in washington who want nothing to change. i i think we saw some of them lt night sitting on their hands during the president's state of the union speech. they like the way things are. they like the status quo. as a result there's been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth and, frankly, dissemination of a lot of erroneous information, again, which is simply not

reality. now some in immediate have created for the own reasons misperceptions that mr. musk and his team are going in and making personnel and financial decisions on their own. or forcing these decisions on the respective agencies that they are researching. but that's simply false. let me say that again. some may have the perception that mr. musk and the department of government efficiency team are themselves making personnel or financial decisions on their own. that's false. the reality is that those working for the department of government efficiency are doing so in compliance with the law. each agencies doge employees have gone through the presidential personnel office onboarding process.

they have appropriate security clearances and are direct contract employees of these agencies, and they must abide by the same guidelines and rules as otherip not. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, in recent weeks several judges have issued orders blocking unlawful actions taken by the trump administration. in response, the administration's officials and allies have made worrisome statements criticizing federal judges and the process of judicial review. elon musk, an unelected bureaucrat who is assisting this administration, has repeatedly called for the impeachment of federal judges and questioned the lifetime appointment of federal judges that is enshrined in article 3 of the constitution. president trump's choice of deputy director of the fbi, dan

bongino, suggested on a podcast that the president set up a fake courtroom in the white house where, quote, he can just start making judicial decisions. mr. bongino added, and i quote, if the judge is the executive, why can't the executive be the judge? ask your stupid liberal friends that, mr. bongino is quoted as saying. as a reminder, mr. bongino is second in command at the fbi, the most powerful investigative agency in the world. if he sounds like a political animal out of his elements, you would not be wrong. but mr. bongino is not alone. last week a nominee to a senior position at the department of justice testified before the senate judiciary committee, quote, there is no hard and fast rule about whether in every instance a public official is

bound by a court decision. let that sink in for a moment. this is a person who wants a senior position at the department of justice testifying under oath and saying, there is no hard and fast rule about whether in every instance a public official is bound by a court decision. and in a social media post, vice president vance falsely asserted that, quote, judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. this is merely the latest in the a long line of claims by the vice president that a president can defy court orders. president trump himself recently posted, and i quote, he who saves his country does not violate any law. a line that echos that others believe they are above the law, a rationalization to leaders of a political coup in a banana

republic. let me repeat that quote from president trump. quote, he who saves his country does not violate any law, close quote. these efforts to intimidate judges and undermine the rule of law do not stop with these statements. the speaker of the house said he agrees with vice president vance and urged the courts to, quote, take a step back, close quote. three members of the house of representatives have introduced articles of impeachment against federal judges simply because they rule against the trump administration. these remarks that i've quoted are not only wrong, they are constitutionally dangerous. and they pose a serious threat to our constitutional order and the separation of powers. since the supreme court's landmark marbury v. madison decision in 1803, there has been a broad bipartisan consensus throughout our history that in the words of chief justice

marshal, and i quote, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, close quote. when it comes to interpreting and applying the law, a the courts have the last word. and that responsibility takes on outsized importance when an executive shows little regard for the limits of the constitution, as this administration already has. under article 2 of the constitution, the executive branch is charged with, quote, taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, unquote. but president trump and his administration have ignored that responsibility. let me give you one clear-cut, unequivocal example. president trump summarily fired 18 inspectors general weeks into his presidency. he wanted these investigative officials out of the picture. he did this despite the law that

requires him, as president, to inform the congress of a decision to dismiss or transfer an inspector general and provide a detailed explanation for doing so. that's what the law requires -- at least 30 days before taking any action. when the executive branch blatantly violates the law, it is essential that the other branches of government fulfill their constitutional role and responsibilities. thanksfully, in the first weeks of the new trump administration, the judicial branches lived up to its responsibility. judges have carefully considered the cases before them and, where appropriate, provided a check on the administration when when it overstepped. the national debting that a court has a shall the fact that a court has made a decision does not mean you have to agree with it. listen to what john kennedy, a republican senator from louisiana, recently admonished two trump nominees who suggested the executive branch can ignore a court order. here's what my clearly, senator

cone did i said. quote, don't ever, ever take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court -- ever. now, you can disagree with it, within the bounds of legal ethics. you can criticize it, you can appeal it, or you can resign. now, i've disagreed with judicial decisions, including decisions of the supreme court. when that happens, i explain why i disagree. but i have never advocated ignoring or defying a court order. i never will. more than 60 years ago president john kennedy spoke about the importance of the rule of law in a speech at vanderbilt university. as president kennedy put it, and i quote, for one man to defy a law or court order he does not like is to invite others to defy those they do not like leading to a breakdown of all justice and order. we cannot allow any

administration to defy a court order, period. and we cannot stand idly by as a president and his allies undermine the judiciary by attacking judges. that's why can i introduced the resolution we are considering today. i want to thank my colleagues who cosponsored it and are joining on the floor in this block of time. our resolution simply affirms that the constitution vests the judicial power in the federal courts, and it affirms that both the constitution and established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all federal court rulings. these are not partisan talking points. they are basic principles of constitutional law, so fundamental and so essential to our constitutional order, they should go -- it should go without saying. but in light of recent comments and actions by president trump, vice president vance, and his administration and allies, some things must be said. so i ask my colleagues to say

with one clear voice, the united states senate supports the constitution, the judicial branch, and the rule of law. every member of this body has sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. i urge my colleagues to fulfill their oaths today. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i want to thank our chairman for bringing us together on the senate floor today to reaffirm a proposition that really ought not to be in any doubt. and that is the proposition that when a court has ruled on a matter, the executive and legislative branches are bound to follow the law. as the chairman said, you

may choose to appeal or you may choose to obey, or if you have a hugely principled objection, you may choose to resign. but you don't get to simply disobey court orders that you don't like. now, thankfully, a number of our republican colleagues are on record supporting that simple proposition. the majority leader, senator thune, said, the courts obviously are the branch of our government that calls balls and strikes and referees, and i think that they've got an important role to play. i meme, we have three -- i mean, we have three branches of government in this country, coequal and independent branches, and the judiciary is the one that resolves some of the differences that often occur between executive and legislative branches. chairman grassley, the chairman

of the senate judiciary committee, added, we've got a system of checks and balances, and that's what i see working. i learned in eighths grade civics about checks and balances, and i just express the process to work its way out. as senator hawley said, you may think that something is not the right ruling, but, you know, there's still the law. and senator kennedy said i don't agree with all the rulings. it's often the case i'll disagree with an opinion a court issues but i don't attack and don't intend to attack the be federal judiciary. he advised the witnesses before him, don't ever, ever take the position that you are not going to follow a court order. so from all of that, you would think that things were fine and that this was a wasted exercise of time here on the senate floor. but unfortunately, it's not because at the other end of

pennsylvania, the white house is constantly attacking the rule of law from all angles. and this administration is teetering on full-blown defiance of court rulings. vice president vance posted that judges aren't allowed to control the executive branch's legitimate power. that is an invitation to violate court orders if the executive takes the position that its own view of what its legitimate power is is what controls. one senate republican went so far as to call court orders that the administration lost a coup. if there's any coup going on, it's the executive branch coup taking place in our country right now. not court-ordered coup. department of justice, which should know better, including the solicitor general, who

should for sure know better, refused to say that they will always follow a court order, and many colleagues actually defended that. and then outside of the immediate danger of refusing to obey a court order is the attack on the integrity and safety of the judiciary. we've seen this in rhode island. a judge in rhode island, very respected judge, very well known throughout our state, very well regarded, very experienced, made the determination that the freeze order of the trump administration was unconstitutional, which in my view is not even a close call. it was an easy, easy answer. and rather than respond, they dropped what i call the flying monkeys on him. elon musk maintains on x a cohort of extremists and

oddballs who he can launch by targeting an individual to go and attack and harass that individual and their family. and he did precisely that to this judge, to the point where the judge's daughter was act actually doxed by one of these extremist followers of musk. it ought to be self-evident the judge's orders ought to be followed. it ought to be self-evident that if you don't like a judge's order you don't threaten the judge or his daughter. instead you appeal it. and the third tactic that they're using is what i call the fog bank tactic. so the order is the freeze is unconstitutional. omb, you've got to let the money go. and then people who have money coming to them, properly obligated, properly appropriated, try to call up and say, okay, the order says you can't hold it back. when's it coming?

and what do they get? no clear answers. the fog bank. the executive officials retreept behind refusal to answer e-mails, refusal to answer phone calls. vague answers that give no response. sometimes even happy indications that don't worry, hang out there, i'm sure that we can work this out. and even in some cases, yes, you will have access to these funds. it doesn't change the fact that the money just doesn't go. it reminds me of old bad movies about the soviet union where the kgb guy in the corner is the one who makes all the decisions. and the nominal chief of the agency says of course we're going to do this, but unless the kgb guy signs offer, the money doesn't go. in this case it's not the kgb guy. it's the little musk rats who are in this department trying to

foul up the flow of properly obligated funds. that is a slow-mo attempt of these orders. as courts and plaintiffs dig in, i think we're going to find more and more evidence of the deliberate nature of that fog bank strategy. and with that, i will yield the floor, thanking again our chairman for his leadership on this issue. mr. padilla: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: mr. president, i too rise today to defend the principles at the core of our democratic republic, that we are a government of laws and

institutions, not of individuals. that no billionaire has more rights than any worker and that no president has more rights than any citizen of our country. that we are a government of three coequal branches, providing checks and balances on each other. and bottom line, that no one is above the law. yet, as we stand here today, the trump administration is clearly, openly laying the groundwork to reject all of these principles that are operating under their idea that the president, his cabinet of loyalists and an unelected billionaire advisor can simply ignore the law or courts in rulings that they

disagree with. earlier this month vice president vance claimed that, quote, if a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use his or her discretion as a prosecutor, that's illegal. judges aren't allowed to control the executive legitimate power, end quote. that's the vice president. at the same time president trump's seeming co-president, elon musk, has repeatedly called for the impeaching of judges who rule against donald trump's attempts at power grabs. and now president trump himself has said, quote, he who saves his country does not violate any law, end quote.

historians may recognize this quote because it is widely attributed to napoleon, a man who became a dictator and who abolished the french republic at the time. it seems to me pretty clear that that is precisely the example that donald trump is looking to. and it should alarm all of us. when i think about just how much of donald trump's life has been spent staring at the four walls of a courtroom, yes, from the insight, folks, the four walls of a courtroom, maybe you can understand why he may want to do away with the courts. but the judiciary does not work for donald trump. it is a separate, coequal branch of government. the courts, colleagues, work for

the american people. and so far they have served the american people by pausing many of the president's blatantly illegal executive orders and overreach. but that's why he has continued to target the courts. colleagues, i'm one of the few nonlawyers to serve on the judiciary committee, and at times i get to bring a different perspective to our deliberations and our debates. so i will defer to my colleagues to maybe cover some of the legal history or case law that applies here. but for americans watching from home, here's how i can boil it down. let's ask ourselves, do you believe the president can simply ignore the law? do you believe that the president should be all you

powerful? do you believe that if you have to follow the law, then the president of our country should have to follow it as well? the answers should seem very, very obvious. now for years we've known that if a president did try to push the boundaries of what's legal and what's not, we could count on an independent department of justice to enforce court rulings. but over the past few weeks what we've seen in the judiciary committee is nominee after nominee appear before us and refuse to simply commit to upholding the law. the claim one after another, that they respect the constitution and stand for the

rule of law. but when given examples of what would you do -- not this. we've seen a president in this term and already in this term suggest those he appoints to not follow the law. they refuse to commit. that dynamic, colleagues, is unprecedented and it's dangerous. and it's also the result of an administration that demands applicants pass a loyalty test to get their job, in the first place. and it's brought us dangerously close to a constitutional crisis. a president feeling unconstrained by the courts, by the constitution, and the rule of law is no president at all. it's a power-hungry, want-to-be king. now, last night president trump in his address had an

opportunity to unite, or at least genuinely try to unite the country and affirm his commitment to the rule of law. sadly, i'm not surprised that he refused to do so. but thorj -- this morning we saw the supreme court cite against the trump administration and affirm a lower court order that the administration stop their unlawful freeze on foreign aid, one of the many, many challenges working its way through the judiciary. so the question now becomes will donald trump listen. p and will republicans in congress demand that he uphold the law?

so what we're asking of our republican colleagues today isn't anything radical. it's the fundamental principle that men and women dedicated to themselves nearly 250 years ago in the founding of our nation. that we shall be ruled of, by, and for the people. not of, by, and for a king or dictator. so to our republican colleagues, all we ask is this, stand up. stand up for the rule of law. stand up for the constitution. and stand up for our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. padilla: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. schiff: john adams once said we are a nation of lawmakers not men, and this idea has been foundational to the understanding of the american republic. what does it mean to be a nation of laws and is it still true in america in the era of donald trump? are we a nation of laws when characterized by a legal code that applies equally to all citizens, a justice system in which no one is above the law or beyond its reach, in which there is not one law for the rich and powerful and yet another for everyone else? or have we become a nation of men in which the law must bend to the will of its most powerful citizens, a society in which wealth and privilege mean that

the law need not apply to them with the same force as it applies to others, or not at all? four years ago after losing his reelection campaign, donald trump conspired to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power and incited a violent attack on the capitol. he withheld material and obstructed material into that defense. donald trump was indicted for these crimes. but a system of justice bound by the rule of law requires not only that charging decisions be made against people similarly situated without preference or disfavor according to their position, but that the conduct of those prosecutions like-wise be timely and appropriate. in this our justice system failed miserably. trump was able to seek endless

delays in court and the court's understanding that motivation, justice delayed, justice is denied, delayed the prosecution of donald trump until he could avoid a reckoning with justice all together. most egregious was the conduct of the high court itself. the roberts court first delayed any potential trial of the president and crippled the prosecution all together, granting the president immunity from prosecution for the commission of crimes while in office. no wonder the president thanked the court at last night's joint address and told justice roberts in particular that he would not forget. for the first time in america the supreme court held that if you reach the pinnacle of power, the presidency, the criminal laws need not apply to you. that, indeed, you may use the power of that law itself to

commit crimes and never be held to account. as justice soutomayor said, it makes a mockery that no man is above the law. now we have entered a perilous few phase where someone who escaped the law is now charged with administering the law, donald trump has appointed his own criminal defense lawyers to top places. it is a justice department in which trump's lawyers have sought to dismiss a serious corruption case against the mayor of new york as an alleged quid pro quo for his willingness to do the president's bidding on unrelated policy matters. they seek a dismissal without prejudice, meaning the president can lower that sort of damocles

on the head of the mayor should he ever demonstrate independence from the whims of the president. six senior justice department prosecutors resigned their office rather than pervert justice in this way. as one wrote in his resignation letter, i expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion, but it was never going to be me. other prosecutors at the justice department have likewise refused illegal orders to initiate investigations where no probable cause exists rather than violate their oath of office. if this continues, we will be left with a justice department leadership populated by only cowards and fools. a justice department used both as a sword to go after the president's enemies and a shield to hide its corruption, then what will remain of our nation

of laws but a sad memory of a time when we lived up to our founders' dreams only to squander the gift of our inheritance. mr. president, i yield back.

ms. klobucher: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobucher: mr. president, i rise in support of senator durbin's simple, but necessary,

resolution. it reaffirms three basic principles that should be self-evident to all senators serving in this body. one, that there are courts established under the constitution as a coequal branch of government. two, that in the words of chief justice marshall in marbury v. madison, the court's role is to say what the law is. and, three, that the constitution requires the executive branch to comply with all federal court rulings. as i reminded all of the senators that were assembled for the president's inauguration, there is a reason that that inauguration is not held in a gilded presidential palace like it is in some countries. it is held in the united states capitol and the president is sworn in by the chief justice of

the u.s. supreme court, and in this case with all supreme court justice there, to make the point that in america we have three equal cobranches of government and they all have a very defined role under the constitution. these are things we all learned in high school civics, and they are the bedrock of the rule of law. yet, today the president refuses to acknowledge these foundational principles. he claims, channelling napoleon, that he who saves his country does not violate the law. he has asserted that, quote, i have an article 2 where i have are the right to do whav i want as -- whatever i want as president. end quote. and he has even used the white house social media account where he is wearing a crown which says, long live the king. i kind of call that a smoking

gun that shows the evidence that senator durbin's resolution is necessary. both parties have found many of the president's actions illegal. judges appointed by ronalding reagan, judges appointed by george bush, judges appointed by donald trump along with judges appointed by democratic presidents have looked at the facts, looked at the law, and in the words of chief justice marshall, in marbury v. madison, have said what the law is. they have found the president's actions illegal from unilaterally funding freezes in direct defiance of statutes and the koun's -- constitution's crystal clear mandate that the power of the purse resides with congress to illegal firings of government officials where they have been reinstated. yet the administration questions

principles at the very heart of our constitution. just last month the vice president said, quote, judges aren't allowed to control the executive legitimate power, end quote. in 2021, jd vance, before he was elected, suggested that the president should dismantle the federal workforce, and, quote, when the courts stop you, stand before the country like andrew jackson did, and say the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it. elon musk, who was here in the house of representatives just last night, lauded by the president, has said, quote, the only way to restore rule of the people in america is to impeach judges, end quote. citing the purge of judges by the government in el salvador as an example. the world's greatest democracy, the united states of america, now pointing to the rules in el salvador.

aaron rites previously called for defiance of a court order, tweeting himself, looking for andrew jackson leadership on this one. judge eagle made his decision. let him enforce it, end quote. when asked about this tweet at the hearing that senator durbin and grassley held over his nomination, and when asked whether the president can defy a court order, wright said, quote, there is no hard and fast rule in all instances in which a litigant must comply with all, some, or various parts of a judicial decision, end quote. when asked for his view on the matter, john sauer, nominee for solicitor general, told the committee he did not want to speak to hypotheticals. this is a frightening nonanswer. it is very clear. we are to follow the saw in the senate. the president to follow the law. in fact, while the framers gave

the president the power to faithfully execute the law, our constitution created an accountable president. the framers, who detested the king's unchecked power, made sure to create an independent judiciary to prevent abuse of power wherever it occurred. and ensure that no one is above the law, not even the president. as james madison noted, independent tribunals of justice serve as, quote, an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive, end quote. that includes, of course, the power to issue binding court orders that the executive cannot set aside. like many of my colleagues, i have vigorously opposed some decisions by judges, but even when i disagree with the decision i never thought it was an open question about whether that decision should be followed. if you do not like a court ruling, you appeal it. if we think a decision was

wrong, we introduce legislation or a constitutional amendment as we have done to change it, or reasoned argument before the supreme court, or filing an amicus brief. i've attended hearings in which we filed an amicus brief. i know many of my republican colleagues and other prominent conservatives agree. speaking to the nominees at last week's hearing, senator kennedy, of louisiana, said, quote, don't ever, ever take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court, ever, end quote. the majority leader, senator thune, has been very clear that people should follow the law. federalist society cofounder steven calibrisi wrote that the president has the power to defy court judgments, quote, would not be so much a system of constitutional government as it

would be a system of rule by an elected napoleonic strongman, end quote. he noted that all past presidents have understood this as well, even richard nixon surrendered the watergate tape when ordered by a court. mr. president, ours is a nation of laws, not a nation of kings. ours is a nation of laws in which no one is above the law, when taking the oath of office this just happened a month ago, we were all there, the president promised to, quote, preserve and protect, defend the constitution of the united states. that is a pledge to obey court orders, and if the president chooses not to and flouts a court order, he will provoke a constitutional crisis. as chief justice john roberts made clear at the end of last year, any suggestion that federal court rulings will be

rejected are, in his words, dang dangerous, and, in his words, must be soundly rejected. hagan scott, the lead prosecutor in the mayor eric adams case, who resigned instead of carrying out politicized orders, maybe said it best. he wrote in his letter of resignation, i expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion, but it was never going to be me. this comes from a lawyer with an incredible career, someone who is a decorated iraqi war veteran, someone who clerked for judge kavanaugh before he got to the supreme court and clerjd for justice -- clerked for justice roberts himself. but he would not commit an

illegal act. i expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, he said, or enough of a coward to file your motion, but it was never going to be me. to my republican colleagues, those words, they should be something you keep in your head, something that should haunt you in the middle of the night. nominees who won't answer unequivocally that the president must comply with a court order? remember the words -- maybe you will find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward, but it's never going to be me. our job, our job is to look at these nominees and make decisions on the facts, to advise and consent, not to accept and acquiesce. and certainly, we should, at the

very least, support senator durbin's resolution, so simple and such a restatement -- reinstatement of our actual law, that there are courts established under the constitution as a coequal branch of government. super not -- super not controversial. that in the words of chief justice marshall in marbury v. madison, those courts' role is to say what the law is. and finally, that the constitution requires the executive branch to comply with all federal rulings. that is the law, and we ask our colleagues to support this resolution. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

mr. blumenthal: like a number of my colleagues who are here today, i want to support senate resolution affirming the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review, and i thank chairman durbin for bringing it to the floor. and i'm here with a lot of regret and sadness, in a way. we should have pride in our uniquely just and democratic system that puts the rule of law above everything else, but my regret and my sadness is that there was a time in this country when the other side of the aisle would have been speaking for this resolution as well. and would have been, not just accepting but advocating, r robustly, not just in rhetoric

but in action, that we reaffirm our allegiance to the rule of law and the legitimacy of courts scrutinizing what we do to make sure that we stay within the constitution and the rule of law. and we're here because, in effect, that basic consensus and acceptance seems to be dissipating, perhaps even shredding. the founders were far from perfect, and one of their great virtues was to recognize their imperfection. so they devised a system that precluded anybody from being fully in power of everything. they had lived under an autocracy, the monarchy that

sent english soldiers into their ho homes, allowed them to take people and property without any kind of approval, in effect subjected them to a loss of liberty that they regarded as their fundamental rights as eng englishmen, and in fact, our system of constitutional rule owes a lot to the english system, the magna carta. we all know the history from our law school days. and from my law school days, i remember well my professors expounding with great reverence this idea that in our country courts can override the excesses of a legislature or an executive. it's not a simple proposition. i will grant you, in a democracy

the idea of a united states supreme court, the highest court in the land, appointed for life, nine people, the number has varied, without any election able to override the two popularly elected branches of government, seems totally anomalous and un-democratic. and yet, the united states supreme court as a check, as an enforcer of that balance, has played a critical role throughout our history in enforcing our rights and preserving them. and, at times, it has failed. dred scott, cora mat-su. the united states supreme court

is far from perfect too. but in our system, we are a government of people observing and enforcing the law. and in the days when i thought there would be no question that following court orders should be a basic tenet, certainly for lawyers who are steeped in the culture of following the law, after all, what good is it to be debating in court before a judge if the losing party simply disregards the outcome? so, i come with sadness and regret because we face today a growing and more popularly

accepted idea that those court orders need not be obeyed, that judicial review is not the acceptable tenet of our constitution that it has been for centuries. and that perhaps maybe this president should not be bound by what the courts say. that is so fundamentally dangerous to our democracy that we are here today simply to make a statement, that this resolution affirming the rule of law and legitimacy of judicial review is necessary at this moment. i'm not going to go into all of the history that senator

klobuchar recited so well and eloquently or colleagues have done as well. we don't blindly follow the he'd icts or orders of -- the edicts or orders of individuals in this country, elected or not. but all of us in this chamber, all of us who have served in the military, all of us who served in any public office for the public raise our right hand and we swear an oath, not to the president, not to the majority le leader, not to any potentate or office holder. we swear to the constitution. that's an oath that we take, to the constitution and the laws of the united states, so help me god. and that is the oath that requires us to obey the courts,

insofar as they artic lay the laws -- they articulate the laws and the constitution. like the founders and the supreme court, lower courts may be far from perfect too. that's why we have not just judicial review of executive and legislative branches, but also within our judiciary, review and appeal. not just once or twice but within state courts and then from state courts to our federal court. i want to just close by saying i spent most of my career as a lawyer going to court, trying cases, arguing before judges. i can tell you some of those decisions i thought were just dead wrong, just so wrong as to

make my blood boil. and whether it was for a client or for the united states of america when i was the united states attorney and the decision went against me, the people of the united states or the people of connecticut when i was attorney general and the decision went against me, i was angry. but it never crossed my mind that i should just disobey. and the reason is that the larger good, the longer-range public interest is served when those court orders are obeyed. and that sometimes whether it's dred scott or core mat true -- korematsu, the appeal is to history. the appeal is to the future. to a moral conscience or a legislative change or someone

sensing deep in their gut that an injustice has been done. and that is the kind of system that has survived these centuries as the american experiment because we believe in the possibility of change and reform but not by disobeying a judiciary that serves ultimately to prevent autocracy, dictatorship, and tyranny. one of the lessons of tyranny in the 20th century that professor tim schneider cites in his book on tyranny, one of the first lessons of 20 lessons on tyranny in the 20th century is do not

obey in advance. do not obey in advance. that is not to say we don't obey court orders. it is to say we do not obey in advance what a dictator tells us to do. and when a dictator or a would-be tyrant says don't follow court decisions, we have an obligation to speak up and stand up. and that is what we are doing through this resolution. i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. durbin mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip durbin mr. president, it's been my great

honor to represent the state of illinois in this chamber for many years. and i've been present for a lot of proceedings which are memorable, some historic. i can't think of one in its simplicity that is as important as what we witnessed in the last hour in debate. we are literally asking a fundamental question about our democracy that is seldom asked. it's rare that we have a circumstance where we have to ask it, that we certainly understand in this situation that it must be resolved. what i've tried to do in establishing this resolution was to make it as pointed, as direct, and as simple as possible. there are whereas clauses which are of little or no consequence. but the resolution clause is so

simple and direct that i want to repeat it before i make my request for a unanimous consent. resolve that the senate affirms that number one, article 3 of the constitution of the united states fests the judicial par of the united states in one supreme court and in such interior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish. number two, as chief justice marshall held in supreme court's landmark 1803 decision marbury v. madison, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. and number three, the constitution of the united states an established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all federal court rulings. that's it.

it acknowledges article 3, establishing the courts. it acknowledges marbury v. madison, one of the very first cases any student of law in the united states must understand. and number three, it says clearly the constitution an established precedent require the executive branch to comply with all federal court rulings. i'm sorry that we have reached a point in our history where we even have to ask the question. but shame on us if we don't. this is not a political resolution. i've tried to make it as apolitical as possible because it gets to these basic principles. i want to thank my colleagues who came forward on the floor to say a word in support of this resolution. and now, mr. president, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of

s. res. 108 affirming the rule of law and the legitimacy of judicial review which is at the desk. further, i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there an objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i've always afsh indicated for -- advocated for respect. especially the last few years i've opposed a vicious smear by democrats designed to undermine faith in our supreme court and our judicial system. now that we have a republican president, my democrat colleagues appear to have new found respect for the courts. it wasn't very long ago that they were singing a different

time and a different tune. in the last few years, democrats have called the supreme court, quote, controlled by creepy right-wing billionaires, a radical supreme court, and a partisan and reactionary court, end of quote. one of my colleagues on the judiciary committee said, quote, the idea that you can trust a supreme court has been blown to smither reens -- smithereens, end of quote. another committee colleague declared, quote, i oppose these justices, end of quote. and yet another committee colleague questioned, quote, how can they call it an honorable co court? the far-right justices are cherry-picking their way through constitutional text and history to impose their own ideological

agenda on the american people, end of quote. over the last few years, democrats have repeatedly threatened the court for ruling in ways that they did not like. famously in 2020, the senate democratic leader threatened the court to influence its rulings on abortion. he said, quote, i want to tell you, gorsuch, i want to tell you, kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwinds, and you will pay the price. you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions, end quote. and in the wake of the 2024 presidential immunity decision, democratic house minority leader said, quote, house democrats will engage in aggressive

oversight and legislative activity with respect to the supreme court to ensure that the extreme far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the constitution, end of quote. now, i am happy that democrats have finally discovered the importance of respecting the judiciary. they certainly didn't hold this view when president biden was in office. president biden ignored the court's position that the cdc's eviction moratorium was unconstitutional. and his own lawyers' advice that he couldn't do it, he went ahead and extended the moratorium anyway, and the court had to strike it down. president biden boasted once that the court's decision on

student loan forgiveness, quote, didn't stop him, end quote. the biden administration undermined the court's 2023 decision that racial discrimination in college admissions is unconstitutional, and even issued a dear colleague letter on how to circumvent that ruling. more broadly, president biden flouted law after law throughout his entire administration. he ignored the plain text of our immigration laws, the parole statute, our civil rights laws in the name of advancing his agenda. and you know what? i heard no complaint from my democrat colleagues. although i fully agree that congress stands for the rule of law, this resolution is nothing but a partisan messaging

statement. president trump has been clear on this. just a few weeks ago he said, quote, i'll always abide by the courts and then i'll have to appeal. the answer is, i always abide by the courts. end of quote. there have been numerous extreme orders from various district courts improperly encroaching on core article 2 of powers. president trump and his administration have worked diligently to abide by those orders no matter how outrageous by appealing them and challenging their scope and reach. he's completely within his right to do so and his conduct is appropriate and legitimate. our constitutional system has a robust system of checks and balances.

the executive branch must abide by the courts, and the courts must also ensure that their rulings are respectful of jurisdictional limits and particularly our famous separation of powers. some of the recent orders of individual district judges issued on an expedited basis with nation wwide -- very broad nationwide impact have concerned me. i think congress needs to examine this issue closely. concerns about nationwide injunctions, temporary -- and temporary restraining orders have been raised on both sides of the aisle, across presidential administrations, and if my colleagues want to work with me on it, we will head down that route of addressing those abuses. for today's purposes, however,

this resolution is incomplete. and coming from democrats, i think it shows that they're totally inconsistent. it's unfair ly -- it unfairly targets president trump. in turn it ignores the democratic attacks on the legitimacy of the court, and it ignores president biden's flagrant violation of law. so i am offering senator durbin an opportunity that he can't turn down, a resolution to highlight the inappropriate attacks by democrats against the legitimacy of the supreme court and to clarify the executive branch must comply with lawful orders. so the point is that i ask that the senator would modify his request that the grassley amendment to the resolutions at

the desk be considered and agreed to, and the grassley amendment to the preamble at the desk be considered and agreed to. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the modification. mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i would like to ask a question of my friend, the chairman, when it comes to the modification which he is suggesting. does this include in one request both modifications that we have been given? mr. grassley: yes, it does. mr. durbin: i want to make certain, particularly, that i understand the modification. to the resolution clause. perhaps you can clarify as to whether or not there is a requirement of the executive branch to comply with all federal court rulings. do you modify that particular sentence?

mr. grassley: yeah, that's right. mr. durbin: and do you add the word lawful? mr. grassley: yes. mr. durbin: so, mr. president, i think -- i want to clarify for the record and for history there's no dispute. there are differences of opinion about court orders in the past. i would say, without fear of contradiction, that though president biden's name has been mentioned repeatedly, particularly when it comes to the forgiveness of student loan debt, there was never any acknowledgment of defiance of any court order, period. there was a court order against the biden administration and president biden did not agree with it. it went forward -- he went forward with a different app approach with the law. his name has been mentioned many names, but that just doesn't square with the reality. here's

the difficulty. think about this for a second. under marbury v. madison, we basically said it is the province and duty of the judicial department, judges, the courts, to say what the law s -- is. and then the modification being made by the senator from iowa says, you only have to abide by lawful court rulings. did i state that correctly? mr. grassley: i think you need to be -- we need to clarify because i think your inferences that trump has violated some trump orders, he has not. in fact this very day the supreme court ruled against him on a 5-4 decision that goes back to the lower court to make a firm decision. and so you can't say that the court system isn't working against president trump it is a worked against president biden.

mr. durbin: that's a fair criticism. i want to make it clear. i'm not saying that president trump has violated a court order. i don't know that he has. the question is, whenever an order is issued, either for him or against him, will he obey the order? will he acknowledge that that is his lawful responsibility? that's what it comes down to. i'm not looking prospectively or in history, the brief time in the presidency this time around, but, rather, saying that whatever the court order in the future, whether for him or against him, he is bound by that court order. and you have added the word lawful court order. i'm not sure if the court is to decide the law and they decide in his favor, then the law is acknowledged to be binding on him and his actions. conversely, if the ruling is against him and the court order is against him, i hope you would

acknowledge that that is lawful and that he has to follow it, even though they ruled against him. that is simple constitutional law. i'm not presuming how the court will the rule. i'm saying, however it rules, he is bound by that ruling. do you agree with me, senator? mr. grassley: i have made very clear that we have a separation of powers and each branch has to respect the other's powers. mr. durbin: i acknowledge that as well. the question is, does that mean that the stiff branch is bound by the decision of the court and has to follow a court order, whether it is for or against the administration? mr. grassley: i think what i'd like to do is do you agree with my amendment or you don't so we can move on and get to other important stuff today. i want to help you get your resolution through, and i want to just say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.so

share. and i don't think disagree with you. but i think the addition of the word lawful in the final sentence equivocates what the constitution's clarity s so i'm going to object with the possibility that we can work on this together to see if there is a way to reach a conclusion. i think this is so basic. you have served honorably in the united states senate for an entire career, and the point that i'm getting to is, we ought to make certain that moving forward there is clarity on this most basic checks and balances constitutional provision. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the modification? mr. durbin: i 0 be to the modification, as written -- i object to the modification, as written. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original question? mr. grassley: reserving the

right to object, before i do object, i want senator durbin to know that there's things like this that we ought to work out, and -- but we can't be complaining about the courts if we have a democratic president and just complaining -- and just complaining when we've a republican president. i think there's enough abuses of these nationwide orders to stop certain activity that our committee out to be looking at and reviewing and seeing if they aren't being abused. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. grassley: soon we'll be begin voting on the nomination of todd blanche. oh, i see. i ask unanimous consent that the following senators be allowed to speak prior to the roll call vote -- senator durbin for five minutes, senator ricketts for five minutes, and this senator for ten minutes. but pip he'll not going -- but i'm not going to take ten minutes, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. gr mr. grassley: unanimous consent agreed to? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: soon we'll be voting on the nomination of todd

blanche to serve as deputy attorney general of the united states. i support his nomination and urge all of my colleagues to vote for this well-qualified nominee. mr. blanche's record shows that he's the right man for this job. his story exemplifies the american dream. as a young man, he supported his young family by working as a paralegal during the day while attending law school at night. he clerked twice for judges appoint odd by presidents of both parties and ultimately became a respected prosecutor in the southern district of new york. his colleagues from that office of both political parties told us that mr. blanche is, quote, a fundamentally good and decent

man, end of quote. mr. blanche then entered private practice. at two very prestigious law firms, which included -- one of them included the oldest firm on wall street. this remarkable resume has all the hallmarks of someone who should serve as a senior official at the justice department, but this isn't what impresses me the most. i've spoken often about the partisan weaponization of our justice system. i've worked to investigate it. i've released records proving that that weaponization exists, and my colleagues, for your information, can expect to see more of this information coming out from me very, very soon. i believe mr. blanche is the

right man for the job because he's seen this weaponization firsthand, and he has paid a personal cost to do something about it. and this is the price he paid. mr. blanche was forced out of his law firm because he chose to represent president trump. now, that's quite a law firm, isn't it, that just because you're taking business in, they don't like it. so then he put his reputation on the line and he put his career on the line. -- to fight against jack smith's and district attorney bragg's rampant lawfare. and he handled these cases with professional excellence. we need good people like todd blanche in the justice department. we need laws who will do

justice, even when it's unpopular or comes at a personal cost, it is a did to m mr. blanche. we need people leading the department who will end the abuses of the past and make the agency live up to the ideals of our constitution. i'm not the only one who thinks mr. blanche is the right man for the job. he's received support from some of the people who understand the justice department best. over 100 alumni of the southern district of new york who worked alongside mr. blanche wrote to say this. quote, todd's experience, character, intellect, openness to dialogue, and long-standing love of and belief in the mission of the department of

justice make him eminently qualified to serve as deputy attorney general, end of quote. another communication -- 70 former doj officials wrote to say that, quote, mr. blanche is a special nominee in that he brings decades of experience both as a prosecutor and defense attorney to the role of deputy attorney general, end of quote. another one -- law enforcement groups representing tens of thousands of officers wrote to support mr. blanche because of his history working alongside of law enforcement and prosecuting violent crime. between his record, his presentation in committee, and his extensive support, i'm

convinced that mr. blanche is the best person to serve as de deputy attorney general. i'm proud to support this nomination, and i look forward to voting for him. i know that he'll work with president trump and attorney general blondie to restore faith in the justice department. i yield. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'm going to try to be brief because i know members are an schuss to vote. we're considering the nomination of todd blanche, nominee for deputy attorney general. how important is this job? it is the number-two job in the department of justice. traditionally its been given major responsibilities and been treated very seriously, it is a should be, and we should consider that when we consider this nomination. i'm not going to go into the background already outlined by chairman grassley about mr. blanche's legal

representation of donald trump, which he did on related occasions. there's nothing to suggest is that when he did was unethical in that capacity or unprofessional. so i'm not going to raise a question about it. as to whether or not he has any bias one way or another in dealing with the president in the future is speculative, but speculative, but it is important. the thing i'd like to raise is january 6, 2021. that's the day a solemn constitutional proceeding was disrupted here in this capitol in this senate chamber by a mob of thugs who, egged on by president trump, to attract the united states capitol an attempt to overturn the presidential election. i lived that you that, as many of us -- i -- i lived through that, as many of us did. it led to the death of five law enforcement officers and injuries to approximately 140 others, many of whom are still paying that price today. the rally before the attack on

the capitol, president trump said, quote, if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore, end quote. yet in a court filing, when blanche argued, quote, not a shred of evidence suggest that president trump called for any violence. president trump repeatedly called for peaceful and you a pat trac a. ssembly, end of quote. there was nothing peaceful or patriotic, mr. president, about president trump's conduct that day. and the same goes for his supporters. did it seem peaceful when this crowd assaulted police officers who were doing their job? one of president trump's moves in office, one of the first things he did was to issue blanket pardons for all of the violent january 6 insurrectionists. when mr. blanche was asked at his hearing to condemn these actions, he repeatedly refused to do so. it appears he buys into the

conspiracy theory that the fbi is actually responsible for the insurrection. in response to our question, mr. blanche says he does not believe the inspector general's finding that the fbi did not have any undercover employees at the capitol on that day. i'm especially disappointed, especially that mr. blanche refused to commit to me and the committee that he would not disclose the names of fbi agents who worked on the case of the january 6 rioters, even though some of the rioters are already calling for retribution against these men and women who were simply doing their duty. this is extremely dangerous. we have seen these violent individuals and we know that they're willing to dole out their own form of justice. they believe they are above the law because of the presidential pardon, and president trump validated that belief with the pardons that were full and unconditional. instead of accepting legitimacy of the cases brought against the president mr. blanche repeatedly use the word lawfare to describe

these investigations. i've been around this chamber for a long time and around washington for even longer. i don't know what this word lawfare means, and to use it as your explanation of what you're going to do in the number-two position at the department of justice is mind-boggling. after the hush money convictions came down, mr. blanche was asked if he accepted that the president had his day in court and that a jury of his peers made the decision to convict him. in response, mr. blanche undermined our justice system by saying no, not at all. since the president has taken office, we've already witnessed the weaponization of justice. mr. blafrj not provide the necessary independence to avoid that. his response to questions was not satisfying in this regard. his record and his undying loyalty to the president notwithstanding, i don't believe he is the right person for this job. i ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the nomination. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. ricketts: mr. president, i

want to thank my colleagues who yesterday voted to proceed on my congressional review act to undo the 11th hour regulation that the l biden administration put through, the consumer protection, consumer financial protection bureau that would have great replacement spanneded the powers of the -- expanded the powers for the payment systems as opposed to the banking systems. i appreciate my colleagues vote and encourage them to vote again today. earlier some of my democratic colleagues expressed objections and again in the interest of time, my colleague from illinois people are waiting to vote. the senator from massachusetts seemed to indicate, and she's done so many times in the past, that somehow the cfpb is the only cop on the beat there. simply not true. these payment systems are regulated at the state and federal level. there are other organizations out there that do regulation

like the fdic, office of comptroller and state banking regulators which i used to manage as a former governor, these organizations all look out for protection of the consumer. and so she phrased this as somehow we're going to be opening the doors to bad actors. that is simply not the case. it's a complete misapprehension of our regulatory structure. so i encourage my voters, my colleagues to vote for the cra that will help roll back this unnecessary regulation. this is a regulation the cfpb put forward without even defining what market they were going to regulate. they gave misleading information that somehow it would only cost $25,000. and in fact consumers are generally very broadly pleased with these payment systems. cfpb's own data shows that only 1% of the 1.3 million complaints they received last year were on these payment systems.

so this is a regulation in search of a reason. we need to stop this expansion of the federal bureaucracy. we will have the opportunity to do that today. i urge my cloegz to vote in -- my colleagues to vote in favor of the cra. thank you, mr. president. i yield back. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the postcloture time has expired. the question now occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks.

the clerk: mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman.

the clerk: mr. boozman. mrs. britt. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz.

mr. curtis. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley.

mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mr. husted. mrs. hyde-smith.

mr. johnson. mr. justice. the clerk: mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. kim. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee.

mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. mccormick. mr. merkley. mrs. moody. mr. moran. mr. moreno. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy.

mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. sanders. mr. schatz.

mr. schiff. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. mr. sheehy. ms. slotkin. ms. smith. mr. sullivan. mr. thune. mr. tillis.

mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- banks, capito, cotton, crapo,

fischer, grassley, hyde-smith, johnson, justice, lankford, marshall, mccormick, paul, ricketts, schmitt, scott of florida, and sullivan. senators voting in the negative -- p alsobrooks, blumenthal, blunt rochester, cantwell, duckworth, durbin, gallego, heinrich, kaine, king, murray, padilla, peters, schatz, schumer, shaheen, and wyden. mr. cassidy, aye.

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

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye. mr. murphy, no. the clerk: mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: mr. kim, no.

the clerk: mr. budd, aye. mr. curtis, aye. mr. schiff, no. mr. merkley, no. the clerk: mr. thune, aye.

the clerk: mr. lujan, no. ms. smith, no. ms. hahn, no. -- ms. hassan, no. the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, no.

the clerk: mr. welch, no. mr. young, aye.

the clerk: mr. husted, aye.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, no.

the clerk: mr. booker, no. mr. ernst, aye. the clerk: ms. klobuchar, no. mr. sheehy, aye.

the clerk: mr. tillis, aye. ms. collins, aye. ms. collins, aye.

the democrats for americans and troops and priorities that they did for the country of ukraine and they are working very hard too and that work so democrats should be applauding him. >> behind the scenes and the are treating the biden treated this respectfully. >> it's an interesting question, i don't know if anybody asked about that but there was a report from nbc news president biden president zelenskyy when he was standing up and president

zelenskyy checked for more joe biden was frustrated. this administration has had those store negotiations and ukrainians. president zelenskyy did star and national security advisor has been talking to his counterparts so we are in the midst of this. >> these three automakers in mexico, how did the president settle on this? >> reciprocal tariffs will go into effect he feels only about that no matter what. >> they should get on it and invest and move.

between white house and ukraine and they revealed for president zelenskyy and intelligence sharing ukraine, is that temporary or permanent? >> i believe what national security council told me reconsidering and for these matters on the national security council. >> reinstating going into ukraine. >> parts of the letters from zelenskyy, can you give a sense when he plans to sign that deal? >> i just saw the national security advisor working very

hard. i think is going into the office and giving an update again the president is committed to a peace deal and wants to see the war ended and his message was she shared on x is a positive sign in the right direction. >> we claiming that panama canal and sometime today said president trump was lying and i was wondering your response on the and a reason for not mentioning last night. >> i'm not sure if they've seen what was going on but they are not interested in investing over the port and the president was very vocal about the two a short china is not controlling the panama canal. this is a very important place for the analysis of america and

we saw the panama canal was he's on naval ships in and out of the canal and the president will continue.ca >> the prime minister of government and moving forward to make the first statement. >> is truth social account and earlier today and feels strongly it would be beneficial canadian paying for these tariffs and they have much lower taxes. >> an issue voters decided for

president trump. with the american people. if you can be real these, are they going to get worse before they get better. >> the same question given three different times and i will answer again, transparency to the american people because it's an american issue and the president understands it is and that's why last night he addresses issue with the realistic and honest approach and talk about what this administration is doing to unleash american energy and make america affordable again and wholeheartedly committed to doing it and i would remind the american public first record volumes and why they reelected because they know he can't fix

our broken economy and it's very broken from this administration. >> your predecessor presented office and sent. what north korea is doing in response to make certain coverage will be honest. the commander-in-chief was up for the job. and many of you work at much for asking questions about that truth so when it comes to truth and transparency, this administration and white house taking armor questions and

predecessor joe biden on a big daily basis. in medical issues for this and it is just an excuse american citizens and the american people

keep in mind everyday is making decisions necessary and for illegal drugs killing our nations people. the number one in our country.

mr. cramer, aye.

space station is something deeply will even, it's ability to make a positive impact for all of humanity that believe that allows us to take the risk yourself on top of a rocket and going into space. the vacuum of space in the risk of developing a new spacecraft from the space station is very important to us.

the second aspect is the privilege to bear witness to the professionalism on demonstration everyday. the way they've taken everything and responded has been an example but it's not just bush and sunny. the occurrences the past year have impacted almost all members of the u.s. or and international partners and their families so the ripple effect see how the community responded proud to be part of that of dedicated service part of that roope in the privilege to be but.

that legacy in a few short days arrived and we are going to end up on the return to earth with the long duration and perform and that mission that we care about in the hand over will mark the continuation of a legacy going on to the space station for 25 years of we are happy to answer your question. >> thank you. next we will do questions from media. press star 11 you are ready to ask your question. first question, shut down with the seated press. >> what is like to wake up one

day and space and find yourself the center of a political story? i'm referring to comments go by president trump and elon musk regarding your return? >> obviously we've heard some different things. i can tell you all of us have utmost respect for mr. musk and admiration for our president of the united states, donald trump. we reshape them all that they do for us and our nation. we are thankful they are in the position they are in. it's part of life we understand an important reason why we have the political system we do have and we are behind it one 100%. we know the ins and outs they may not be ready to infer they have to say are dealing with we

are not privy too so i think about your question, that's part of life we are on board and support our nation and our nation's leader and we are thankful. >> our next question on emily with nbc news. >> thank you for taking my question. your resilience and positivity has shined through the was the most challenging aspect about the changing timelines in space? what will you miss most about space. >> thank you for the question because it brings people on the ground is support us, it's been a roller coaster for them probably a little more than for us. we have a mission, they are doing what we do every day interesting because we are in space and it's a lot of fun so the hardest part is having some

the ground not know exactly what we are coming back and we are going back with nine and all of the uncertainty is probably the most difficult part the takes time to have that conversation on a daily basis. don't make the plans without me. [laughter] who will be back for too long what you miss about space? everything. this is my third like to the international space station. we put together with been up here throughout all these years to science appear. the fact that we live appear in a unique place, and amazing perspective not only out the window but also just on how to solve problems. i don't want to lose that spark of inspiration and not perspective. >> our next session with cbs

news. good to see and talk to all of you. i've got two questions, nick and sunny became political federal agencies. are you at all concerned that your teammates will be distracted? for life experiences and you are certainly qualified, what is your take away?

>> i think i will start with the hard question. here, we are insulated the law of was going down on the ground but one thing is how the operational team is functioning so on a daily basis, minute by minute basis in contact with the ground, with got teams supporting us entire nasa and international apparatus supporting us support from the first day i showed up --

our next question abc news. >> this question is for sonny. i was talking to some kids talk about tattoos and they want to know what jobs you have now and how they miss you? how much are you looking forward to seeing them when you come home? >> that's a great question. it's probably harkening back to the other question although thank god they don't know well. i have two labrador retrievers right now who are having boy

time with my husband and they will be happy to come home so i will be excited to see my lap when i come home. >> our next question with bloomberg. >> good to talk to you this is for butch and sunny following up on the topic of politics in the decisions surrounding the timing of your return regarding politics that there was an option to come home earlier, i wonder if you feel politics influence the decision and what you want to come home earlier? >> from my, politics has not played into this battle. i think they would agree we came prepared to stay long even though we plan to stay short and that's what we do in human spaceflight and that's of the program is all about planning for unknown unexpected

emergencies with the mets why crew nine and edition 72 as we did. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to legislative session and resume consideration of the following joint resolution which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 20, s.j. res. 28, disapproving the rules submitted by the bureau of consumer financial protection and so forth. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all time is expired. the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the

third time. the clerk: calendar number 20, s.j. res. 28 disapproving the rules submitted by the bureau of consumer financial protection and so forth. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the passage of said joint resolution. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal.

ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt. the clerk: mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins.

mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. curtis. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand.

mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mr. husted. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. justice. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. kim. mr. king. ms. klobuchar.

mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. mccormick. mr. merkley. mrs. moody. mr. moran. mr. moreno. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed.

mr. ricketts. mr. risch. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schiff. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. mr. sheehy. ms. slotkin. ms. smith. mr. sullivan. mr. thune. mr. tillis.

mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- boozman, cramer, cruz, graham, grassley, husted, johnson, justice, kennedy, lankford, mcconnell, moody, mullin, schmitt, scott of south

carolina, tillis, and wicker. senators voting in the negative -- alsobrooks, bennet, blunt rochester, booker, coons, duckworth, fetterman, gallego, hassan, hickenlooper, hirono, kaine, king, murphy, murray, ossoff, padilla, rosen, sanders, schatz, schiff, slotkin, smith, warner, and welch. ms. collins, aye. mr. budd, aye. mr. moreno, aye.

mr. marshall, aye. the clerk: mrs. blackburn, aye.

mr. cassidy, aye. mr. heinrich, no. mr. scott of florida, aye. mr. mccormick, aye.

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

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, no. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: mr. kim, no.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye. the clerk: mr. lee, aye. the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, aye.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, no. mr. tuberville, aye.

there were less than 9000 illegal crossings at of the border and that's the lowest in history. under joe biden the border was a very different story. the border was wide open members of criminal cartel for drug dealers and people of the watch list. last month was february and we are now and march so they look at february of 2022, 2023, 2024 now with president in office. february at 2022 under joe biden 160,000 illegal crossings,

2,023,157,000 illegal crossings, 2024, 190,000 illegal crossings. president trump left with 9000. joe biden had these numbers in a single day when he was in the white house. president trump is securing the border and he's doing a boldly and he's doing it with intention. as one illegal immigrant said it's too hard, you can't cross right now. that's the message we wanted american people wanted it legal immigrants to be hearing, it's too hard, don't even try it. under president trump we have reverse migration. it's a reality. cartel criminals once profited from the border invasion. not anymore.

one told nbc news of his profits have fallen 80%. that's a message for them to all here. at the same time illegal criminals in this country are being taken down. in my home state of wyoming i arrested to drug dealers one man found with a pound of methamphetamine. and these are the people that are flooding our nation with deadly drugs. fentanyl kills more than 70,000 american citizens each and every year and this is a crisis. they one president trump listed these killer cartel members as organizations. no other president has taken such a bold step ever. the cartels are now shutting

down drug labs and their leaders are going into hiding. for the first time in years the cartels are running scared. that's the way it should be. president trump said he's going to do whatever it takes to keep america safe. president trump began his first day in office by signing dozens of executive orders cracking down on illegal criminals in each and every one of our communities and border patrol agents securing the border and he launched the largest deportation in history immigration and customs officers have started to support the worst illegal criminals. president trump also major american taxpayers stop >> billions of their dollars on free hotels, free phones and free health care for illegal immigrants who acted as a magnet to bring more illegal immigrants into the country.

that's what we heard today. social security medicare and medicaid are for american citizens not for illegal immigrants. president trump want to protect and preserve these vital programs for the very people that the programs were intended. the american public overwhelmingly supports what president trump is doing doing. cbs news says people that did a poll this morning on how successful and how much the president and people of this country welcomed the presence address last night last week 59% of americans approved of president trump's deportation program in 64% say the president's actions are reducing illegal migration and crossings at the southern border. it's what the american people want what they voted for in november, a secure border. people around this country

opposed with the democrats are doing sanctuary cities like chicago, los angeles, denver and boston. they opposed funneling their hard-earned taxpayer dollars to pay for benefits for illegal immigrants. people want safety, they want security and they want some sanity coming out of washington that they didn't have the last four years. that's what president trump and republicans are doing now. this is only the beginning. last night president trump laid out a new path forward. he said the department of homeland security needs backup in eastman tire and we need to finish the wall. manpower, technology, the wall. they are essential for full border security. that's why two weeks ago mr. president u.n. by another members and their colleagues on the republican side are passed a budget that increases funding for border security.

senate republicans voted for more border agents more detention more deportation flights. the clerk: mr. peters, no. the clerk: mr. reed, no.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, no.

we no they are not for that agenda and what they are missing mr. president is the american people are for president trump's agenda. they want to see the border security secured him a one inflation to come down. they want crime in the city to be dealt with. they want our standing in the world to be returned. they support president trump. and we know that when president trump returns to the oval office he was given a power full

mandate from the american people and he deserved to have his agenda shaped government but we know there is little time left and so we begin to hear those conversations that we usually hear about having a continuing resolution. the reason conservative's like me a pose it is because it continues the current >> and that is a joe biden budget. and we know under the biden administration they literally ran the numbers off the government credit card. they were >> so much money. they have driven this nation to death -- to $36.5 trillion.

this pandemic is post-pandemic >> has left every single american >> $1060 more per month to buy the same basket of goods and services they were buying in 2021. now think about that. that's the result of inflation. $1060 more a month to buy the same basket of goods and services that it bought four years ago. because we know what has happened with fighting inflation. we know the true rate of that inflation is cumulatively over 20%. it's not what they wanted to say

anybody that buys milk and eggs knows it's not right in the course is going to take a wild to get those numbers down to look at the prices of groceries and rent and utilities and we know that the biden budget has fueled this growing debt, this annual deficit that we have seen in the fact that now when you look at every single american, their portion of our nation's debt is now $107,000. $107,000. i was talking to a friend this week who has a new baby that just arrived, brand-new and they are so excited to once again

have a little baby in their family. and as we were talking about politics and all that was going on in the excitement of the baby i said, and when you look at the federal debt there share their welcome to the world present from the u.s. federal government you now is a u.s. citizen share in this $36.5 trillion debt to the point of $107,000. i think the american people know that our. fiscal path would lead us to disaster if we do not change what we are doing. if we can do not look to where we are spending money and thank goodness the president donald trump has taken the time to look seriously at what the federal

government spends and yes it will work towards moving us to a bounce budget. one of the ways that he is doing this and yes there've been executive orders and there has also been the implementation of the department of government efficiency. we refer to this as doge and today mr. president some of us have had the opportunity to listen to elon musk and his team who were carrying out the work at the department of government efficiency and doge so far has found $105 billion of inefficiency in the federal government, $105 billion. they are finding about $4 billion a day in the

president went through with us last night some of the waste that is their for projects that may be really do not yield results that will benefit the hard-working taxpayer. we also heard about fraud and people that are receiving social security checks that maybe don't exist. people that would be 125, 150, 160 years old, even up over 300 years old. that is broad and we all are very hopeful that we are going to be able to close that loop find out who these individuals are and make certain that they are prosecuted and that money is returned to the u.s. taxpayer.

this is a huge step. getting our fiscal house in order yet the savings that we are finding are only going to be made official and permanent when we put them into the congressional budget. mr. president we all know that this requires us to go through the precision process. this requires us to codify the reduction so that they are removed from the budget in future years, and we know that is going to require us to get back to regular order on the budget as we go through this process and as we work through reconciliation, making sure

there is a clear path to and continuing resolutions and return to regular order, return to the budget document and be able to deliver. i will tell you this when i talk to tenneseans they want transparency and mr. president i think one of the things they so appreciate about doge is that they have a web site and they are putting all this information the web site and their x account that they are showing the american people what they are doing. where they are finding where they are finding fraud and how they are being able to address this. this means that as we work through this, we are going to have the take our actions. we are going to have two return

to regular order. we are going to have two brings >> bills to the floor and we are going to have two vote for and support a balanced budget so that we begin to reduce first eliminate art debt to -- deficit for the year and then target balancing our federal budget and beginning to reduce our debt. i'm so pleased that president trump talked about this last night in his state of the union address. because it is important not only for today, and tomorrow but for our children and grandchildren's future. he mentioned this, the sovereignty, the stability of our nation. what we want is to take the tough choices to make the >> reductions today so that in the future our children have a

nation that is firmly sovereign and is able to stay and whatever comes our way. i think it is so interesting that in 2010, in the summer of 2010 are tomorrow mullen was asked the question what keeps you up at night? what worries you the most, what is our greatest threat to our nation's freedom? his response mr. president was our nation's debt and we all know that debt has doubled since that point when he made that comment.

a good afternoon everybody and appreciate you being here. it's great to be here and it's great to talk to some of the critical people we have both at the local level the texas state state level and of course or federal border patrol who do so many good things to keep us safe. i have some bad news and some good news and the bad news is because of what joe biden did at the southern border for four years we had record increases in migrant crime than some of deaths in floods in floods of people who shouldn't be in a country he came to the united

states of america and we also have a number of ways in which the cartel became more and danced and better were fires because joe biden opened up the border and allowed the cartels to turn it into their playground but that's a bad news in the good news is president trump said last night it stated in and it turns out we didn't need new laws and we didn't need legislation we just needed a new president of the united states and thank god that's exactly what they have. i will say the most heartening message that i take away from my visit here that the texas border is the number of border patrol agents who have come up to me and said thank you for said because of this wave cut the number of border crossings to 1500 a day to 30 a day or the people who said they seen a reduction 95% of the number of people who were dying at the american southern border and every single day we continue to keep this border safe that means less migrant crime less of them

coming into communities and more safety and security for the people of united states of america and of course we know the border problem for border crisis under biden's administration was a national crisis but it acutely affected the community's right here and i've heard heartbreaking stories of people who are still picking up the pieces local mayors who are dealing the budget hearing consequences of what the joe biden administration let the happen at the american southern border and that too was something president trump is going to help address help extend help solve. i wanted to bring secretary hegseth and director gavin down here because one it's good to have them down here with me looking around today. unfortunately we know because of what's happened the border crisis has become a matter of national intelligence and it's also become something that requires the department of defense to engage with but i

spoke with paul president earlier in the drone technology that the cartels are using requires unfortunately a military response and military support so it's important for secretary hegseth to see what's going on, because we know the millions and millions of people who who led in them to last for years many of them are connected to foreign terrorist terrorists and it's important for a leader of national intelligence to get to put teixeira mcgravy before you take questions from the press and all of us are willing to take questions i want to get secretary hegseth and director gabbert an opportunity to say few words themselves. mr. secretary. send mr. vice president thank you very much for inviting us and it's great to be here with you with our director and fellow friends in civilian clothing and other shades of green. this is a demonstration of her true partnership on the southern border but is president trump is made clear on the campaign trail and from day one and last night

border security is national security. and from the defense department he watched for a couple of decades other people's orders being secured -- borders being secured while ours was open for an invasion of drugs violence and chaos for american communities. that stops under president trump in the defense department has assets that we can bring to bear not just troops and not just surveillance and not just equipment. actual planning capabilities that enhance what border patrol is doing which is why it's incredible to hear from our partners about what we have been able to allow them to do to facilitate them and we have seen it in the numbers. 98% drop in crossings on the southern border. we are not yet at 100% operational control but we are on our way because that's the mandate the president has given us some more resources are coming to this border we are dedicated to securing it and

that's the reason for our trip and our partnership and want to thank all the men and women who have been doing it recently in uniform who have been doing it for a long time here and who have dedicated their life securing the american people and at the defense department they are committed to continuing to being a big part of it. mr. vice president thank you. director of national and legends legends -- intelligence tulsi gabbard. >> thank you mr. vice president for your leadership in bringing to our attention a significant change that has occurred in the short in the short-term the present jumbos than office but we are saying it is and what you'll continue to see is a unified security team department of homeland security towards our mission which is to reassure us safe and prosperous society for americans but as director of national intelligence there a number of areas.

the president talked about in his speech over 21 million people have come across our border illegally under joe biden's administration and their many of them we don't know who they are and they have not been vetted and we don't know where they are. i give you one quick example of one of the problems we are getting after. in central asia there were 4000 people who came across their border using an isis affiliated networks. our national counterterrorism center went through and identify those individuals. there were hundreds of them who were either known terrorists or associated with known terrorists. that information was provided to the of frustration. a little over 100 those people were arrested in 2024. of those who were arrested only eight were deported or remained in custody. only eight. the rest of them were released back into our country. where are they, what are they doing in what may they be

plotting? this is just the beginning and there are many areas that we need to stay focused on working with the department of homeland security and the fbi to ensure we are keeping the american people say better counterterrorism center is working on making sure we have that single source vetting so they can figure out who is in our country and identify those who pose a threat to get them removed. the president designation of the cartels and foreign terrorist organizations as we see the tactics these cartels are using reflect the tactics we have seen used by terrorists in countries that many of us served and overseas. our mission is very clear our objective is to keep the american people safe. i'm grateful to be a part part of this team that president trump has assembled to accomplish that mission. >> for a la brisé two final things. first of all the recent we have seen a 90% reduction in border

crossings and the reason this site has gone from over 1500 crossings per day to 30 crossings per day is because president trump has empowered in fact demanded his whole government take the task of border patrol seriously and that's what we are doing in the course my final point before we take questions it is impossible to do without the men and women on the ground who are doing the hard work. they just want to be empowered to do their jobs would president trump has made that possible so from the bottom of my heart and for a grateful nation to every person i've met here today thank you for working hard on the american people's business. it's been an honor to be with you in to see what you do with a keep on supporting you over the next four years. congressman gonzalez thank you for your leadership and thank you for being here. the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 47, and the joint resolution

is passed. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 18, s. 331. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for the following detailees in my office to be granted floor privileges. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 18, s. 331, a bill to amend the controlled substances act related to fentanyl-related substances and for other purposes. the presiding officer: i recognize the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent for the following detail east in my office to be granted floor privileges until the end

of this congress, joe, dean and thomas hastings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: the united states coast guard is essential to protecting our nation's maritime borders from threats like illegal immigration and transnational crime. the coast guard saves american lives and ensures that commerce flows smoothly at our ports. the coast guard authorization act of 2025 is bipartisan legislation that senator cantwell and i negotiated and agreed to with house transportation and infrastructure committee chairman sam graves and ranking member rick larson, it bolsters the coast guard's critical missions for border security and enforcing the rule of law in domestic be and international waters. i want to draw attention to key

provisions in the bill. last year the coast guard seized over 100 metric tons of cocaine. unfortunately, cartels are using technology like miniature drone ships to smuggle drugs across our maritime border. without this legislation, the coast guard would remain unable to prosecute criminals who are using these remote-control autonomous vessels. the coast guard authorization affect of 2025, expands the coast guard's and border protection use of cutting edge tools like tactical maritime surveillance systems which are film and based interdictions to interfere with in san diego, key west and san juan puerto rico. i ask my colleagues to stand

with me and support president trump's vision of protecting our borders from drugs and illegal immigrants and of building ships to revitalize the coast guard's fleet. i urge my colleagues to support the coast guard authorization act. with that, i yield to my colleague, senator cantwell. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. i rise to support senator cruz in our efforts to pass the coast guard bill. senator cruz and i worked diligently on this bill in the last congress, unfortunately the clock ran out and we are here today to pass this important legislation. we hope our house colleagues will take it up and pass it, the coast guard reauthorization act provides the tools that our coast guard needs now to protect our shares, keep our marinetime moving and the coast guard in its responsibilitieses need the support of this legislation. all will -- all in, the coast

guard is responsible for facilitating over $5 trillion of maritime commerce in our waterways and the sole operator of icebreakerers and are primarily -- are primary force for stopping pirate fishing from china, russia that are stealing american fishing jobs. the issues in the arctic are real and we have highlighted them many times. passage of this measure now will enable us to further provide the coast guard additional assets like icebreakers in the upcoming reconciliation bill and the coast guard helps stops the flow of illegal drugs in the maritime environment. this legislation also strengthens each of the coast guard's missions and authorizes a 30% budget increase to support that workforce. i noted the president last night talked about shipbuilding, we

enenth enthusiastic about that mission. the chairman of the committee is already talking about the coast guard and $20 billion to help us recapitalize our coast guard fleet. replacing the aging and inadequate equipment from icebreakers to heavy weather boats and c-180 aircrafts are important. beyond the modernization, there are other things. it includes in base seattle, the home port to our current icebreakerers, the future of our heavy icebreaker fleet and fighting against the chinese-russian aggression. it reauthorizes the puget sound whale desk and helps to protect the whale populations and increases collaboration between washington tribes and the coast

guard and the bill invests in critical safety programs. we're very proud of all of that. one of the most important things in the bill is obviously dealing with the workforce, making sure that we have access to medical care, housing and behavioral health and to deal with what we know in 2023 was a decade long uncovered sexual assault and sexual violence coverup in the coast guard. operation foul anchor identified rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment perpetrated by at least 42 individuals. the coast guard took action on only two of those subjects. due to the black of oversight and the coast guard's mishandling this, these individuals were allowed to retire, some at the grade of commander with full benefits and they received no punishment. that is unacceptable. in the 2023 december former

commandant schultz committed to withholding information from congress and stating that quote he made this decision and stands by it. end quote. that is why the -- as chairman and working then with senator cruz in the oversight efforts, we did everything we could to make sure this story came out and that we address it in this legislation. it also -- this issue of failure to do this is -- is something we -- this is why we need transparency, this is why we need to make sure that we continue to address our workforce issues in the federal government. the coast guard innovation akt of 2025 would strengthen authorities to hold perpetrators accountable, improve victim recovery services and access to care as well as basing training. these reforms would extend the coast guard protections to available to members of the

armed forces in general through -- like -- like the whole department of defense and it is establishes a comprehensive prevention training and reporting requirement to address the issues identified in our investigation. moving forward, we have more to do to support the coast guard. they need -- our help with their assets and they need access to shipyards. this morning during the commerce committee, i said i would work with my colleagues on all the shipbuilding efforts to help us meet our key shipping competitive issues, to ensuring that american farmers and manufacturers have access to global markets and to make sure that we continue to invest in the best people for the coast guard. to do that, we have to pass this legislation and get it on to the president's desk. so i thank my staff nicky, melissa and lila and all the committee staff that worked on

the bill and i thank chairman cruz for bringing this bipartisan measure to the floor today. the presiding officer: i recognize the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i thank senator cantwell and her staff for their hard work on this bill. i also be want to thank my staff on the committee as well who put in many hours. this bill is important to the men and women of the coast guard and it is important to our national security. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on commerce, science and transportation be discharged from further consideration of s. 524 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 524, a bill to authorize appropriations for the coast guard and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made

and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the democrat leader. mr. schumer: before i get into our activities on ukraine, i just want to note that we just learned that the trump administration is getting ready to cut nearly 80,000 employees from the v.a. slashing nearly 80,000 v.a. staff is a benefit cut by another name. no one shouldn't think this doesn't dramatically hurt our veterans who served us so well. this staffing cut is a betrayal of our promise to our servicemembers, a betrayal of the promise to our servicemembers, it will mean longer wait times, fewer appointments and less health care for our veterans. it is outrageous. no one in america bar gained for this -- bargained for this and democrats are going to fight this tooth and nail working with

our veterans organizations to fight these awful, unfair cuts that take out the desire to give tax cuts to billionaires on our veterans who served us so well. this is just one of the most outrageous things they have done and there's a long list. now, another outrageous thing that is happening with the trump administration is what's happening in ukraine. first, i want to thank my colleagues for bringing these five resolutions to the floor. i want to thank senator sanders for taking the lead on this issue, senators benl, van hollen, blumenthal, and welch. let's start by speaking much-needed truth. three years ago, vladimir putin brought war and destruction to the people of ukraine. he started the war. not any mythology that comes from donald trump or our republican colleagues. vladimir putin started the war.

full stop. his tanks and air strikes have obliterated homes and schools. he slaught herred civil -- slaughtered civilians as a way to win territory in ukraine. he's kidnapped children. the people of ukraine did not ask for this war. president zelenskyy did not start this war, putin did. that is the truth of this, lie after lie after lie that comes out of the trump administration. this is one of the most egregious, because the people of ukraine have struggled, president zelenskyy has led them valiantly, rinking his own life -- risking his own life. and now the nerve of donald trump and others to say putin started the war -- to say that zelenskyy started the war. donald trump is trying to rewrite history and gain favor with vladimir putin. he blames ukraine for starting the war, and now he is shutting

off, halting military aid that ukraine desperately needs on the battlefield. desperately needs, and we need to restore it. he has frozen critical intelligence sharing between our countries. he allowed putin to launch cyber operations against us, here in the united states. that jeopardizes the privacy of american citizens. he has frozen intelligence sharing between our countries, and he has brought president zelenskyy to the oval office only to lecture and insult him in front of the whole world. guess who is laughing as he watched -- vladimir putin. to side with putin is to put america at risk. my democratic colleagues will make that clear over the next several hours. to side with putin is to betray the values that define america, values our troops died for in battlefields across the world, from gettysburg to normandy to

iwo jima. the senate must respond. democrats and republicans have done so before. i worked with then-leader mcconnell to get ukraine the desperately needed aid. today's resolutions affirm very basic, bipartisan ideas that hopefully still remain with our republican colleagues, that the u.s. senate stands with demo democracy, stands with the brave people of ukraine, and against the dictator, the brutal dictator, vladimir putin, and his war crimes. history is clear, perfect clear, appeasing autocrats is like putting out a fire with kerosene. in the long run, it will only make autocracy more powerful and the citizenry of america less safe. that is why today the senate must speak in one voice, democrats and republicans together, and pass these resolutions. i hope that's what happens. i yield to my colleague from vermont who has led the charge

on this, so important an issue. mr. sanders: i thank the minority leader. the presiding officer: i recognize the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. i thank the minority leader for his comments. i'm here with colleagues who worked extremely hard to protect the sovereignty of ukraine and to defend democracy in that cou country, and in fact throughout the world. i thank all of my colleagues for getting on the floor this evening and for the resolutions they will be bringing forth. you know, mr. president, i am not an historian, but i do know that for the last 250 years, since the inception of our great country, despite our imperfections, the united states has stood in the world as a

symbol of democracy, and all over the world, all over the world people have looked to our countries as an example of freedom and self-governance to which the rest of the world could aspire. people have long looked to our declaration of independence and our constitution as blueprints for how to establish governments of the people, by the people, and for the people. mr. president, tragically, all of that is now changing, as president trump moves this country toward authoritarian chrism, he is a -- authoritarianism, he is aligning

himself with dictators and despots who share his distain for democracy and the rule of law. last week, just last week, in a radical departure from long-standing u.s. policy, the trump administration voted against a united nations resolution which clearly stated that russia began the horrific war in ukraine. that u.n. resolution also called on russia to withdraw its forces from occupied ukraine, in line with international law. the resolution was brought forward by our closest allies, countries that we have been aligned with for god knows how many years, including the united kingdom, australia, canada, france, germany, japan, and dozens of other democratic

nations. 93 countries at the u.n. voted yes on that resolution. rather than side with our long-standing allies to preserve democracy and uphold international law, president trump voted with authoritarian nations like russia, north korea, iran, and belarus to oppose the resolution. many of the other opponents of that resolution are undemocratic nations propped up by russian military aid. but it wasn't just the u.n. vote. pathetically, president trump also told an outrageous lie,

claiming it was ukraine that started the war, not russia. he also called zelenskyy a dictator, rather than the leader of a democratic nation, as he is. mr. president, as we discuss ukraine tonight, it is terribly important that we not forget who vladimir putin is. and why he is no friend of the united states, and why we should not be in an alliance with him against ukraine. putin is the man who crushed russia's movement toward democracy after the end of the cold war. putin is a man who steals elections, murders political dissidents, and crushes freedom of the press. he has maintained control in

russia by offering the oligarchs there a simple deal. if they grant him absolute power and share the spoils, and he by the way is one of the wealthiest people in the world, he would let them steal as much as they wanted from the russian people. the result, while the vast majority of the russian population struggles economically, putin and his fellow oligarchs stash trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens. and so today, 26 years after he took power, putin is the absolute ruler of russia, and i think as everyone knows russia's elections are blatantly fraudulent, a sham.

and putin is the man who sparked the bloodiest war in europe since world war ii. more than three years ago, on february 24, 2022, putin ordered a full-scale invasion of ukraine in clear violation of the charter of the united nations and international law. russian land, air, and naval forces have attacked an occupied territory across ukraine. since that terrible day, more than a million people have been killed or injured because of putin's war. putin's forces have massacred civilians and kidnapped thousands of ukrainian children, bringing them back to russian r reeducation camps. these atrocities led the international criminal court to

issue an arrest warrant for putin in 2023 as a war criminal. a war criminal. that's who we are alieing ourselves with. and -- aligning ourselves with. still today, russia continues its attacks, raining down hundreds of missiles and drones on ukrainian citizens. russian forces illegally occupy about 20% of ukraine's sovereign territory. mr. president, this war could end today, right now, if putin gave up his outrageous effort to conquer a neighboring country. the war could end today. the killing could stop right now if putin gave that order. and that simply, mr. president, is what my resolution says to

vladimir putin, stop the killing, obey international law, withdraw your forces and cease your attacks on ukraine. and i honestly just don't know how anybody in the united states senate could object to that simple demand. mr. president, now more than at any time in recent history, it is imperative that the senate come together in a bipartisan manner to make it clear that we stand for democracy, not authoritarianism, that we stand for international law, not conquest by force, and that we stand with ukraine and fellow democracies throughout the world, and not with the murderous dictator of russia. so, mr. president, i ask

unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 109, which was submitted earlier today. further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. risch: mr. president. the presiding officer: i recognize the senator from idaho. mr. risch: reserving the right to object. mr. president, i rise to object to this. senator sanders has brought us a resolution which very simply states that russia must immediately and completely and unconditionally withdraw from the territory of ukraine. it isn't even a law. it isn't even a bill. it is only a resolution. now, there isn't anybody that disagrees with this. i certainly agree with the substance of this, but this is going to have absolutely zero effect of any kind.

if my good friend senators sanders believes that vladimir putin is watching this show on tv and say, huh, they passed a resolution saying i should get out of ukraine, so i guess i'll pack up and go, you're delusional if you think it's going to have any effect of any kind on vladimir putin. however, having said that, i don't think it's a secret to anyone that there are very delicate negotiations going on, there are four entities involved, obviously ukraine is involved, the united states is involved, russia's involved, and our european allies are involved. there is constant conversation going on. i think a lot of people were upset when they saw the exchange this weekend, understandably. but look, what you're looking at is the tip of the iceberg. everybody wants the same o outcome, and that is to have peace in ukraine.

there's one man on this planet, one man that can make that happen, and that's donald j. trump. he promised he would do that in the election. he is making very significant strides there that regard -- there that regard. to my good friend senators sanders, this is not helpful to the activities that are going on to try to get this resolved. you may think you know what's going on, but i can guarantee you with absolute certainty you do not know what's going on as far as the negotiations are concerned to get this over with. what you're looking at is the tip of the iceberg, and this is not going to be helpful to getting to the point that you want to get to, that i want to get to, that everyone wants to get to, and that is to get peace in ukraine. so on that basis, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. i recognize the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you let me respond to my friend from idaho.

i think he said, i paraphrase you a bit, there is one man who can stop the war. you're right. but that man does not live here in washington, d.c. that man happens to live in moscow, and his name is vladimir putin. he is the one who started the war, and in my view, when we a alie a -- when we ally ourselves with putin, when we threaten and cut back on military support or intelligence support for ukraine, you know what we are telling that one man? we are saying you got a green light. the united states is withdrawing. you do what you want. you continue the war. you continue to pummel the people of ukraine who have already suffered so terribly. so i think it is true, there are many approaches to how we can end this war. and i agree with my friend that we all have the common goal of

wanting to end this war. but i think the fastest way forward is in a bipartisan way, you've got a hundred united states senators, and hopefully 435 members of the house who stand up and say mr. putin, you started this terrible war. you're acting illegally. you're acting barbarically. stop that war. that is, to my mind, would be a major step forward to ending the atrocities we are currently seeing. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho mr. crapo: mr. president, i respect my friend, but i vehemently disagree that this resolution is going to cause vladimir putin to end this war. my good friend says that vladimir putin could end this war. he does not have the ability to end this war. this war is going to end when there is an agreement by the four entities involved, ukraine, russia, the united states, and our european allies.

when those four reach an agreement, there will be an end to this war. that can be done by donald j. trump. i guarantee you vladimir putin does not have the ability to bring those four entities together to end this war. again, this is not helpful. you don't know what the negotiations that are going on, and this is going in the wrong direction, and that's the reason i objected. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: one last brief remark because i strongly disagree on this issue with my friend. you think it takes trump to end the war. you think that putin alone can't end the war. well, who do you think started the war? who you think runs russia with an iron fist? if tomorrow putin thought it was to his advantage to end this war, he would do it. and as a dictator, he can do it.

so with that, mr. president, i would -- i don't want to yield the floor. mr. crapo: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho mr. crapo: again, to my good friend, senator sanders, i would say putin does not have that ability. he simply does not have the ability. you talked about how he started this and how he could end it. he could have ended it shortly after he started it. he is in so deep in this, he cannot end it. it is going to take an agreement between the four entities to end it. that's how it's going to end. mr. sanders: i ask my friend, i mean this sincerely, senator risch. this guy, would you agree with me he is a dictator who runs russia? mr. risch: the answer to that is yes. mr. sanders: he is a dictator and he can end the war unilaterally in my view.

i yield to my friend from il -- illinois. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho rick risch i ask unanimous consent the following press secretary in my office be granted floor privileges until march 6, 2025, allison abraham, please, without -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'm going to ask unanimous consent on a resolution concerning one aspect of this conflict in ukraine. that is particularly compelling from my point of view. it's a little different than senator from vermont, but i think it's very important that it be raised and part of our consideration. war brings out the worst in humans. there's no doubt about it. and russia under the bloody leadership of vladimir putin has been guilty of some of the worst wartime atrocities that a mind can imagine. murders, mass murders, rapes,

torture, that's been the three-year strategy of vladimir putin to bring ukraine to its knees. but one of the most horrific atrocities is russia's kidnapping of the ukrainian children. i cannot even imagine the reality of this. since russia's full-scale war of aggression started in 2022, the government of russia has abducted, forcibly transferred, facilitated the illegal deportation of at least 20,000 ukrainian children. 20,000 children, forcibly taken from their homes, families, and communities to a place they'd never known, the depravity of this putin strategy is hard to imagine, but putin and his government know no humanity nor morality. it a he not surprising that putin would stoop to such a

repulsive strategy. that's why today i'm asking unanimous consent to pass a resolution condemning russia's abduction of ukrainian children. i'm calling on russia to work with the international community to return all of these children to their families. there is no tactful way to violate the sovereignty of a nation. but putin takes depravity to a new extreme with his kidnapping of ukrainian children. this barbaric act must be condemned. it should be easy for members of both sides of the aisle to just imagine for a moment if this had happened to american children. and it should be clear to everyone that president trump cannot side with this grotesque child kidnapping. i'm sure he does not. it has to be a priority of any peace process to acknowledge putin responsibility for the invasion and the terrible policies in ukraine. and so i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 110

submitted earlier today. further, the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there an objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: reserving the right to object. mr. president, to my good friend from illinois, i say i'm going to object to this. and it's not because of the substance of the resolution. you correctly stated what the resolution states. but again i think you along with myself and every member of this body wants to see the fighting stopped in ukraine. that's a necessity. it has to happen. the things that are happening are going on right now. there are discussions going on right now. and as i said to my good friend, senator sanders, you may think you know what's there going on on this because you watched what happened this weekend.

i can tell you, you with absolute certainty, you do not know the discussions and what's happening as the train moves forward to try to resolve this. this is not some -- this isn't a resolution that's going to happen with a whole bunch of people getting involved and trying to lay out different things that they want to get to resolution. it is going to be complicated. it's going to be complex. and again, i come back to the fact that there is one person who is in the center of this that can make this happen. and that's donald j. trump. us passing resolutions here are not helpful to the efforts that are trying to be done to resolve this. and so as a result of that, i'm going to object to it, and as a result of that, i do object. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i would just like to say briefly, i respect my friend from idaho. we have a difference of opinion on this. i cannot imagine any resolution

of this conflict in ukraine that does not take into consideration these 20,000 kids who have been kidnapped by the russians. they're going through this terrible indoctrination where they're being punished if they won't sing the russian national anthem and where they're demanding that they learn a new language and develop a new loyalty to russia. this is outrageous. the international courts have branded vladimir putin as a war criminal. and this is one of the reasons. i cannot imagine there be any resolution of this peaceably without bringing this children back home to their families. and for us to be on the record saying that it does not seem to me to be intrusive or a radical point of view. it just reflects the reality of where america should be. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: mr. president, i agree with my good friend from illinois that this amongst many, many facts that are going to be taken into consideration as the

parties negotiate in what's going to be a very complex negotiation to get to the end point, there's going to be a lot of things that do need to be considered. the difficulty is when this institution, the united states senate, puts something out like this, it does have an effect on the parties that are sitting at the table. and you don't really get to a resolution by prodding on these kinds of things. you talk about what it takes to stop the fighting, not what it took to get into it, not what -- the bes that were taken during -- actions that were taken during the fighting. but if you want to stop the fighting, you've got to talk about where we are and where we need to get to. this simply, i can assure you, senator, is not helpful to those negotiations that are going on. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland.

mr. van hollen: mr. president, i want to join this conversation, broaden it a little bit. in my view, we are witnessing the great betrayal during these last 44 days. we have the great betrayal here at home of the american people because the president promised certain things that he was going to deliver on, and we haven't seen those. and we see the great betrayal of our ukrainian friends and our allies around the world and freedom-loving people around the world. here at home, candidate trump of course promised on day one that he was going to cut prices, that he was going to help working families. last night we witnessed the longest speech in american history to a joint session of congress, and no plan was presented for lowering prices.

grocery prices are going up. rent prices are going up. home prices are going up. we did see elon musk in the gallery, the guy who said he wanted to take a chainsaw to important services that benefit every american family. and this is all part of a plan to cut taxes for very wealthy people like elon musk at the expense of everybody else. so in this 44 days, we've seen that great betrayal. but we've also seen the other betrayal. we have seen president trump throw the ukrainian people under the bus. i don't think any of us could have imagined a day when the united states sided with russia and north korea on a u.n. general assembly resolution that condemned russian aggression,

where we voted with them and against our allies, against ukraine, against all of our european allies, against all of our friends in asia. heck, even north korea abstained. even china abstained. so here we are throwing our allies under the bus. the folks that are openly cheering are the russian leadership. i mean, this isn't just rhetoric. we've actually seen them expressing glee over the united states' position. and of course they were very happy with the terrible spectacle in the oval office of the president and vice president of the united states bullying president zelenskyy. we've all met with president zelenskyy. nobody wants peace more than

president zelenskyy and the ukrainian people. they have lost thousands of people. they have sacrificed a lot, but they want a durable peace, and they want a peace that will recognize their sovereignty and their freedom and their independence. that's what they want. we've all heard president zelenskyy repeatedly tank the american people -- thank the american people for our support. in fact, on one occasion he brought an american flag signed by ukrainian soldiers expressing gratitude for all our help. and what he's gotten in exchange for that great sacrifice, a sacrifice that help us support -- helps support freedom-loving people everywhere is the back of the hand he received in the oval office. so i think this is a moment where we need to speak with more clarity, and we should do it together as a senate.

we're not directing the negotiations. we're expressing simple truths here on the senate floor. and the simple truth that i want to express here through the resolution that i will ask to be considered is that the russian armed forces committed crimes against humanity and war crimes in ukraine. it's pretty simple. and i would just draw my colleagues' attention to a resolution that was considered by this senate back in 2022. got it right here in my hand, authored by senator graham, cosponsored by then-senator rubio, now secretary of state rubio. and what this resolution that

the senate considered just three years ago says -- and i'm going to read it -- the senate strongly condemns the ongoing violence, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and systematic human rights abuses carried out by the russian armed forces and their proxies, and president putin's military commanders at the direction of vladimir putin. that was the resolution we considered just three years ago. this resolution passed unanimously. not a single senator objected. now, of course, we have some new members of the senate, but every single senator who was here at that time supported that simple statement of moral clarity. two things have happened since then. in february of 2023, the department of state determined that members of the armed forces of the russian federation and

firms of the government of the russian federation have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes in ukraine. and in september of 2022, the independent international commission of inquiry on ukraine concluded that war crimes have been committed in ukraine by the armed forces of the russian federation. so the senate adopted a resolution with the simple truths a number of years ago. those truths were reaffirmed by the department of state in 2023 and by the independent international commission of inquiry in september 2022. and regardless of the state of negotiations, i would think that we would be able to reaffirm today the same truth that we expressed unanimously just a few years ago. and so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 111,

which was submitted earlier today, and further that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wicker: reserving the right to object, mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president, my friend maryland and i participated in a bipartisan delegation on friday morning last where we met with the president of ukraine before what we hoped was going to be a signing ceremony. there were a number of democrats that met with president zelenskyy. as chairman of the armed services committee, i participated and chaired that meeting. the distinguished chairman of the budget committee was also there, and the president pro

tempore of the united states of the senate was also there with quite a number of democrats. we were wishing for the very best because we thought a significant agreement was about to be signed that would move us toward a reconciliation of this terrible war. i was distressed, i was devastated even when i saw the conversation that took place later on that day, and i wondered if the damage could ever be repaired. thankfully, the damage is being repaired, and we've had very hopeful signs of progress being made. i made the statement to the public and to members of the armed services committee at a hearing just yesterday, it is

time for those of us in the political realm who are not part of this negotiation to be silent, to take a deep breath and not do anything that could interfere with the excellent news that we saw coming yesterday with a very fine statement from president zelenskyy, with the quoting of that statement with approval by the president of the united states last night. this is not the time for elected members of the house and senate to be passing resolutions. take a deep breath, let the negotiators do their work, and, for heaven's sake, not do anything that might in some way be interpreted as being belligerent or

counterproductive. and for that reason, i do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. van hollen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from mississippi, the chairman of the armed services committee, for his commitment to this issue to working to end the war in ukraine but to do it in a way that preserves the freedom and sovereignty of the people of ukraine and as a durable peace. and it escapes me sow reaffirming truthful -- how reaffirming truthful statements that the senate has made in the past can possibly get in the way of a resolution of this crisis. i would argue that it's the president of the united states who's gotten in the way of a

resolution of this crisis in the sense that, number one, he has clearly embraced vladimir putin in so many of his comments, and he went into this discussion by unilaterally giving away important leverage that's needed to result in a resolution that is a just resolution. you don't go into a negotiation by giving up the issue of american participation and security guarantees, however that might look. you don't go into the negotiation by unilaterally giving up on territorial concessions. and so this is why it's important, in my view, for the senate simply to reaffirm the truths that we've already stated in the past. and this seems to be a simple one -- that war crimes have been committed by the russian army and that they have committed

crimes against humanity. that's all this resolution says, and i hope that we can at some point come back and revisit this because it's going to be very important to achieve, not just a peace but a just peace. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: not attempting to prolong this, the negotiation process is under way. it may be that the negotiators are in different cities and in different continents at this point. but the matter is very sensitive. we should be very careful not to interfere with something that may make us all proud and give relief to thousands of millions. and i yield. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i greatly respect the representation made by my colleague and friend from

mississippi, the chairman of the armed services committee, and senator risch, our colleague, chairman of the foreign relations committee, about timing. and i want to talk about timing because we have just passed the third year of this war. and this moment is crucial, thank you to senator sanders, senator van hollen, senator durbin, soon we'll hear from senator bennet, we have resolutions that support ukraine at a critical moment in its history. i've been there six times. i've come to know president zelenskyy not only from meetings there but in paris, munich, a number of times here in washington, d.c., and i will never forget my first meeting with him. shortly after he was offered an

escape. remember what he said to president biden when he offered a helicopter to exit the country? don't send me a helicopter. send me ammunition. that courage and determination in the face of russia coming within just a few miles of his bunker -- i visited him, and i then went to bucha where i saw the remnants of the russian tanks that came within a ten-minute drive of killing him and taking kyiv. and i also saw the mass graves where women and children were buried after the russians shot hundreds of them in the back of their head, committing those war crimes that became so despicable in the eyes of the world and resulted in criminal charges against vladimir putin. it's the reason why i have urged

that we regard the putin regime as a terrorist organization. i recognize we're at a critical moment in these negotiations, as well as in ukraine's three-yearlong fight. actually it's well longer than three years because the invasion first occurred in 2014. not long after ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on the assurance that the free world would come to its aid if its security was ever threatened. it's that history that volodymyr zelenskyy tried to remind president trump and vice president vance about last friday. betrayal of agreements by vladimir putin. he's a thug.

he understands force. he will assure the security of ukraine only if force is guaranteed to meet another invasion, if this one is stopped. on these negotiations and the timing, senator van hollen said it well. you know, you don't have to be an expert on the art of the deal to know, you go into negotiations from a position of strength. strength never hurts. it only nuclear weapons a negotiation. we're not dictating an outcome. we're not prescribing what the result of a negotiation should be. we're not telling the president or president zelenskyy what their positions would be.

we are saying to ukraine, we have your back. we're going to be your backstop. and at that meeting, which i attended along with the senator from mississippi and senator van hollen on that bright, sunny friday morning, president zelenskyy was asking us to assure that he had a security backup. of course, his preference is to be in nato. no secret there. but security, as i suggested to him, through some bilateral agreement might be an acceptable outcome. we're not prescribing what that security should be. but only that ukraine has support from the american people. that is the purpose of these resolutions. and that support strengthens his

position. we're not saying a specific amount of military aid should be provided or a specific negotiating position should be dictated for anyone. but only that -- and i read from my resolution -- we reaffirm the support of the united states for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine in the face of the illegal invasion of its territory by the russian federation and the bonds of friendship and shared values between the people of the united states and allied fighting forces. now, by any measure of military success, ukraine has done the impossible. and i'm not giving away classified information when i tell you, mr. president, that in the days right after the invasion, we were assured by our

military that the russians would be in kyiv within weeks. they weren't. the only reason they weren't was because of the ingenuity and inventiveness and just plain guts and grit of the ukrainian people. and their success will go down as one of the most important feats of modern warfare in this century. and their accomplishments in the use of drones, an inventive use of drones. our intelligence and their intelligence. their success in the destruction of half or more of the russian fleet in the black sea. they have developed techniques

of warfare and platforms with our help that are absolutely remarkable. and every one of those six trips, in fact every meeting that i've had with president zelenskyy, he has begun by declaring his gratitude for the aid from the united states. on march 3, the rekovna ratta of ukraine, which is their parliament expressed its profound gratitude to president trump, congress, and the american people for their firm and consistent support of ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territory integrity as well as for the security assistance packages provided to ukraine which have helped stabilize the situation on the front line. the people of ukraine are beyond grateful. if you walk through the streets

of ukraine and you're identified as an american, people will come up to you and thank you. and in the ukranian community here in the united states, supporters of ukraine have been thanked again and again and again. i wear a pin and have done so for some years, with the american and ukranian flag. i have a bracelet that has the ukranian colors. the people of ukraine thank me for those insignia of my support. and we all know that ukraine's fight is our fight, that our national security is at stake because putin will keep going if he swallows ukraine, if he has dinner in kyiv, he will want to have dinner in finland and sweden and poland. they are nato allies. we will be obligated to put troops on the ground.

the soldiers of ukraine are saving our soldiers from a fight where they will be in harm's way. and they are bleeding and dying for our national security. so when we talk about timing, let's recognize that now is the moment to make clear that ukraine must be as strong as possible for our security if it enters these negotiations. let me just finish with this thought. you know, mr. president, i think it's difficult to describe what it's like to be in ukraine in the midst of an air attack. on a couple of my visits, we were forced into bunkers when the sirens started. obviously we were never injured.

and i want to avoid any misrepresentation. i never felt like i was going to be bombed right then and there. but if i had been there 365 days in a year and the apartment house next to me or my school or hospital were bombed, and i came out of it and saw the bodies and realized how close i had come and how near death was, day after day after day the ukranian people are living with this nightmare. not to mention the blackouts of electricity, the impacts on quality of life, the loss of their loved ones, the injuries, the maiming of young men whom i have visited. the ukranian people want peace.

the ukranian people want piece more than any of us. they certainly want peace more than vladimir putin, who has no respect for the lives of his people or the ukrainians. but they have fought for three years to stay free, to stay independent, to stay sovereign. they have fought for years before that. and the history of their people is one of fighting for their independence. they will continue fighting as long as peace threatens their sovereign p and free status. they believe in peace. they want donald trump to succeed in achieving peace. we should support them in their

go goals, in their quest for peace with freedom and sovereignty for their people. thank you, mr. president. and i want to offer my resolution and ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 112 which was submitted earlier today. further that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president, the book of ecclestiastes in the old testament contains some of the

greatest words of wisdom that have ever been provided to man mankind. pardon me. let me begin again. the book of ecclestiastes in the old testament has provided mankind with some of the greatest words of wisdom ever imparted. in chapter 3 of ecclestiastes, the words say for everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven. and it goes on to say there's a time to speak p and a time to be silent. now, i have spoken perhaps not as eloquent ly but perhaps as often as my friend from

connecticut about this war, about who's to blame and about what should happen. i've been disappointed over a three-year period at the previous administration for what i viewed as a slow walking of aid which might have given us a different situation currently on the ground in this european country. but we are at a point where there are delicate negotiations going on which might save lives, which might lead to peace, and lasting peace with a back stop by the united states and our allies in europe. this is the ecclestiastes time to be silent and let the

negotiators do their work if they possibly can. and for that reason, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i want to make clear first, absolutely clear that i deeply respect my colleague from mississippi, my friend and fellow member, the leader of the armed services committee, for his commitment to ukraine. there should be no question that senator wicker is committed to ukraine's freedom and independence. i've traveled with him. i've worked with him. i sat with him just friday. we have a difference of view. he has access to different facts that i don't. i'm going on basic principles, and i must confess i can't cite scripture from my position.

but i think common sense tells me -- although he has more knowledge about the negotiations -- that supporting ukraine at this moment, simply saying we have your back, we're your back stop, we're supporting y you, can't help but aid their position. but let me just say what's most important about this conversation is that we will continue together on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, to support ukraine. it isn't about their being less strong, at least in the case of senator wicker. i am absolutely sure. i respect his views on this topic, even though we differ, and i hope that this cause will continue to be bipartisan. i want to just conclude by

asking unanimous consent that my military fellow be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this year if there's no objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: with that, i close, and thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you. i'm sorry the president seems to have the misfortune of being out here every time i come, and i regret that. i feel sorry for him and i'm glad to be out here with my colleagues today on both sides of the aisle. we heard the senator from mississippi refer to the, what he described as the greatest words of wisdom that came from ecclestiastes. those were words of wisdom. i think another set of great words of wisdom came from ronald reagan, who said peace through strength. peace through strength is what ronald reagan represented. i know the president last night

had a less clear message to the american people. i know that he said that he was the greatest president in american history. george washington, i think, was second on his list. for most of us in this chamber, i think we probably say ronald reagan earned a place there, even those of us who disagreed with him. and one of the reasons was that he did what he said when it came to the national security interest of the united states of america. and because we have been following that path of peace through strength in a bipartisan way, the american people have been extremely generous in their support of the ukranian people. p since the invasion of ukraine by russia. and the american people have earned a profound debt of gratitude from free people all

over the world, including in the united states. their courage and our weapons and the weapons of our allies have held putin's army at the gates of europe. nothing else has. they have shown that democracies will stand up to defend themselves p and will not roll over to dictators, whether they're in moscow or beijing. but unlike us and unlike the rest of the world, the ukrainians actually have paid a huge human toll. they have almost 400,000 casualties. they have had over 40,000 deaths in this war, mr. president. their cemeteries are bulging with new graves that are piled high with flowers that testify

to the sacrifice of the ukranian people in every community in ukraine. anybody who has been there has seen them. it's impossible to avoid the cemeteries that have piled up with soldiers who have been willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice on the front lines of this war in ukraine. i delivered a speech just a few days ago which you may have had the misfortune of hearing, discussing president trump's false accusation that ukraine started this war with russia. and to my colleagues who say it doesn't matter what the president says, that it's only the outcome that matters, be patient about this great negotiator who learned everything at the heels of mr. cohen while he was doing commercial real estate in new york, some of us are worried about it, because words do

matter, especially the words that the president utters. could you imagine anybody on this floor defending a president who said that taiwan had invaded china when china had invaded taiwan? that would be ridiculous. that would be absurd. and that is the situation that we face today. it's no different than that. it's identical to that. he's called president zelenskyy a dictator, the freedom fighter who's leading this battle and who's left this battle after ukraine. ronald reagan would turn over in his grave if he knew that the president has invited russia to rejoin the g-7, which is a group of the world's most powerful

democracies that suspended -- democracy, that suspended russia after putin invaded ukraine for the first time in 2014. by the way, are we supposed to believe he didn't invade ukraine then? that he was invited in somehow to crimea? is president trump really fooled by the little greenmen that vladimir putin send there? after his administration held supposed peace talks in saudi arabia without even decency to include ukraine, who's had more than 400,000 casualties? every single one of these statements and decisions have emboldened putin. you can see it in the newspapers in russia. you can see it on tv. and they've weakened ukraine's negotiating position, profoundly undermining our own national security. how this war ends,

mr. president, will determine whether putin sets his sights on our nato allies, like poland and the baltics, whether dictators like china's xi jinping test our resolve by invading the neighbor taiwan, whether the post-world war ii international order that the united states built and is today frittering away under this president's leadership remains intact, whether the united states can continue to provide the leadership on behalf of free nations all over this world, and democracies all over this world, that our parents and grandparents had the decency to sacrifice and build for us. whether we're going to face another conflict in this world,

that's actually started by a tyrant but ended by democracies. the last thing we should be doing is undermining ukraine's negotiating position and ours when we have this much at stake. i know the presiding officer has spent his life in negotiations in the private sector. i have spent time, not as much as the presiding officer, i certainly have spent time in these negotiations as well. and when you're in our discipline, when i was in the private sector negotiating these deals was that we would let every deal die at least three times, because our theory was no deal worth doing could be done the first time, or the second time. i can see the presiding officer,

yeah, he's probably said five times. but the point is you wouldn't undermine your own negotiating leverage while you're going into a deal. mr. president, today, today the director of the central intelligence agency went on fox news and told the world that we had shut down our intelligence! sharing with ukraine. we met -- i don't know if i can say, i'm on the intelligence committee, let me be careful what i say. today the united states of america has said we have cut off ukraine. i don't know what anybody's doing in this chamber if they're not coming here saying united states of america should not be

cutting off ukraine's intelligence in midstream, in the ramp-up to a negotiation. if you come out here on in this floor and say it's the right thing to do, that you in the private sector would make an equivalently idiotic comp compromising, self-defeating, move in a negotiation like this, come and defend it out here. come and tell us how that's peace through strength. we've shut off our offensive cyber with respect to russia, and gotten nothing back from them. ronald reagan is turning over in his grave.

at a national security strategy that i guess has been concocted in the realm of social media and cable television, but has nothing to do with the national security interests of the united states. it can't be defended. i want to also say, while i have the floor, mr. president, and for the record, and i hope people will look it up, i have never met president zelenskyy where he hasn't started the meeting by thanking the american people and ended the meeting by thanking the american people. he's done it in every meeting that i have been in. but i don't want us to lose sight of the fact that we also hold a profound debt of gratitude to him and to his

soldiers and to the ukrainian people. the president doesn't seem to understand that. the president seems to think, oh, my gosh, they're doing us a favor by using our weapons. you're in tough shape. your country's in tough shape, he stated the obvious in that embarrassing interaction in the oval office the other day, where he couldn't even keep his temper for five minutes on the global stage. the ukrainians are not just fighting for ukraine. they are fighting for democracy. they're fighting for europe. they're fighting for freedom. they're fighting for the international order that we created, that we led after the second world war. should nato pay its share?

yeah, it should. but we're not some charity case. we have benefitted from the casualties that ukraine has suffered. we have benefited from the exposure of the weakness of putin's corrupt army. we have benefited from xi jinping's new knowledge that if a dictator tries to invade another country, the free world will stand together until donald trump became president of the united states. i want to say again, mr. president, to you and to all of my colleagues here today, the united states has turned off our intelligence to the ukrainian

people. they're not in retreat. they are on the front lines of this war today, in the middle of winter, on the steps of europe where 16 million people were killed by hitler and stalin. web my mother was -- when my mother was born in warsaw, a polish jew in 1938, the year before hitler invaded poland, and we've turned off their intelligence? they're killing more russians there every month than they were six months ago.

this is a catastrophe. mr. president. so, the other night, when we had the budget reconciliation, i had a request for an amendment that simply would have said that it was the sense of the senate that russia invaded ukraine, that russia had started this war. i wanted to ask my colleagues just the basic question, can we agree that russia started the war in ukraine. that seems like a shocking question to ask. i hope every schoolchild in america knows that that's true. yet the president of the united states has said that ukraine started this war. and there are people around this

city these days who are suggesting that russia didn't start the war, that ukraine started the war. and i'm not even saying, i'm not even talking about people like the new head of intelligence for the trump administration, who's taken the view that ukraine had what was coming to them, who tweeted out at 11:30 the night that putin's tanks invaded ukraine, a peaceful country, for the first time in europe since world war ii, a dictator invading a peaceful country, who took to social media to say that ukraine had it coming to them. i'm not even saying that. i'm saying people who are unwilling to say that russia invaded ukraine. when it launched an unprovoked and unjustified full-scale invasion of ukraine in february

2022. following their already illegal annexation of crimea and their illegal occupation of parts of the donbas. so that's all my resolution says. that's it. that may seem like a basic and remedial task. i'm sorry it's necessary. i want to remind every schoolchild in america who started this war and whose side we're on and what the legacy of ronald reagan, peace through strength, is all about. this is a measure that will not in any way disrupt the progress and negotiations. i think quite the opposite. i think quite the opposite. i want us to assure ourselves that we're all clear here about

who started this war. i want us to fulfill our responsibility to the american people. we're not here to repeat untruths from the oval office. we all have a patriotic responsibility to live up to. the president does as well. and i want us to demand that, on behalf of the american people, that the united states lead, for the sake of the ukrainian people, but for our national security and the security of the world. that's why this is not just a matter of how worried people in nato are. it's how worried people in southeast asia are, because they know if we don't get our act together here and support ukraine, support our allies in

europe, the same thing could happen there, and china could invade taiwan and we could have an american president who claims he's the best president in american history, with george washington second, saying that taiwan invaded china. i want us to avow, as ronald reagan proclaimed 40 years ago, that freedom is america's core and that we must never deny or forsake it. that is what we risk today, mr. president, by withdrawing our support for ukraine, allowing the president to promulgate falsehood after falsehood about who started this war and what's going on with this war. if we abandon ukraine, we're going to abandon the core of who

we are. so this is a simple question, mr. president. it's not a partisan one. and the answer couldn't be cle clearer. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 114, which was submitted earlier to today. further, that the resolution be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. barrasso: reserving the right to object. the american people want to see this war end. we want to see the killing and the bloodshed stopped. president trump shares those views. he wants peace, he wants to end the war. president trump and his administration are negotiating right now, today, to achieve

that peace. he addressed that last night in his address to congress and the nation. i think president trump is the very best hope to achieve laughing peace in ukraine. he has my full support as the negotiations continue. the entire senate should support those efforts, and therefore, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. bennet: i know my colleague from vermont is here, so i'm not going to go on. i'd like to respond to my friend from wyoming by saying that it is shocking to me that tonight -- that tonight in the nation's capitol of the wealthiest country in the world, a place that we think of as the freest country in the world, that our intelligence sharing with ukraine, which has been one of the most effective means of

their ability to prosecute the war in russia -- the war in ukraine against russia has been shut off by the united states of america. and our arms have been shut off to some diarrhea as well -- to some degree as well while they're sacrificing on the front lines for freedom and for democracy. it is shocking that we are in the position that we're in. and i hope for the sake of our kids and for our grandkids, for the sakes of the allies we have all over the world, for the sake of democracy and freedom in this world, that we pull together as

the senate and articulate the importance of pursuing this negotiation out of a position of strength and not of weakness. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. welch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: thank you. mr. president, last week the united nations voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution that acknowledged that russia brutally invaded ukraine. among those voting in favor were all of our friends and allies. among those voting against it were most of our adversaries, russia, iran, north korea, nicaragua, and the united

states. you know, of course no americans that we represent want to see our country on a team with some of the most brutal dictators, but what made that vote remarkable was that the trump administration voted against something so unquestionably true. it was russia that was the invader, that russia's invasion has been devastating, that too many have died, too many have suffered, that peace is long overdue and that ukrainian territory is ukrainian territory. the bottom line, this was a very simple resolution asserting that one country has no right to invade another country. and americans know from experience that peace in the

world depends on adhering to a core principle. countries cannot change their borders by force. one country cannot steal the sovereign territory of another country. in over the years, many americans have died to uphold this principle for our national security -- world war i, world war ii, the gulf war sent a clear message, america will support its friends and allies who are fighting to defend their own freedom and sovereignty. and of course the u.n. vote last week was followed by the last week meeting in the oval office between ukrainian president zelenskyy and president trump. and just hours before that very disastrous meeting, right across from the white house, i, along with many of our colleagues, joined in a bipartisan grouch

senators who met -- bipartisan group of senators who met with president zelenskyy. and he told us he was extremely grateful for america's help. he told us how thankful he was for the help that president trump gave in his first administration with the delivery of javelin missiles and what he was doing in his second administration. there was not a hint of anything other than support and respect. and he told us how enthusiastic he was with meeting with the president and signing the minerals deal. it blew up and of course will debate if it blew up because president zelenskyy didn't wear a suit or he was provocative or it was set up by the president to derail the meeting. in my view, i don't know the

answer to that and i don't really care because that is not the question. the one question that is profoundly important is the one that affects our national security. who's side are we on? do we continue to side with ukraine against russia and its invasion, with our nato allies, with the principle we've fought for since the beginning of the last century or do we flip sides and go with putin? and there is every reason for many of us to be concerned about that being a question actively under consideration by the trump administration starting with his affection for putin and with his assertion that it was ukraine, not russia that started the war. you know, we're suddenly confronted with this unthinkable question of whether our president is realigning whose

side we're on. in that -- and that, in my view, is why all of us in the united states senate -- and there's been tremendous leadership on the republican side of the aisle. i'd like to particularly acknowledge the leadership of chairman wicker and chairman risch for us to stand with ukraine and with our nato allies. but this year we're going to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the end of world war ii. and in the eight decades since that devastating war, america's global alliances and our leadership, they've been anchored on the principle -- anchored on the principle that no country should seize and occupy the territory of another country by force. that matters. it is anchored on the elementary principle that might does not make right. something in the putin invasion where he thought he'd be in kyiv

in days. it was desecrated. so, mr. president, my hope is that we in the united states senate would reaffirm those principles of territorial integrity and do that on behalf of the american people. and i have introduced a resolution that does just this. it commits to the principle that the united states remains totally in favor of upholding and defending the proposition that no state shall threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or the political integrity of any other state. i think all of us know that's among the most fundamental propositions holding together the world's very fragile peace.

it's also a fundamentally american principle that we have advocated for and defended and it's a principle that we must uphold today on behalf of the people and the sovereignty of ukraine, not just for their benefit but for our national security. and therefore, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 113, which was submitted earlier today. further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, reserving the right to object. and for the reasons i've given previously, we want the killing to end. we want the bloodshed to stop.

there are active negotiations going on right now and i think that the best hope to achieve lasting peace in ukraine is by the efforts of president trump today. for that reason, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. welch: i yield back. mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 115, submitted earlier today.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 115, relating to the death of the honorable david lyle boren, former senator for the state of oklahoma. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed. mr. barrasso: mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, march 6. 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, morning business be closed, and the mr. barrasso: senate proceed to executive session and resume executive calendars number 25, troy edgar. further, that if cloture is invoked on the edgar nomination, all time be expired at 1:45 p.m.

and the senate vote on confirmation, and following the confirmation of the edgar nomination, the senate resume consideration of executive calendar number 29, lori chavez-deremer, and vote on the motion to invoke cloture. further, that if cloture is invoked on the nomination, all time be considered expired and the senate vote on the chavez-deremer nomination at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader on monday, march 10, and that following the cloture vote on the chavez-deremer nomination, the senate proceed to legislative session and resume the motion to proceed to calendar number 18, s. 331, and the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during thursday'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. barasso for the information of all -- mr. barrasso: for the information of all senators, senators should expect one vote at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow and three votes at 1:45 p.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, and pursuant to s. res. 115, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, march 6, and does so as a further mark of respect to the late david lyle boren, the late david lyle boren, 's translation the confirmed florida w attorneyeneral and senators also pretty measure t repeal biden administration ling digital consumer payment plication, then mo and paypal

the senate will ao continue working president trump's nomination truly editor for the department of homeland security deputy secretary mr. egger was previously confirmed by the sete had 2020 during the first trump administration has cef financial officer of the deparef homeland security watch like coverage of the senate, lawmakers return here on "c-span2". >> looking to contact your members of congress come about cspan is making it easy for you with her 2025 congressional directory getting since her contact information from government officials all in one place compact spinal bound guide contained bio and contact information for every house and senate member of the 119th congress and contact information on congressional committee, the president's cabinet federal agencies, and state governors congressional directory cost 3295, plus shipping and handling and every purchase help support cspan's nonprofit operation. skin coat of the right, or go to

season chopped up work to preorder your copy today. >> on thursday, president trump so many commissioner of the foo and drug administration, wanted me carried will have his confirmation hearing mr. makarios chair gas intestinal surgery john's hopkins school of medicine study public health avard university as they help commituchike 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. c-span free public come. >> cspan, the chrissy unfiltered to come up printed by these television companies and more charter communications charter is readily recognized as one of the best internet providers, we are just getting started, billy 100,000 miles up new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. charter communications