tillis: director? >> good afternoon chairman coons raking member telus, numbers of the seventh -- telus, ranking members of the subcommittee. i'm going to go totally off script and just speak a bit about stepping back. first of all, on the question of whether the law is broken and whether it is still broken and whether various courts are doing a better job of interpreting it, you do not have to go back any further than just the last month toind yet another agreed just district court decision. this is in the bio case. in a situation where the invention is not at all abstract, does not preempt any part of science. it results from many hundreds of billions of dollars of r&d. i do not fault the district court. they are doing the best they can found the invention ineligible under section 101. so what does that mean? i don't know what they will they will refer to recent history, but now you got a company that has no access to funding because it has no profit opportunity in the future to continue with bringin

ranking member tillis for having this hearing.ourt decisions have really created a mess relating to patent eligibility and the hope is that this legislation will provideme some level or a t ofdu predictability to the patet system. that though nothing is ever particularly simple. i did write down the manipulation of nature by humant beings should be patentable. that sounds very reasonable. i think you mentioned a lot of things can be eligible but that does not mean the patent will be forthcoming. so would you say regarding what was said that should be patentable goes to eligibility and does not necessarily mean a patentable and stupid.bsolutely. it may be the manipulation is not nailed. it is obvious. and not worthy of a patenting may be the invention is not described pursuant to the requirements of section 112. and so it may fail for other reasons. >> thank you. what is eligibles not mean a pae and said there's other factors. question some critics of this legislation notably the aclu argued it would allow patents for human genes a

chairman, ranking member tillis, members of the subcommittee. good afternoon, and think it really to discuss -- and thank you for the opportunity to discuss. i want to thank the subcommittee for undertaking the task of modernizing the statute which in essence first appeared in the patent act of 1793, and when madison and jefferson were drafting patent laws. a lot has changed in the world of technology since 1793, and courts will be forgiven for struggling to apply an 18th-century statute with 21st century technology. our founding fathers were brilliant. but even they did not anticipate dna processing or the internet. the current state of section 101 law is the result of many quick decisions over the many decades trying to determine whether these modern technologies fit into categories defined in 1793 or whether they are subject to certain exceptions courts have imposed since then. these quick decisions also have resulted in certain de facto rules such as diagnostic techniques for example generally not eligible for patent in the united states. th

tillis: director? >> good afternoon chairman coons , raking member telus, numbers of the seventh -- telus, ranking members of the subcommittee. i'm going to go totally off script and just speak a bit about stepping back. first of all, on the question of whether the law is broken and whether it is still broken and whether various courts are doing a better job of interpreting it, you do not have to go back any further than just the last month to find yet another agreed just district court decision. this is in the bio case. in a situation where the invention is not at all abstract, does not preempt any part of science. it results from many hundreds of billions of dollars of r&d. i do not fault the district court. they are doing the best they can found the invention ineligible under section 101. so what does that mean? i don't know what they will do without appeal, ib they will refer to recent history, but now you got a company that has no access to funding because it has no profit opportunity in the futur

chairman coons, ranking member tillis. members of the subcommittee. good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to discuss pera. ii want to start by particular thanking the subcommittee for undertaking thes. critically important task of modern siding the statute which essence first appeared in the patent act of 1793 rip when madison and jefferson were drafting patent laws. a lot has changed since 1793 and ports will be given to apply 18th century statute to 21st century technology. our founding fathers were brilliant but even they did not anticipate dna processing or the internet. the core decisions have resulted in certain defacto rules such diagnostic techniques for example are not eligible for patent in the united states. congress has never considered, debated or passed into law. if the united states is not to recognize patents for certain categories of inventions that would otherwise be part of the categories outlined by congress, then it is up to congress to make that rule. in other words, congress define the categories of invention that are

>> thank you, senator tillis. coming back to a couple of things briefly, this consumer question, it really boils down to creators of innovation versus consumers of innovation, right? creators versus recipients or implementers of innovation. if you are thinking of a consumer as a party that is taking innovation from another and implementing it, of course you want prices to be as low as possible. in the short-term, taking intellectual property rights away or diminishing intellectual property rights certainly will drive prices down, at the intellectual property in a patent system has never been about what is now, it is about what is next. it's about protecting innovation so that investment will occur for the future and consumers will benefit in the future. that's where the issue of consumer advantage needs to be put, i think, into a broader perspective. ultimately, the innovation that is not created because the patent system isn't there to incent or reward it is the innovation -- you can get access no matter how much

tillis: i thank senator lankford through the chair. madam president, i want to spend a few minutes on this subject as well. this is -- we're reaching a milestone that i think is critically important. since president biden has entered office, the number of encounters at the border, eight million, eight million since president biden entered office, that population exceeds the population of 30 u.s. states, the population of 30 individual u.s. states. that's the number we're talking about here. and, ladies and gentlemen, a lot of them are the people that we just described. of course the united states wants to be a haven for people who are suffering or fearing for their life, suffering from oppression. but the goal of asylum is to get them immediately out of that dangerous situation, not to suddenly decide that i want to go through two or three or four other jurisdictions because what i ultimately want to do is get to the united states. they are demeaning and devaluing the concept of asylum. and the problem is they're getting, those who wan

tillis: madam president, may i ask one follow-up? presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: senator lankford, isn't it true that tens of thousands of people who cross our borders today have not taken, and who may ultimately request asylum have looked past an opportunity to safely relocate in the country they're seeking asylum from, likely transited to another country where they could have declared asylum. and in some cases passed through four or five or six different safe jurisdictions before they -- they made the dangerous trip to mexico, crossed the rio grande border? is that an accurate assessment of what hundreds of thousands of people have done during the trump administration? lafrpg lafrng that is correct. -- mr. lankford: we have millions of people that have crossed our border, either never requested asylum. at the border they declared they were going to ask for asylum but never did, never filled out the paperwork, never tried because they knew they weren't eligible. or they traveled through multiple coun

tillis, no. mr. mrs. britt, no. mr. thune, no. the clerk: mrs. capito, no. the clerk: mr.ounds, no. mr. tester, aye. ms. lummis, no. mr. lankford, no.i the clerk: mr. ricketts, no. mr. cramer, no. mr. whitehouse, aye. the clerk: mr. hoeven, no. mr. wicker, no. vote: the clerk: ms. hirono, aye. the clerk: mr. cruz, no. the clerk: mr. lee, no. mr. durbin, aye. the clerk: mr. graham, no. the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye. the clerk: ms. collins, no. the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. ms. murkowski, no. the clerk: mr. booker, aye. mr. king, aye. the clerk: mr. markey, aye. the clerk: mr. manchin, no. the clerk: mr. moran, no. the clerk: mr. kelly, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. hickenlooper, aye. mr. grassley, no. the clerk: ms. smith, aye. the clerk: mr. braun, no. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. the clerk: mr. romney, no. the clerk: mr. mullin, no. the presiding officer: the yeas are 50. the nays are 49. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion so reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table an

tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch.ehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. ■/ +t senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, blackburn, cornyn, crapo, fischer, johnson, lankford, marshall, merkley, padilla, peters, rickets, rounds, schatz, stabenow, thune, warner, warren. senators voting in the negative -- schmitt, scott of florida. the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. supplemental. vote: the clerk: mr. graham, aye. 0 the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye. the clerk: mr. risch, aye. the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. . mr. kaine, aye. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. the clerk: mr. vance, aye. mr. wicker, aye. the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye. the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye. the clerk: mr. bennet, aye. mr. kennedy, aye. mr. daines, aye. the clerk: mr. lujan, aye. the clerk: ms. hassan, aye. mr. wyden, aye. the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, aye. ms. duckworth, aye. mr. casey, aye. mr. tester, aye. mr. booker, aye. ms. rosen, aye. the clerk: mr. grassley, aye. mr. moran, aye. mr. cassidy, aye. the clerk: ms. collins, aye. the clerk: mr. cotton, aye. m

thank you, senator tillis. coming back tong a couple of things briefly. this consumer question asked really boils down to the creators ofinnovation versus cof innovation, creators versus recipients. thinking of a consumer rather than a party taking innovations from another and implementing it or enjoying it of course you want the prices to be as low as possible. and in the short term, taking intellectual property rights away certainly will drive prices down but the intellectual property system and the patent system has never been about what's now it's about protecting innovations of the investment will occur for the future and consumers will benefitth in the future. that's where the issue of consumer advantage needs to be put i think into a broad perspective. you can't get access to it no matter how much you're able to pay so that's what we are talking about here. the last thing i would say, i really do believe that you have put together an excellent piece of legislation here. it's practical, it's balanced and takes into account the interests i of those c

tillis, no. mrs. fischer, no. mr. rubio, no. mr. kelly, no. mr. vance, aye. the clerk: mr.r. ■oyoung, no. ms. warren, no. mr. scott of south carolina, no. ms. stabenow, no. mr. padilla, no. mr. cramer, no. mr. risch, aye. mr. crapo, aye. the clerk: mr. lee, aye. ms. cortez masto, no. the clerk: mr. cruz, aye. the clerk: ms. baldwin, no. ms. rosen, no. the clerk: ms. duckworth, no. w. mr. paul, aye. mr. coons, no. mr. schatz, no. the clerk: mr. casey, no.■o the clerk: mr. carper, no. the clerk: ms. smith, no. mr. kaine, no. ff the mcconnell, no. ■> the clerk: mrs. shaheen, no. the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. the clerk: mr. menendez, no. ms. bult -- ms. butlerno. mr. booker, no.■o the clerk: mr. bennet, no. mr. markey, no.c the clerk: mr. brown, no. mr. mr. merkley, no. ■ the clerk: mr. cardin, no. the clerk: ms. klobuchar, no. the clerk: mr. hagerty, no. the clerk: the yeas are 13, the nays are 82. e is not agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer:■ -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, amendment number 1381 is

. >> good for thom tillis. it's immoral, and he's right, a failure for republicans, and it's immoral for republicans to fail ukraine in the fight for freedom and fail israel, and their fight to defend themselves against terrorists, and, of course, the united states, to secure its border. we finally have the deal. i mean, going to capitol hill, and asking the last couple of years, why can't we get a deal done? well, democrats want this. well, republicans want this. they were talking past each other. they are talking to each other, and james langford, one of the most conservative republicans on capitol hill from oklahoma says this is the best bill we can get. john thune, one of the most conservative republicans on capitol hill, says, this is the best border security bill we can get. it's the strongest in the generation. they all agree with that, and i agree with thom tillis. this is pathetic, but gene robinson, you have donald trump admitting his goals are number one, saying to lou dobbs, he wants the economy to

tillis, no. the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no. the clerk: mr. budd, no. ms. warren, aye. mr.o. the clerk: mr. cramer, no. the clerk: mr. ricketts, no. mrs. capito, no. mr. johnson, no.rv the clerk: mr. kaine, aye. ms. sinema, aye. mr. kennedy, no. the clerk: mr. risch, no. mrs. fischer, no. mr. warner, aye. ms. murkowski, aye. mr. cornyn, no. ms. l&cantwell, aye. mr. merkley, aye. the clerk: mr. sullivan, no. the clerk: mr. cardin, aye. mr. boozman, no. ms. lummis, no.■!qv the clerk: ms. baldwin, aye.fl the clerk: mr. moran, no. mr. booker, aye. mr. reed, aye. mr. brown, aye. the clerk: mr. grassley, no.5 mr. wyden, aye.■q the clerk: mr. graham, aye. mr. kelly, aye. the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye. mr wicker, no. mr. peters, aye. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. mr. the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. the clerk: mr. ro mr. sanders, aye. ms. mr. carper, aye.■s mr. bennet, aye. mr. heinrich, aye. mr. schatz, aye. zl■5 the clerk: mr. paul, no. the clerk: mr.thune, no.■w the clerk: ms. butler, aye. the clerk: ms. cortez ■d the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye.w the clerk: mr. hoeven, no. the clerk

tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affir affirmative, it baldwin, capito, cardin, casey, cassidy, collins, cornyn, cortez-masto, cotton, daines, durbin, ernst, fischer, gillibrand, heinrich, klobuchar, lankford, murray, reed, rosen, rubio, tillis, warner and young. senators voting in the negative, paul and tuberville. mr. bennet, aye. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. mr. white house, aye. mr. whitehouse, aye. the clerk: mr. carper, aye. mr. brown, aye. ms. lummis, aye. mr. hoeven, no. the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye. mr. murphy, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, aye. mr. scott of south carolina, aye. mr. merkley, aye. mr. tester, aye. ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: mr. risch, no. the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye. the clerk: mr. welch, aye. mr. kaine, aye. the clerk: mr. wicker, aye. the clerk: mr. moran, aye. the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye. the clerk: mr. peters, aye. the clerk: mrs. britt, no. the clerk: mr. coons, aye. the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. mr. cramer, aye. the c

. >> good for tom tillis.oral he says for republicans to fail ukraine and the fight for freedom, and to fair israel in their fight to defend themselves against terrorists. and of course the united states right to secure its border. we finally have the deal. i mean, go on to capitol hill. i've been asking for the last couple of years, why can we get a deal done? republicans want, this democrats want this, but they were talking past each other. now they are talking to each other, and james lankford, one of the most conservative republicans on capitol hill from oklahoma says, this is the best bill we can get. john thune, one of the most conservative republicans on capitol hill, says this is the best border security bill we can get. it is the strongest in the generation. they all agree with that, and i agree with tom tillis. this is pathetic. but eugene robinson, you now have donald trump who's admitted in the past two weeks that his goals are number one, and he said this to lewd obscene, number one. he wants the

tilly and her coauthor argued for the importance of understanding ourselves way. they said, quote our past contains important lessons for our present. if we are willing to pay attention and archeology will focus on health related care, completely overturns the notion that society has evolved by embracing a winner take all survival of the fittest approach to health and welfare policy, a defining hallmark of the human species is our capacity to support each other in times of need. so i think this is so powerful because there are different that we can think of ourselves right? can think of ourselves as peak as a species for whom it is natural to try to dominate each other and get one over on each other or. we can think of ourselves as people are really. we are meant to care for each other and we are meant to to organize ourselves that way. and i just, i, i want leave you before i start talking to david from one quote from actually the last page. that is my favorite thing i think ever written about nursing. it comes from mark lazenby, who is the dean of the professor

tillis, aye. mrs. shaheen, aye. ms. rosen, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye. mr.ker, aye. mr. peters, aye. mr. casey, aye. the clerk: mr. ernst, aye. mr. bennet, aye. the clerk: mr. risch, aye. mr. lee, aye. mrs. britt, no. mr. cramer, aye. mr. coons, aye. the clerk: mr. daines, aye. the clerk: mr. m{l1}c{l0}connell, aye. the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye. the clerk: mr. braun, aye. mr. graham, aye. ■k the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. the clerk: mr. schmitt, no. mr. merkley, aye. mr. ricketts, aye. mr. grassley, aye. the clerk: mr. moran, aye. mr. scott of florida, no. mr. scott of south carolina, aye. mr. cotton, aye. the clerk: mr. sanders, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, aye. the clerk: mr. kelly, aye. mr. schumer, aye. the clerk: mr. vance, aye. the clerk: mr. lankford, aye. the clerk: mr. carper, aye. the clerk: ms. lummis, aye. the clerk: mr. booker, aye. the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye. mr. warnock, aye. . vote: the clerk: mr. hawley, no. mr. ossoff, aye. ms. cortez-masto, aye. ms. hirono, aye. the clerk: mr. cornyn, aye. the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. the clerk: mr. cruz, no. the

tillis, aye. mr. lujan, aye. mr. sullivan, no. the clerk: mr. menendez, aye. the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye. the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. mr. cruz, aye. mr. mcconnell, aye. mr. manchin, aye. the presiding officer: the yeas are 79, the nays are 17. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 474, cristal c. brisco, of indiana, to be united states district judge for the northern district of indiana. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the ske is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the nomination of cristal c. brisco, of indiana, to be united states district judge for the northern district of indiana, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrass

you know, tillis said i'm going to do everything i can to assume the eventual nominee. and if that is donald trump i'll be working hard for him, but we have a difference of opinion on this issue. and i do think that is a moment worth noting given for the fact a long time a lot of the members simply were falling in line when donald trump put down the marker. >> also a moment that just regular policy disagreements. it is not some objection or rejection of donald trump. it is normal in politics or used to be at least. lauren fox, thank you. >>> this morning donald trump is again turning the courtroom into a campaign event. in just over an hour, he is expected to head back to his defini defamation trial. >> the jury will decide how much the former president needs to pay in damages. trump was strictly limited on how much he could say on the stand. he testified for only a few minutes telling the court he was trying to defend himself and the presidency. but overnight he unloaded in a short video he posted on social media. >> i have no idea who she is, where she came from. this

senator tillis, and very conservative senators, working hard on this. and they are getting the best deal they can right now. and why it would be foolish to reject it right now is, first of all, it is needed right now. it is a crisis right now. you cannot be waiting nine months. but, if they wait, there is no guarantee that republicans are going to have the house next year. we have a -- there is a very precarious majority right now. and with redistricting, and a lot of problems since right now, there is no guarantee. the prognosticators look at it. it's a real 50/50 jump ball. secondly, donald trump, who may be convicted -- i don't think he is going to be elected. but if he is convicted, we know about 58% of americans, and a lot of republicans, are not going to vote for him. so, this is the best deal that republicans could get years, plus it is going to come along with the much-needed aid that many republicans, and obviously democrats, want for israel, and much needed aid for ukraine. so, this deal on the border is what a lot of democrats don't want. but

th's senathom tillis, a very conservative republican senar saying tha it's not me.entleman from texas. senator lankford, is he now a is he now a traitor to the cause as we heard se republicans at a press conference yesterday talk about those who were supporting a compromise? he said the other day on "face the nation,he said,ou know, and i quote, house republicans actually do not want a change in th l because it's a presidential electio year. you know, iean, i -- i -- this is ridiculous. this is all theatrics. she on you for exploiting this issue. shame on you for ginning upll this hate and a know, this vitriol, and not wanting to be part ofhe solution. not wanng too athing t fix it. know, i'm also puzzled by th fact, and i tnk i need to get -- i think i need to go to the capital physician and see if i can get a neck bra because i have whiplash following the logic of some of my republican frnds. we heard all year that we nd to pass a bill. in order t immigration crisis at the border. and then last night in the rules committee, we're told we don need a bill, we don't

senators warnock and tillis and casey and capitol hill and bozeman and rosen. this is a diverse group on the floor today whose states reflect the vibrant and wonderful diversity of our great nation. from the deep south to the mountain west to the industrial midwest. we represent different places we may disagree on many things, but we love this country. we know we can do better for the people who make it work. dr.. and the civil rights leaders of his generation did more than just about anybody to push this country to live up to our founding ideals and to make the dream of america real for everyone. protesting working for change, organizing, demanding our country do better. those are some of the most patriotic things all of us can do? that's dr. king's charge in this letter. my favorite single line, certainly in this letter. and maybe in all of dr. king's preachings and teachings and writings, progress never rolls out on the wheels of inevitability. progress never rolls in on the wheels of an inevitability rolls in because we make it so. that is our charge. think

>> absolutely it's undercut, and by the way, senators, tillis and graham are absolutely right. republicans need to act on this. by failing to act on it for these naked, cynical, political reasons, they hand democrats the issue. right now, joe biden is being blamed for the border mayhem. republicans are walking away from a deal that gets significant immigration, and asylum reform. they will now own this border chaos. i think it's terrible and further this is going to impact the ability to fund iran, ukraine, and israel. if that does not happen, i mean, republicans could own the failure of ukraine in its war against russia. just as joe biden was justifiably blamed for the afghanistan fiasco, republicans will be blamed for what happens in ukraine that empowers vladimir putin, so the politics of this are not good for the gop. it's all being driven by a rumpling of the gop, particularly in the house that would not vote for a compromised deal. they don't want to support ukraine. frankly what's happened is it has been given voice. they are allowed to prevail, even though their opinion

my other colleague, tom tillis, senator tillis says he thinks it's immoral.lling to use any issue, including issues with our border, to further his own political interests, which is i think why he was such a terrible president, and why we have to stop him now, because all he cares about is himself and what he can do to further his own political interests. >> president biden has said that if the immigration bill passes, he would shot down the border the day he signs it to get the immigration system back under control. speaker mike johnson has said that biden does not need congressional action to close the border now saying, quote, he can and must take executive action immediately to reverse the gas roughly he has created. in your mind, would shutting the voter helped solve the immigration issue? would it help or hurt the president come november? >> well, first, i think it's patently not true that president biden has the power now to unilaterally shut down the border. this is what our colleagues have been working on in this immigration deal. i think that what i

. >> republican senators james lankford of oklahomand thom tillis of north carolina talks about the surge of migrants arriving in the u.s. and the state of the border with democrats. this is just under 25 minutes. >> it's been a big conversation in this body that actually matches the conversations happening around the country right now. if you ask any random person on the street the key issues they're thinking about right now almost every poll for the last several months, people are concerned about the economy and they're concerned about border security, just about every poll you've seen everywhere, that's been the one and two. sometimes border security has been the top issue, sometimes the second issue, but it's been in those top two over and over and over again. and it's not just border states and it's just not republicans. it's republicans, democrats, independents and the like. they see what's happening at the border and they just want to know what's the plan because the news comes out in september that last september was the highest number of border crossings ever in the history of th

. >> el senador republicano tom tillis dijo a nbc news que discuten expandir el rastreo de migrantes de la gente, por ejemplo, en este este caso de igupaz, ahora el el gobernador tomando el control de este parque, ¿que dicen los que viven ahi? >> pues escuchamos los testimonios de algunas de las personas que viven ahi y basicamente lo que decian es que les parece injustificado. >> dicen que el el estado de texas suficiente patrullaje en las carreteras que tienen helicopteros y que la comunidad, bueno, disfruta de esos espacios publicos, disfruta del parque y ahora ya no podra hacerlo. >> muchas gracias por este informacion. >> ahora vamos a cambiar de tema. >> la corte suprema de justicia escuchara el caso de un inmigrante salvadoreno al que le fue rechazada su residencia permanente, en parte, escuche usted, por sus regresar a estados unidos. >> la pareja argumenta que el gobierno federal violo los derechos constitucionales y maritales de munoz, abogada y ciudadana estadounidense. >> en pleno vuelo, presentaron una demanda contra boeing. >> la querella dice que sufri lesiones fisicas

tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. the clerk: mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, bennet, blumenthal, boozman, butler brit, cortez masto, cotton cramer duckworth, durbin graham heinrich hyde-smith cain kennedy, king, lujan menendez, moran, ossoff, padilla peters reed rosen, rounds, schumer tillis van hollen warner warnock, warren whitehouse wicker and wyden. mr. mcconnell aye. ms. ernst, aye. mrs. gillibrand aye. mr. casey, aye. ms. lummis, aye. ms. sinema, aye. ms. smith, aye. ms. hassan, aye. senators voting in the negative -- cassidy, crapo, hagerty johnson, lee marshall, paul rubio, schmitt, scott of florida, tuberville and vance. mr. coons, aye. mr. barrasso, aye. mrs. capito, aye. mr. schatz, aye. the clerk: mr. thune, aye. mr. cruz, aye. the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. the clerk: mr. carper, aye. the clerk: mr. lankford, aye. ms. collins, aye. mr. cornyn, aye. ms. hirono, aye. mrs. fischer, aye. the clerk: mr. ricketts, aye. the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye.

tillis, aye. ms. murkowski, aye. mr. kaine, aye. &y the clerk: mrs.britt, aye. the clerk: mr.t of south carolina, no. the clerk: mr. llin, aye. mr. scott of south carolina, aye. the clerk: mr. vance, aye. the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. mr. ossoff, aye. the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. te: the clerk: ms. baldwin, aye. the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. padilla, aye. mr. durbin, aye. the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye. the clerk: mr. warner, aye. s@kb the clerk: mr. welch, no. warren, no. ms. lummis, no. ms. lummis, aye. mr. braun, aye. the clerk: mr. menendez, aye. vote: the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye. the presiding officer: the yeas are 72, the n the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a cse debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 243 h.r. 2872 an act to amend the permanent electronic duck stamp act of 2013 to allow the secretary of interior to issue

senator langford likes, senator tillis likes, not notable liberal members.se we have a former president who has said, and i appreciate his honesty, who has said he doesn't want to solution to the problem. he doesn't want our border problem fixed. until he is the president again, because he wants the issue. so what we are really dealing with, should we enact legislation that may solve the border problem, or should we keep it as an issue so that donald trump can campaign on it and we can all debate that issue during the campaign but take no action. that's what we are really debating. and the three bills that will come this week our diversions. they are minor bills, they don't really do anything new to keep our safety, for instance on this one, engaging in a high-speed chase is already a deportable offense. all they want to do is loosen due process provisions. for longtime residents. but this is pitiful, and it is minor-league stuff, compared to major legislation that will actually solve our border problem. and that legislation is pending in the senate. the sen

nothing will make us leaf, not the place of tilly doors or wide fos for us. we will remain that fast because this is overlap. it is easily also should be a freight so for the warring sides have confined to tax to military targets. but nearly 30 civilians, including journalists, have been killed. officials here are warning against as well as attempts to drag 11 on into a broader war. they accuse us of expanding the scope of its attacks while threatening and promoting proposals that are rejected, such as pushing hezbollah, north of the latania river, which is about 25 kilometers from the border. a has a bullet, says, is really threats to expand. the conflict are just rhetoric and pressure to reach a deal, but as well has escalated its fight against the group. and for now, at least at this, trying to destroy the party strength south of the tawny river center for their elsa 0 southern left and on the line. now to take a look at some of the days, other news, the russian military has launched their strikes on the ukrainian cities of keys and hockey. at least 6 peop

. >> republican senators james lankford of oklahomand thom tillis of north carolina talks about the surgegrants arriving in the u.s. and the state of the border with democrats. this is just under 25 minutes. >> it's been a big conversation in this body that actually matches the conversations happening around the country right now. if you ask any random person on the street the key issues they're thinking

and the selective pro tilly is stupid observation of selective speech. in the meantime, when all of this is, is all hopefully we're adopt, we will have lost yet more of our free speech fabric. yeah. but lying a little bit, why no would, would, would, would, is what's even more painful. let me go to daniel on this here is that, you know, a prior to all this, you know, they, a lot of conservatives got smuggling. you said you're aware for free speech, we're for free speech. ok. and then you have, i don't eat, we can spend a 25 minutes 30 minutes, just naming the names of people that as a, except for in this case, we see it all but know ben shapiro, i perfectly get it with him. this is his day and you've been doing it a long time with jordan peterson. wow. okay. douglas. mary. wow. okay. we go on in line and we want to jump in real quick. go ahead. don't. norman singles, dean was d o a in terms of the media. he was people say, you know, whatever happened to well i can tell you, i know a lot of people learned about norman critical saying for being a guest on

tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr.ing in thafrme -- durbin, gillibrand, hagerty, hassan, heinrich, hickenlooper, marshall, markerly, ossoff, smith, and sullivan. no senators voted in the negative.pb cleric clock mr. tuberville, aye -- the clerk: mr. tuberviblle, aye. mr. ernst, aye. -- ms. ernst, aye.e.■ñ the clerk: ms. the clerk: mr. rounds, aye.■k the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no.7 the clerk: mr. wyden, aye. the clerk: mr. carper, aye. the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. the clerk: mr. king,■Ñbñ the clerk: mr. wicker, a.y mr. kelly, aye. mr. peters, aye. vote: the clerk: ms. warren, aye. mr. kaine, aye.zd■ mr. van hollen, aye.■ the clerk: mr. johnson, aye..éw; the clerk: mr. kennedy, no.zá the clerk: mr. graham, aye. ms. stabenow, aye. the clerk: mr. mc aye.■q-=■ mrs. capito, aye. mr. markey, aye. mr. lankford, aye. mr. reed, mr. tester, aye. the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. menendez, the clerk: mr. bennet, aye.1■o the clerk: mr. paul, aye. the clerk: mr. e. mr. cardin, aye.■& the clerk: mr. vance, aye. ms. collins, aye.

lawmakers and political threats that they may face are real, but it becomes a question as senator thom tillis put it to me last week. where are republicans and will they have the vote on this deal? >> just mind blowing that james lankford who is about as conservative as they come is being threatened by the party, republican party in his state, because he is trying to work on doing something that will take a step towards helping the border crisis. really mind blowing. thank you so much for that great reporting. let's talk more about all of this with my panel. cnn's kristin holmes , priscilla alvarez and the author and editor of the new book hbc you made celebration o tomorrow, it is available everywhere you can get your books. thank you for coming. you are a oklahoma girl. you are somebody who has been covering donald trump for forever. what is your sense of the push and pull? i want to do something. before you answer the question, i want viewers to hear what donald trump said this weekend about this. >> is the leader of our party and there is zero chance that i will support this horrible open