congress is listening. more than 12525 members are now cosponsoring legislation into dude to address will be some aspects of this problem. it is encouraging to see elected officials so in tune with what their constituents want. and so now congress is poised to restrict stock trading with bipartisan support and we're here to help hammer out the details. the details are everything. there are several competing bills and both chambers of congress and when we see legislation advanced it will either be a first step towards creating real ethics rules from herbs of congress or mere window dressing for legalized corruption. i want to spend a few minutes i have with you today talk about what we see a sum of the important bright minds for you to consider as you move forward. first, as of four would recommend to do best duplicate aspects with the option to put any remaining assets and a blind trust that is subject to new public disclosure. the logic is simple. members of congress have nonpublic information and the powe

congress is listening. more than 125 members are now co-sponsoring legislation intended to address at least some aspects of this problem. it is encouraging to see elected officials so in tune with what their constituents want. congress is to restrict bilaw -- bipartisan support and we are here to hammer out the details. but the details are everything . there are competing bills in congress and when we see legislation advance, it will be a first step towards creating ethic rules for congress or mirror dressing for legalized corruption. so i want to see at pogo as the bright lines for you to consider. first as a floor we ask that you require members of congress to divest conflicting assets with the option to put any remaining assets in a blind trust subject to new public disclosures. the logic here is simple. members of congress have access to non-public information and the power to move markets. we must eliminate opportunities for insider trading and insulate members from even the perception that they're mak

congress is listening.ore than 125 members are now co-sponsoring legislation intended to address at least some aspects of this problem. it is encouraging to see elected officials so in tune with what their constituents want. congress is to restrict bilaw -- bipartisan support and we are here to hammer out the details. but the details are everything . there are competing bills in congress and when we see legislation advance, it will be a first step towards creating ethic rules for congress or mirror dressing for legalized corruption. so i want to see at pogo as the bright lines for you to consider. first as a floor we ask that you require members of congress to divest conflicting assets with the option to put any remaining assets in a blind trust subject to new public disclosures. the logic here is simple. members of congress have access to non-public information and the power to move markets. we must eliminate opportunities for insider trading and insulate members from even the perception that they're makin

congress is exempt from it. when you talk about true transparency, i think there is some transparency, but the transparency with respect to members of congress, how laws are made and financial conflicts of int interest, pales in respe. i would note in respect to disclosures and financial reports, they are accessible to the folks on this side -- >> what are they missing in. >> i think they're not easily accessible to the general public. they're not machine readable. you can only view one document at a time. if, for example, one of your constituents wants to view your transactions over ten years, they cannot easily do that. >> you have an accessibility based on something that can be fixed by looking at the web site. i'm talking about the disclosure. >> correct. >> is our ability as members of congress to tell our voters and tell every person in america here is our financial picture for our household. here it is. chairperson lofgren laid out her personal situation is each time that ethics disclosure comes. i know w

[laughter] immigration, may and congress. >> i hope i got that component to congress to say congresstainly memorialized the foreign policy through. to the extent congress has in fact not appropriated a sufficient number to detain everyone simultaneously, it has several different options it is given and then at most it's a bit of a strange argument for the petitioners to say they have limited resources that would cause fewer individuals to attempt to migrate illegally or inadmissibility the heart of this case is one of significant public benefit under 1182 because your arguments make a lot of sense but the other sides the government argue make a lot of sense when they articulate the significant public benefit exception and the question comes down to what does that mean, what does it encompass reasonably and have they explained why this would be a significant public benefit and that's the heart of the case. 1225 does have a mandatory detention and the may return to mexico but the key is the significant public benefit for if they stay consistent with past practice, that language authori

congress is policing congress.artment of justice can get involved in extreme situations and criminally investigate members of congress, although that is rare. the sec which we think of when we talk about insider trading activities, securities and exchange commission, they can get involved and we mentioned richard barr earlier. the sec still has an investigation open on him who is retiring at the end of the year at exiting the senate. i don't want to call them bit players but they are not the primary players when it comes to managing this type of activity. the executive branch can be huge if they do not do the right thing. host: pat in new jersey, republican line. caller: sir, isn't just looking at stocks kind of basic? what about children employed by government contractors? doesn't that also influence members of congress? isn't that a clear conflict of interest? host: mr. levinthal. guest: spouses can become a huge issue and they have become a major topic of debate in the conversation as to whether ban members of c

that is what congress intended. the point is under the law, under the statute the bed was supposed to receive those benefits all along. we go back and we put him close to the position he would've been in. there isn't an interest payment. >> can i just follow up on what justice kavanaugh said? so at your position every single time the agency misinterprets a statute it's always clear and unmistakable? it seems to me like sometimes you have here, and here as justice kavanaugh said, you had 20 years of interpretation one way, angela the federal circuit point out that it made 1111 look illogical and awkward because it didn't have to do with the presumption of sound condition. all misinterpretations of a statute clear? >> we think they are but even if the court thinks there are some statutory interpretation errors that wouldn't satisfy cue, this is that paradigmatic example. i want to address which you brought up about the supposed lack of clarity in the statute and that he is regulation. this is laid out most clearly in

again, i think the restrictions that apply to congress would not shut members of congress out of the financial market, as was suggested earlier. it would limit their ability to engage in the markets with financial instruments that don't pose the same conflicts as individual stock owners do. to your point earlier, about what is the goal, the goal is to make sure that members of congress already corruptly using information that they have. i think the goal has to be bigger than that. it has to be congress ethic rules amongst -- laws that are strong enough that the public doesn't have to worry. the appearance of a conflict is as damaging to the integrity of the institution as an actual conflict. >> let me ask questions i have been asked. if the goal is to keep the member of congress in the dark, and they don't know something they can act upon it, overstate that. it occurs to me that to some extent, the stock act of reporting undercuts the whole goal. for example, once a year my husband grumbles about having to fill out a form. once a year i find out what he's been doing. otherwise, i wou

[laughter] immigration, may and congress. >> help the foreign policy congress to say congress memorialized the foreign policy through b2c to the extent congress has not appropriated sufficient i number, amount of money detain everyone simultaneously. it's several different options and that most, that means executive has to do the best it can with the resources it has. it is a strange argument for petitioners to say they have limited resources when the district court found the use of mpp would cause fewer individuals to attempt to migrate illegally or in a busily in the individuals without requiring detention capacity so as a matter of fact after a full trial on the merits, mpp reduces detention costs. my friends and the other side occasionally sort of cost of these facts, we are defending a final judgment to district court with extensive factual findings for here we are and i'm sorry, i don't want to -- >> the heart of this case i think is what significant public benefits o under 1182 because yr arguments make a lot of sense but the otherse sides, governmes or units make sense when they ar

congress provided for that. and if you don't, if you forfeit your right, congress provided for finality in v.a. decision with a very narrow decision that piggybacked on top of a narrow -- [inaudible] through the regulations. >> thank you.ic >> justice -- [inaudible] thank you, counsel. >> one last -- of those 14 cases, counsel, of those 14 regulars that were invalidated, how many on step one and step two? >> is i'm sorry, i don't know, but i will tell you that i don't think that there is much of a distinction here because the theory that they have for chevron step one is it's ambiguous, therefore, you could not reasonably conclude otherwise. but the theory on chevron step two is that the agency did not reasonably construe the ambiguity. so if you lose on step two, it's also becausen you've acted unreasonably. under they are theory. so i don't thinkp there's any real distinction. their theory, as my friend suggested, it covers all errors, all interpretive statutory errors, all invalidations of regs, and that is a

telling congress, don't include this burden in congress says no. we wanted in there.as a very intentional act and no explanation. >> counted it happened? please correct me if i'm wrong. you have a client. at the time he listed the sound but not sound now. >> let's see if he was sound in the statute says he is sound in he listed if a or b and these are prohibited he is sound unless he is not he is sound unless he is not sound. he is not sound if a or b. >> correct. >> a is he was not sound when he signed up. >> so the v.a. examiner spec that's not your client. we are not there. he is not sound under aid. so now under be it has to be really get evidence that he was really sick before he was accepted and the sickness was not aggravated by him being in the service to make a may have understood on —- misunderstood. >> probably. i wanted to get this right in my mind. if he's not sound when he signed up, no matter. as a special definition. not sound, there are two situations he is not sound. the first says defects and deformities know at the time of the. examination. he's no

congress is policing congress.epartment of justice can get involved in extreme situations and criminally investigate members of congress, although that is rare. the sec which we think of when we talk about insider trading activities, securities and exchange commission, they can get involved and we mentioned richard barr earlier. the sec still has an investigation open on him who is retiring at the end of the year at exiting the senate. i don't want to call them bit players but they are not the primary players when it comes to managing this type of activity. the executive branch can be huge if they do not do the right thing. host: pat in new jersey, republican line. caller: sir, isn't just looking at stocks kind of basic? what about children employed by government contractors? doesn't that also influence members of congress? isn't that a clear conflict of interest? host: mr. levinthal. guest: spouses can become a huge issue and they have become a major topic of debate in the conversation as to whether ban members of

congress is outgunned. it gives lobbyists an outsized role in the process which i don't think services the institution well. third and finally we made a number of recommendations related to collaboration and stability. when we took up that topic i was not convinced that we could make any recommendations in this space and when i mentioned to colleagues, most offered to pray for us. or giggled. we put a bunch of recommendations in that arena that any and of themselves any one of them doesn't seem like a game changer but represents striej interventions to change up the incentives in this place so that you're more likely to see the democrats and republicans who have -- who are not going to check their ideology at the door but will be more willing to collaborate on the things in which they can find some common ground. even something small. william told the story of showing up to freshman orientation and democrats being told to board one bus and republicans told to board another. one of our recommendations was st

congress provided for that and if you forfeit your rights congress provided for finality in va board's decision with a very narrow exception that piggybacked on top of a very narrow applicationn through the regulation. >> thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> of the 14 cases, counsel how many were w on step two? >> i don't know but i will tell you i don't think that there is there'smuch of a distinction hee because the theory that they have is ambiguous and therefore you couldn't conclude otherwise but the theory is that the agency didn't reasonably construe the ambiguity so if you lose out on step two it's also because you acted unreasonably under their theory. so i don't think there is a real distinction. as my friend suggested, it covers all interpretive in validations and that is a change from a statute that's existed in its present form for almost 60 years, sorry, regulation and thenor statute for almost 60 years. >> thank you, counsel. rebuttal, ms. bostwick? >> thank you, your honor. i have a few points i would like to make but first i would like to correct a handful of mischarac

-- and member of congress?> i think technolog -- technology is zooming ahead, government services, constituent services, ways in which members of congress communicate, stay in touch with a profoundly rapidly changing environment, is really important. >> the congresswoman has always said every time she goes out in public that she has the best casework team in the country. if she has a problem, we will get it solved. we have to think out-of-the-box quite a bit to get those salt for her and the constituency -- those solved for her and the constituency. >> i'm delighted to inform you that your office is the winner of the congressional management foundation 2020 democracy award for life in congress work. congratulations to you. >> thank you, thank you. congratulations, congresswoman. >> thank you. i am proud of my team who make this happen more than anyone else. this is your number 14 we are wrapping up and i'm proud to say that my chief and deputy chief has been with me. >> i have hired grown-ups experienced in man

if the cdc is able to extend title 42, why is it up to congress? why is it on congress? jen psaki: congress gave the cdc authority to determine when conditions would be met to lift title 42, which has never been an immigration authority, it has always been a health authority. when they determine we no longer have conditions to take action to quickly deport people who came to the country, they made that health decision based on data and science and cdc decision-making. congress would need to make any decision about the change to authority they gave to the cdc. reporter: they have the authority? jen psaki: if the health and data conditions change, they could make a different decision, but they make decisions faced on health and data, not politics or where members of congress sit. reporter: to follow up on that question, something that was asked earlier. is the president willing to sign something if it comes to his desk as part of a legislative package that would change the rules for how title 42 is administered? if it is up to congress, that would get to the president's de

and congress hasn't done so here. second, the words congress did use in the context where it placed them can't firms section 111's traditional scope. read together, key statutory terms like the requirement standards before individual sources and focused on their performance show that congress did not greenlight this transformative power. and finally, standing is no reason to avoid the [inaudible] we're injured by a judgment that brings back to life a wall that hurts us and it takes off the box a rule that benefits us. responders arguments sounded business and it's their burden to show that he bears voluntary cessation and a stay are enough to in the case. they are not. we are asking for the classic appellate relief of on doing that the court quoted, and this court has full power to give it. and the way the issues at stake and for that ensured. in contrast, it is important but environmentally focused role congress and the states are able to wait all of the competing factors and constituents in play. the lower court was

y and congress is exempt. when you talk about true transparency, i think there is some transparency, with the transparency with respect to members of congress, how lars -- how laws are made in their financial conflict of interest pales in comparison to the executive branch. i would also note that, with respect to financial disclosures in periodic transaction reports, they are accessible to, i think the folks on this side -- >> what are they missing? >> i think they are not easily accessible to the general public . they are not machine-readable. you can only view one document at a time. if, for example, one of your constituents wanted to review all of your transactions -- they cannot easily do that. >> you have an accessibility based on something that could be fixed, make it more searchable and the website. i'm talking about disclosure itself. >> disclosure is not direct conflict. >> it's our ability as members of congress to tell voters in every person in america, here's our financial picture for our entire ho

why did congress enact into law? it assumed presidents would voluntarily comply both because it would surely recognize the rule of law that is so fundamental to our democracy and because they would want to preserve their place in history through a full historical record. we now have reason to question the efficacy of the norm based system that underlies the pra. it is therefore up to congress to transform the pra to a statute that achieves the intended purpose, preserving our history. as a first step congress should establish a bright line rule that all presidential record given their inherent value merit preservation by eliminating the provision of the pra. congress required the white house counsel to certify on a quarterly basis was pra covered employees who are in compliance with the law certification for the level of accountability and transparency currently absent in the statute. congress should require the office of administration to report to congress in the archivist at least annually on eop's implementation

when the democrats interrupted congress and had a sit in on the house floor and stopped congress? >> excuse me. could you rephrase the question? >> i'm entitled to ask my questions the way i want to. may proceed? >> yes. >> if somebody broke the law in an effort to interfere with the counting of the electoral votes that person would be an enemy of the constitution, am i right about that? >> breaking the law is unlawful. there have been over 700 people charged with what happened on january 6. >> and those people were trying to interfere with the lawful process of counting the vote for the electoral college, right? >> i would assume, yes, they did. they stopped the count. >> those people would be enemies of the constitution, you would agree with that? >> i don't know. i don't know if it defines it that way. >> haven't taken the old that was on the screen if you are aware that someone was going to lawfully -- unlawfully interfere with the constitutional process of counting the electoral votes you would be obliged to try to stop them. >> i object. the claim is not she violated the oaf

and i say i miss my friends in the congress but i don't miss congress. this hyper polarized environment. i pursuing my curiosities in the institution of global affairs which is a lifetime -- really find consensus on critical challenges. i opened up my own independent bookstore. oyster bay was where theodore roosevelt lived and worked and died. some of his executive offices are across the street from my bookshop. we opened in november, theaters books. we specialize in history and current affairs. we also have bestsellers in children's books. everything you expect to see in a bookstore. it is one of the most enjoyable things i have ever done question -- one of the most enjoyable things i have ever done. host: are you still writing books? guest: i am in my third novel. i plan to reserve this entire day to finalizing my third novel. when c-span asked me, of course i said yes. host: we appreciate that. charlotte is in delaware. what is on your mind this morning. you would like to talk to former rep. francis rooney? caller: i hear a lot of democrats and other

to compare real congress with fictional congress de-- depicted in "house of cards." one episode majority leader actually murders a journalist. whenever short comings you may persevere. let me put your minds at ease, neither one ever pushed a journalist or anyone else in front of a train. that what this member in north carolina should have said, he should have said, there are all kinds of people, and the good ones don't make the news, and should have told story of congressman phil rowe from tennessee, he was a doctor. served in army, later in life. i would see him at the airport. it was there, at the airport in charlotte, phil rowe saved a man's life. quietly, humbley, he did the most important thing a person could do, he saved a life, that doesn't make the news, netflix doesn't do tv series on decent members of congress. those who served and sackfieded for our country, lost limbs, laugh eyesight, and worked in healthcare or ministry. the bad ones get all of the attention, this modern obsession with negative tie negativity does not need to be enhanced. this member of

that is why congress needs to act.rom a form, to transparency to nondiscrimination rules, to empowering consumers pick their own decisions about content moderation. these steps will go a long way bring accountability to big tech for enclosing what you think of for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions. >> a gentleman yields back for the chart will not recognize virtually commissioner stark you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you chairman doyle, ranking member, and members of the committee thank you for the opportunity. we stand truly in history first the covid-19 pandemic is transform the way we work, learn and connect with each other. second the challenge of our day of the network security is never been more important. finally the consequences of climate change are becoming alarmingly clear. the scc has indispensable role to play for my part i am proud to say that we are helping make america more equitable, more secure and more sustainable. has morphed into a monstrous covid 19 devi

ctai urges congress to do the same this year. second, it's in our national interest to identify a spectrum pipeline of bands that can be auctioned for exclusive licensed use. the lower band is a top priority. it's adjacent to existing full power commercial spectrum and offers the ability to provide large channels making it an ideal fit for congress for 5g. and now congress can take steps to streamline this access and we support the act that brings the process to bring that to action. at the same time it extends auction authority. congress's long leveraged directed spectrum auctions to key priorities, including deficit reduction. we welcome the opportunity to collaborate. we would note the chairwoman recently asked for proceeds for the ng 911 services. it could provide a boost to our nation's 911 system and the leadership. it can help to meet this challenge and provide guide posts for advancing u.s. 5g leadership. finally there's much that we can do to reutilize a unified voice to spectrum management. while it generally works well

and congress is back in town today. the president last week said he's going to go back to congress looking for additional ms. psaki: yeah. reporter: supplemental ukraine funding. do you have a dollar figure for how much the president need is going to go ask for and how long that money would last? ms. psaki: sure. not quite yet. he is expect he'll have consultations and conversations with military leadership and, of course, leadership from the state department over the course of the coming days. i expect it'll be something later in the week, and expect it'll be a longer-term package or proposal. go ahead. reporter: and just a quick one on the breaking news: twitter agreeing to let elon musk purchase make his go through with this purchase. do you have a response to that? and does the white house have any concern that this new agreement might have president trump back on the platform? ms. psaki: well, i'm not going to comment on a specific transaction. what i can tell you as a general matter: no matter who owns or runs twi

these two men are in contempt of congress. we must fight them both for their brazen disregard of their duties and for our laws and our institutions. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their commitment to providing a full and factual accounting of everything that led to january 6. the events of that day, to ensure such an attack on a republic never happens again. i served in the navy for 20 years. when you talk to people in the military, that's what they say. they say they served in the military. they served the american. -- the american people. i continued to serve, as we all do, on this committee. when mr. scavino and mr. navarro entered the administration, the agreed to serve the american people. the president has a unique duty under the constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. those that serve under the president, especially those closest to him in the administrat

money they have been making. >> congress makes the rules for congress.if some out cut side organization is going to put the wheels in place for lawmakers. you are going to have to effectively have lawmakers and rely on them to do with themselves. so, as a result, you are getting these arguments within congress as to how hard they do want to be on themselves. the democrats right now, of course they are in the majority in both the house and senate, and they're leading the charge here and there are some republicans who have already cosponsored bills, they are definitely out front and trying to advocate for this. even kevin mccarthy, the minority leader for the republicans in the house, has said, hey, i am very open to doing something like this as well. but we got a very strong sense from lawmakers today at this hearing that the clock is ticking. taking. we are almost into the fourth quarter of the session. we have elections coming up in november. we know of opportunity here, if congress is going to do something, is closing. it is already pretty narrow as it

we the congress to do the same. second it's in our national interest to identify his spectrum pipeline to the option for exclusive licensees. this band is adjacent to the existing full power spectrum offers the ability to provide large channels making it an ideal fit for 5g and congress can streamline this access. we support the spectrum innovation acts to enhance the process to bring back critical ban to off schenn. congress should identify and set clear deadlines at the same time it expands auction authority. congress has long leverage congressionally directed spectrum including deficit reduction. we deferred to the committee held auction procedure be in welcome the opportunity to collaborate. chair one woman rosenworcel proposed -- and that's an important goal worthy of our support. such an approach would provide a much-needed list touring nations system in wireless leadership. third ctia supports a national spectrum strategy that can help lead the challenge and provide a guidepost for advancing u.s. 5g leadershi

i don't need congress. i'll do this stuff on my own ted kennedy finally would have been more reluctant of the three of them to bypass congress. he was a product of congress. he loved the institution had he won the presidency he would have he would have given legislation. a bigger chance than i think the other two would have any also had a broader agenda than as other brothers. they it stretched across not just domestic affairs, but foreign affairs as well, which people don't realize having said that partisanship of today and the inability of past legislation would have forced him to the same place jack and bobby wound up which was exploiting all the tools of unilateral action that presidents have today. so all three of the kennedy brothers were they to wake up in 2022? each of them is president. they all would have loved the powers that they're disposal but for different reasons. well, thank you so much larry. i think that is a really great setup. actually for amity actually is our next panelist and that co

in congress. correct? rep.ene: finding evidence of voter fraud and trying to object. >> if there had been rumors of a rule change, that would be something that would be important for you to tweet out and talk about publicly. rep. greene: if possibly would have been. i don't remember this tweet. i don't remember it. >> you know that he has responded to tweets you have sent out over the years, correct? rep. greene: i don't know. i don't know who retreats -- retweets and response. that is not something i spend much time looking at. rep. greene: you spent some time looking at it. rep. greene: occasionally i have some time and i look at two response, but i do not know what he has responded, what he is weeded or retweeted. -- tweeted retweeted -- or retweeted. >> what he had set about being taken on board right away. rep. greene: i don't look at comments on twitter because they are filled with bots and hateful people, and i don't read many comments. hardly ever. >> you read mr. alexander's response to your december 3

congress.enator cornyn used the bipartisan support to get this cast in record time and now we can get critical equipment to ukraine in record time. tom: what would you like to see president biden do with the authority your bail will give him? sen. cornyn: what has been so challenging about all this is that nobody knows how long it is going to last, least of all vladimir putin. he thought, i think, that he would walk into kyiv like the taliban walked into afghanistan. at that would accomplish his goals. boy, was he surprised. he was surprised by the grit of the ukrainian people and he was surprised by the charismatic leadership of president zelenskyy, who i think of as a modern-day reincarnation of winston churchill when it comes to rallying the people not only of his country, but around the world, for the cause of the ukrainians. senator cardin is right, the president has existing authorities. but one of the problems is getting this equipment to the ukrainians fast enough. that is the message w

so i got up and said my father was here, who was a member of congress okey had been a member of congressso he could be on the house. and i think my parents, my constituents, and i said briefer than i am saying it now, when i come to congress i will say that i've come to fight against hiv and aids. so i go sit down, and i look at these people thinking that was really short, right? what is a matter with you? what did you say you came here to fight hiv and aids? and i said because i did. i realized that they had that discrimination that it was out there, 1987, discrimination. we are trying to find to prevention, cure, care, research for a cure and to do so in a community-based way. what they were saying is why would you want the first thing anybody knows about you in this congress to be hiv and aids? isn't that sad? the president of the united states at that time had not even mentioned the word aids, so none of us. you ask about then and now. now, joe biden is a great resident. what i have said to him sometimes, i am glad you did not win before because we really needed you to win now. [appl

we haven't seen subpoenas to members of congress. last night congressman adam schiff on the january 6th investigation, told me that would effectively sort of proverbially blowing up the house of representatives to start subpoenaing members of congress. seems like there's practical considerations there as well, though. the committee presumably wants to move fast and have their report out before the election in november while they still have the authority to convene this investigation before the republicans likely take over. is the expectation that any subpoena would just end up with a protracted court battle and might not force a court appearance? >> yes. the problem with the subpoenas is that as the committee has talked about before there could be these legal i issues and forcing one against the member of congress. it's not without precedent for a congressional panel to subpoena another member. we have seen the ethics committee do that in its investigations. but something like this, there is the real possibility it ends up in court.

i hope congress, i hope congress will move on this funding quickly. i believe they will. i want to thank congress, democrats and republicans, for their support and the people of ukraine and next week i will be in alabama to visit lockheed martin plant that manufacturers the jav -- that manufactures the javelin anti-helicopter missile we've been sending to ukraine and thank the workers for making the weapons that help stop russia's advances in cities like kyiv. their hard work has played a critical role in ensuring putin's strategic failure in ukraine and they should know we know it. in addition to this supplemental funding i'm also sending to congress a comprehensive package of -- that will enhance our underlying effort to accommodate the russian oligarchs and make sure we take their ill-begotten gains. we're going to accommodate them. we're going to seize their yachts, their luxury homes and other ill-begotten gains of putin's kleptocracy. the guys who are the kleptocracy. but these are bad guys. this legislative package gives law enforcement capabilities to seize proper

my hope and expectation's congress will move and act quickly. i want to thank the congress, democrats and republicans, for their support of the people of ukraine. our unity at home and with our allies and partners in the unity with the ukrainian people is sending an unmistakable message to putin, he will not succeed in dominating and occupying all of ukraine. it will not happen. in addition to bolstering ukraine's assistance on the battlefield, we are bolstering our support for the people of ukraine. the united states is announcing we intend to provide an additional 500 million dollars in direct economic assistance to the ukrainian government. this brings our total economic support for ukraine to $1 billion in the past few months. this is money the government can do -- used to help stabilize their economy and pay for workers and provide essential services to the people of ukraine. these past few weeks have seen the terrible human cost of putin's ambition for conquest and control. approximately two thirds of all ukrainian children have been displ

and after 200 failed attempts by congress to pass similar legislation.s is about 40 minutes. ♪ ♪ ♪ ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states accompanied by the vice president of the united states. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [background noises] [applause] [applause] [background noises] >> thank you. little unusual to the bill sign, not say anything then speak it. but that is how we set it up. ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. i just signed into law the antilynching act. making lynching a federal hate crime. the first time in american history. i want to think vice president harris who was a key cosponsor of this bill when she was a united states senator. [cheering] [applause] i also into think speakers below's while policy, especially congressman and bobby rush, senator dick durbin and cory booker. [applause] i also into think senator tim scott who could not be here today. the civil rights are gathered here today most of all the family, thank you for never giving up. never ever giving up. [applause] as a matter fact, told me her mother was here, when