with growing technology, diversifying economies, that makes trade even more difficult. digital, for e example. that is important. theds u.s. leads the world in digital trade. other countries say, wow, that is a great source of revenue, especially if it only comes from another country. that can be damaging in various ways. among them, access to information in the flow of information. that is important as well. china, as a competitor, let's face it, they are engaging in places around the world where we are not. that is a problem. i think we stand to see a vigorous vigorous engagement in theng incoming administration especially in contrast to the outgoing administration. >> talking about reducing the amount of fentanyl that comes

into the country and other things. is that the proper use of a tariff? >> fentanyl being a dangerous product, it is an unstable source of revenue, i cannot see a tariff being a good application there on fentanyl. >> if we put these against the country, the country response, can reduce the amount of fentanyl. >> you can continue watching this on the free c-span now out. our 45 year commitment rise gavel to gavel coverage of congress. the senate returning to continue debate on a bill that would require the homely dipper -- homeland security department. both are possible today, but not currently scheduled. your watching live coverage of the senate karen c-span2.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will lead us in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, you are our rock and fortress. keep us from disappointing you. help our lawmakers to walk in your precepts so that they can remain within the circle of your protection and blessings. lord, turn their ears to listen to your admonition, as you infuse them with the courage to obey your commands.

we have trusted you since the birth of this land we love. that is why we will declare your glory all day long. lord, as our senators strive to please you today, we declare that you alone are our hope. and, lord, continue to be with those who battle the catastrophic wildfires in southern california. we pray in your strong name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. the president pro tempore. mr. grassley: i'd like to speak for two or three minutes. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. grassley: the jewish people have faced many libels and many

libels over their history. in their case for millennia. today the jewish state faces the dirty libel -- can you believe it? -- of committing genocide. all while defending themselves from hamas. remember, hamas has pledged to destroy the jewish people in their homeland. now, that happens to be real genocide. israel's accusers cite large civilian casualty numbers traced to hamas self-reporting. now as we know, hamas has a history of inflating numbers, not distinguishing fighters from

civilians, and listing male soldiers as women or children. a recent report by the henry jackson society confirms that the widely cited gaza casualty statistics suffer from all forms of fornication. still, as we'd all agree, any civilian death in gaza is a real tragedy. while israel goes out of its way to issue warnings to civilians, hamas actually encourages civilians to ignore evacuation warnings while embedding in schools and hospitals to use humans or civilians as human shields. hamas officials are on record

that they seek civilian casualties for propaganda effect. the definition of genocide in the united states and also under international law focuses on the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national ethnic, racial, or religious group. a very recent amnesty international report adopts a new definition just to tar israel with that disgusting libel. now, amnesty international israel was not involved in the report, and as you might expect, rejects its central claim. so i want my fellow senators to

know that i, too, reject this bias and this misleading report, and i say shame on them. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. thune: mr. president, thank you. it's more than a thousand miles from el paso, texas, to athens,

georgia. yet a man who crossed the border illegally was able to wreak havoc in-at-thents. -- athens. an illegal immigrant murdered nursing student laken riley while she was out for a morning run on the campus of athens, georgia. mr. president, this was a tragedy, and it was prevent able. the man who killed laken riley should have been -- should not have been, i should say, in the united states in the first place. he definitely shouldn't have been on the streets after previously being involved in two crimes. but he was. and it's unfortunately one example of how the biden border crisis has made every state a border state. like many illegal immigrants who law enforcement encounters at the border, laken's killer was released into the interior of the united states on parole. he made his way to new york city where he was arrested and released before a retainer could be issued and he could be turned

over to immigration authorities. then he went to athens, georgia. he was cited in georgia for shoplifting. and once again he was released. and now we know what happened next. laken's killer is now serving a life sentence for murder. while her family can perhaps take at least some comfort in the fact that justice had been served, laken riley should be alive today. mr. president, the truth is that what happened to laken riley could have happened anywhere. that's why the senate is currently considering senator britt's laken riley act. this bill would help reduce the chances of another tragedy like this one by requiring that illegal immigrants be detained when they're charged with theft-related crimes like the with unfor which laken riley -- laken's killer, i should say, was cited less than five months before he killed her. if this bill had been law then, laken riley might well be alive

today. mr. president, i hope to see this bill become law. and i hope that my democrat colleagues are as committed to making it law as we are on this side of the aisle. this is not a comprehensive bill. but it is an important step toward keeping americans safe. and it should be an easy yes vote for every senator. we've had strong bipartisan votes for this bill in recent days. and i hope that that will continue. we're going to haven amendment process here on the floor, the type of amendment process that's been lacking in recent years. we will push for votes on amendments that make this bill even stronger. one of the amendments that would do that is senator ernst's amendment known as sarah's law. like laken riley, sarah root was killed by an illegal immigrant. soon after graduating from college in 2016, sarah was killed by a drunk driver who was in the country illegally. the driver was arrested but he

posted bond and fled shortly after the crash that took sarah root's life. the root family didn't get justice. so senator ernst's amendment would require ice to detain illegal immigrants that committed a crime that resulted death or seriously bodily injury. every member of the senate should be able to agree that illegal immigrants that commit a crime that kills or seriously injures another person should at the very least be detained. mr. president, in the coming days, the senate will have a serious debate about this and other amendments and about the laken riley act. that's the senate's role. we'll have debate and we'll aim to produce the strongest bill that we can pass into law. that's our goal. and i hope our democrat colleagues are as interested in making the law as we are. mr. president, time will tell.

mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

quorum call:

>> i had told some that have surprised this morning but we are on course the birthday next week. do that one year. but i want at this time at this country to do with the reality of where we are and how we go forward. in 1972 as hakeem jeffries refer

to this morning and archer of the congressional black caucus yvette clarke new i start at 17 years old with shirley chisholm. people thought shirley chisholm was out of place. i remember going with her as she ran for president. in 84 i was there when reverend jackson ran. in 2004 i ran iran. it's been a continual journey and i was in chicago thinking of shirley when i walked on the stage to say she didn't get the nomination but we live to see a woman to get one. [applause] and a woman come very close to

breaking the ceiling not only for blacks but for women as well. i watched her career from district attorney to attorney general to state to yes, senator the vice president. she never shame us. she never let us down. and i want you this morning to welcome the vice president of the united states -- [shouting] -- kamala harris. >> good morning. good morning, everybody. [applause] good morning, good morning. good morning, everyone. [applause] good morning. [cheers and applause] good morning, , man. good morning to everyone. please have a seat. i heard everybody was saying at this point. i thought i would come by and say hi.

and most judges would like to thank everybody come starting with our reverend sharpton for the truth tellers who are here, in a spirit of dr. king and this day that we celebrate him, his birthday january 15, and everyday, and a spirit with which he did what he did. reverend sharpton, you and the leaders of nan live that legacy by the way that is important. this is about soldiers who understand the importance of using our seat, praying, doing good works that are about lifting up the people with a sense of optimism and purpose, always nan, reverend sharpton speaking truth even when it is difficult to speak and more difficult to hear. the leaders here understand as often say the true measure of

the strength of a leader is not based on who you beat down. it is based on who you lift up. [applause] i thank you for always lifting the of but more poorly i thank you for lifting up whole communities of people who must be seen and heard. and you deserve all the dignity that god gave them to be able to live a life that is productive and a life where they have a quality of life where they know how important they are and how powerful they are. so i came by to say thank you. as you all know i am a native californian born in oakland, california, but i do want to speak about the california fires and the devastation that has occurred in southern california because of these most recent wildfires. communities, you're talking about generations of families that lived there.

some of the first hard-working black families were able to buy property in california and passed down those homes through generations. many of those families who live in those homes and live in a generationally within a block of each other have lost everything. so i want to speak about them. i know we pray for them but also i have been thinking about also in the context of what i saw when i was in north carolina when i talked to families in georgia after most recently hurricane helene. so nan, as we move forward with this new year one of requests i make of the leaders here is let's use the voice of nan anyway lifts up what these moments of tragedy in these extreme weather events are doing to the communities that you have historically worked to uplift. because there are a couple

things going on that ac as patterns. one is this. it's about what the insurance companies are not doing -- >> that's right. [applause] >> to extend coverage. they are canceling coverage, making more difficult for young homeowners are just first time by their home, not even ensuring them. and what that means to those families and whole communities with these predictable extreme weather events, which are increasing. climate change is real. we have long known that some of the communities that will be most devastated by them opportunities of color, hard-working communities, like folks we know. we talk about the gulf states, right? so that's one issue. the other issue that these extreme weather events are highlighting but is a big issue for all of us to deal with is the rampant amount of missed and

disinformation. that is transiting the route communities, and a work that we then must do to not only recognize that's happening but to get how we're going to jump into that stream of miss and disinformation in a way that we at the very least can debate it based on the facts that we know to be true in terms of what's happening on the ground but also to rebut the sources of that mis- and disinformation because it often leads to people who nan has historically worked for an a place of despair and in a place of helplessness and hopelessness. again using as example extreme weather events, when people being told all, there would be no fema response, oh, you're not entitled to this or that, or leading them astray with

information that is misinformation about what they will be entitled to which exceeds what it might be and then they feel disappointed at the turn the whole system off. i'm here to talk about these couple of things because they been on my lined judgment on my mind in the last week but for quite some time. i want to close my comments by saying this. this is an extraordinary group of leaders and what dr. king taught us and the king family is here, you know i'm always quoting coretta scott king. ours is the journey. ours is a journey and the fight that we are in which a fight to uplift the people, the fight for freedom, the fight for civil rights, the fight for dignity, the fight for human rights must be fought and won with each generation. what we know is that our definition of a win is a a definition that takes us over a period of time where part of how

we measure the win is are we making progress? how we measure the win is based on the knowledge that it is an enduring fight, and that we must he strong and that whatever the outcome of any particular moment, we can never be defeated. our spirit can never be defeated. because when that happens we won't win. and as far as i know and when i look at the group of leaders who come this is a group of winners. this is a group of winners. [applause] but let's stay in a fight. let's do what we've got to do and again i thank you, nan for all you've done for me and so many people who are not in this room. the blast. have a wonderful new year. thank you. [cheers and applause] [applause]

>> wow, -- while you're standing come we have different face the river i want andrea to get on the side of the vice president. let's have a site that moment of prayer for those in california. let us join hands in a silent moment of prayer for those in california. [silence] >> amen. as dr. king would say, we shall overcome. ♪ we shall overcome ♪

♪ we shall overcome ♪ ♪ some day ♪ ♪ oh, deep in my heart i do believe ♪ ♪ we shall overcome someday ♪ >> thank you. you may be seated. they do, madam vice president. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> well, was that a good surprise?

>> a couple of reminders we talked about. we will have a new u.s. attorney in the state of vermont and in the last trump administration the justice department in the trump administration worked closely with senator leahy democrat and with governor scott republican and came up with consensus choice. i seek your assistance in helping make sure that we are successful in getting very competent u.s. attorney in vermont and hopefully with the cooperation of governor scott a republican as i mentioned and

senator sanders and me. >> senator, as i discussed in a meeting i look forward to working with you and cooperating with you and learning about the issues you have in vermont. >> thank you. on that one of the issues we talked about we are one of two states that does not have a residential reentry program. that is outrageous in my mind. i know you worked on the first step act but our federal judges or federal prosecutors are federal public defender are all in support of a residential reentry program. our state and hawaii are the only two states without it and our justice system and officials believe we need it. i seek your energetic assistance in helping us get that residential reentry program. >> can i address that? >> i would like you to. >> i didn't realize you were the

only two states without a reentry program. we started that what i was a prosecutor and those are so vitally important. one thing i learned is the bureau of prisons 98% of people in the bureau of prisons will be released. they are not serving life sentences. so we must do everything we can when people are in prison to help rehabilitate them for when they get out and that's what reentry is so vital. we tell people get out of prison and become a productive member of society. go get a job. yet people don't know how to go find a driver's license. it of how to get to work. >> thank you very much. i have confidence you will do that, given your history on the first step act and other things that you did. i do have concerns that noh about you but with president trump has said about the desire on his part to go after what he considers to be political adversaries.

his own words, for instance, says that if he selected he will seek to appoint a special prosecutor to go after joe biden. i assume you've had no discussion with president-elect trump about that? >> absolutely not. >> and speedy nor did senator schiff. him looking look at you. >> my colleague, , senator schi, who i think did incredible good job, president biden had different points, pardon me, president trump a different views about that where he said on a number of occasions that he should be prosecuted, everybody on the january 6th committee should be prosecuted for the lies in treason. no discussion about that? >> know, senator. >> and liz cheney also he said she should be prosecuted for

lies in treason as well. >> we've had no discussions about liz cheney. >> you have satisfied me this is not an agenda you have. president trump has said, satisfied me when he says things that are pretty provocative he's often serious and senator cruz want, i want and that is have justice department that is not going after people on the basis of them being political opponents. my understanding in listening to your answers to the questions along this line is that you have no intention, no intention of pursuing people on the basis of them being a political opponent. >> no one will be prosecuted, investigated because they are a political opponent. that's what we've seen for the last four years in this administration. people will be prosecuted based on the facts and the law and fairly. >> that's good. i disagree about the

characterization the past four years but we don't have to discuss about with your assurance the next four years there will be no effort on the part of the justice department to pursue a political adversary, right? >> every case will be day that every case will be done on a case-by-case basis. no one should be prosecuted for political purposes. >> i have a couple other things. one is the false claims act, senator grassley, thank you for the false claims act. in vermont there are incredible challenges for folks try to get healthcare. it's really expensive. there was a shocking report in the "wall street journal" about a major insurer that is ripping off taxpayers by overbilling, overprescribing on medicare advantage, billions of dollars. the report indicated the insurers are adding diagnosis basically to make money not to help the patient, that ensures

sick nurses to find diagnoses the doctors didn't find. that ensures got paid to cover patients who are already getting coverage through the v.a. and it adds up to billions of dollars and vermonters are struggling under the weight of incredibly expensive healthcare. the false claims act, senator grassley authored, is an area where the attorney general can protect consumers against ripoffs. i'm not asking you to comment on this particular wall street report but i want your assurance that in addition to fighting crime and we're all for you doing that you were going to be there protecting consumers and taxpayers from ripoffs. >> absolutely. when i was attorney general we went after a pharmaceutical company, medicaid fraud. i can't remember the settlement value can may be ongoing but it was a large, large number. people don't understand that's hurting the taxpayers of

florida, of vermont. >> so use that false claims act and we can thank senator grassley four. it's cold out in vermont. we need vigorous enforcement to protect taxpayers and vermonters from ripoffs charges. thank you. i yield. >> senator schmitt. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can -- good to see you and i meant every word of that compose introductory remarks. i have the greatest deal of respect for you personally professionally. this is a great pick by president trump. you are going to do a great job. i do want to say it appears as of trump derangement syndrome is alive and well. the focus of these questions today are disturbing. i don't think my democratic colleagues learned a very much from the november 5 fifth election. the american people rejected all this. their obsession with president trump, didn't vote for the them electorally and i think of extend this path it will be in a

permanent minority. [inaudible] >> lance like. that's up them to decide. i do want to comment on this newfound religion on independence from the attorney general. i will remind my colleagues the last three democratic attorney generals, attorneys general for the united states of america were perhaps the most highest politically biased ag's we've had in modern political history in the united states. there are some receipts. eric holder described himself as obama's heatshield and wing man. this committee moved forward and one of my colleagues reference the attorney general shouldn't be the wing man of the president. eric holder has bragged about it. it. he bragged about it. loretta lynch met with bill clinton on the tarmac in a private meeting while she was investigating hillary clinton. anna merrick garland probably

gets however many gold stars you want to give for the most politicized, weaponized department of justice we have ever seen. it's worth exploring that i do want to get your comment on it. to take a step back i think part of leadership is understanding the moment you are in and the landscape. we have never seen anything like this. there is a story to be told. the arc of this story begins when joe biden gave a speech demonizing half the country calling them threats to the republican threats to democracy, these maga republicans and i'm going to have the again to make sure president trump never gets back in the white house. miraculously these zombie cases are resurrected and let's talk about a couple of those. you've got of course of jack smith the overzealous and disgraced special prosecutor but time and time again has been

slapped down by course for overcharging and taking overtly political position. he and his postmortem this week at college it was unusual for him to be tasked with going after the political opponent of the president. it didn't stop him. the supreme court did. speaking recent news of a cease-fire agreement in the middle east. i have good news -- i have just been informed by the administration that a deal has been agreed to. it is welcome news that there is an agreement that will free many of the hostages. a cease-fire is very good news for israel, for america, for the palestinian people, and particularly for the hostage families who have waited so long in agony. a cease-fire will reduce violence in gaza and harm to innocent civilians. it couldn't have happened without steadfast diplomacy and until the potency of hamas was

radically reduced. we will not rest until every hostage comes home. now, on the hegseth hearing -- the takeaway from yesterday's hearing on pete hegseth is very clear. pete hegseth is woefully unfit for the job of secretary of defense. for mr. hegseth, yesterday's hearing was an exercise in obfuscation. when confronted about the serious accusations against his character, mr. hegseth repeatedly dismissed them as smear tactics but refused to respond to how these character issues impact his qualifications for the job. when asked if being guilty of sexual assault is designee qualifying for the -- is disqualifying for the job of secretary of defense, mr. hegseth refused to answer. imagine if any other american interviewing for any other job refused to answer that question.

clearly, more information is needed about hegseth's background, but when democrats asked to make mr. hegseth's full fbi background documents available to all members of the committee, the republican chair said no. why? why is the republican chair insistent on keeping relevant information about mr. hegseth locked away from committee members? perhaps the reason for repub republicans' stonewall something that -- perhaps the reason for republicans' stonewalling is that the more evidence that's revealed about mr. hegseth, the more obvious it will become that he is woefully unfit for the job. for mr. hegseth, when there are serious allegations, to not answer them directly and instead just call them smear tactics, especially in such an important job like secretary of defense where are people's lives are on the line, it is just totally

unacceptable, totally inadequate, and basically an important nominee -- or a nominee for a very important position just ducking the most important questions he faced. now, let me say a few things about why these hearings are so important for our country and to our side. by all indication, our republican colleagues seem perfectly comfortable with advancing mr. hegseth through the senate, despite his lack of qualifications. many of our colleagues even have -- many of our colleagues have private doubts about the nominees but publicly they are still willing to embrace them. donald trump's hold on senate republicans has become very powerful. nevertheless, we democrats will continue to push and pressure and scrutinize each nominee in committee because it's so important to get them on record. americans need to see that many

of donald trump's nominees are simply unfit for the jobs they've been chosen for. americans need to hear these nominees answer for donald trump's harmful policies, and if some of these nominees are severely unqualified -- and many of them are -- these hearings are essential for exposing that even if they get confirmed in the end, the information must come out. even if they get confirmed, it is so important to have all these questions asked and see what the answers or lack of answers are. if the time comes months from now that some of donald trump's cabinet members fail on the job, these hearings will have served as an important warning for the american people to see. that's why democrats are committed to ensuring each nominee is vetted thoroughly and scrutinized during the testimony. on mr. vought -- and one other

point, by the way, on why i would think the hearings -- and why we think the hearings are important. the hearings are also an opportunity to show whose side each party is on. are these nominees in favor of tax cuts for very wealthy people? are they in favor of keeping programs that help working-class people keep prices down, such as making sure that medicare can negotiate drug prices? which brings down the price for everybody. where do they stand? the hearings glaringly show that donald trump and his nominees are on the side of the very powerful and that we democrats who are asking the questions are on the side of working people. and as the hearings wind through and we go through more and more witnesses, it will become clearer and clearer to the american people who is on whose side. so it's important to have a record.

of these nominees even if they get confirmed in the end to see who they are and to guard against the dangers that might occur with them in office. and to show who is on whose side. now, a couple more nominees are very troubling, a couple of today's nominees are very troubling. one is mr. vought. few nominees illustrate what is at stake for working class families better than donald trump's pick for omb director mr. russell vought. this is one of the most influential alsos in -- positions in the entire white house, responsible for not only producing the president's budget but also executing the president's agenda across the executive branch. i'll be candid. mr. vought's appointment to omb director would be a nightmare scenario for working americans. it is difficult to imagine a worst choice to implement white house policy than the chief architect of project 2025.

let me repeat that. because our republican friends don't want to talk about 2025, but at the same time, they're likely to vote for someone who was the chief architect of the project in a powerful position to implement it. head of omb. you cannot, you simply cannot be pro-worker and support the nomination of russell vought. the last time he worked at the white house, mr. vought pushed radical budget proposals that gutted social security, medicare, medicaid, and funding for public health. during the last default crisis, mr. vought was a key advisor to hard-right republicans who pushed america to the brink of disaster by using the debt ceiling as blackmail to cut trillions in funding for health care, for seniors, for hungry kids. when congress did not appropriate donald trump's border wall, vought raided the accounts of the pentagon and the

treasury department to pay for it. on top of it all, mr. vought put america's national security at risk by illegally with holding foreign aid to ukraine in an attempt to help donald trump on the campaign trail. to call mr. vought an extremist would frankly give extremists a bad name. the only people in america who can be happy about mr. vought are the richest of the rich who would make a killing if donald trump and republicans hand them another trillion-dollar tax cut. again, let me repeat. this is the chief architect of project 2025. republicans are running away from that project now but at the same time they're putting its chief architect in one of the most powerful positions in the federal government which has broad range just across about every policy. so today's hearing with mr. vought is a reminder to the american people that donald trump does not intend to keep his promises to working people.

if donald trump were serious about being pro-worker, he would not have turned to the godfather of the ultraright to oversee white house policy. and on chris wright. the tragic fires in california are another warning that the climate crisis continues to grow in strength. the scientific community across the world from the u.n. to nasa to national security experts agree that ignoring climate change is dangerous. so donald trump's nominee for energy secretary is truly alarming. oil executive chris wright. everything you need to know about mr. wright -- about who mr. wright is and what he'll fight for can be found in the following quote he once gave in an interview. quote, mr. wright said, oil and gas make the world go round. unquote. mr. wright amassed his wealth in fracking and as an oil executive. so of course he thinks oil and gas are the only things that count in the world.

an article from "the new york times" this morning called him an evangelist for fossil fuels. what makes mr. wright so troubling, however, is that he's perfectly willing to admit that climate change is happening while rejecting that we should do anything about it. he says calling climate change a crisis is pure fearmongering. he says the real crisis is that not enough people are using hydrocarbons. imagine, that's what he said. not enough people are using hydro hydrocarbons. that's the crisis in the world. can you believe it? he even says that roadblocks to unrestrained fossil fuel development are outright immoral. this man is an extremist when it comes to energy issues. he's not even among the conservative mainstream he's so far over. what a shock this is. a wealthy oil executive thinks that solutions to the world problems are to produce more oil. this is who donald trump wants

leading america's energy policy. mr. wright's nomination should be an alarm belfour every single -- bell for every single plan who has gotten a job at battery plants and more. many are in red states that trusted donald trump to look after them. but as far as donald trump's pick for energy secretary is concerned, he thinks we're not in the midst of an energy transition. that's his words. tell that to the workers in rural america. rebuilding e.v. batteries and wind and solar. i hope our republican colleagues will repeat those words to the employees in their districts who have gotten good-paying jobs in the new clean energy industries. everyone knows we still have a lot of work to do before we reach our clean energy goals and everyone knows it's not going to be easy of the question is whether or not donald trump's administration is going to protect the clean jobs we have created or kill them and put people out of work for the sake of big oil. mr. wright's nomination suggests

that donald trump is willing to let all those good-paying clean energy jobs that we've created disappear. and to my republican colleagues, when donald trump and mr. wright start cutting the jobs that have come from clean energy, that are in your states, don't say we didn't tell you so. and remember, the voters are going to know who you voted for for the head of energy. i yield the floor and note the absence offir: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, reresume consideration of s. 5 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 1, s. 5, a bill to require the secretary of homeland security to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the united states with theft and for other purposes. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, yesterday i watched closely the nomination hearing for pete hegseth. he's president trump's nominee to be secretary of defense. for the safety and security of our nation, pete deserves a swift, swift confirmation. i'm going to vote for him to be the next secretary of defense, and i believe that vote is going to happen soon. he was very clear in the hearing yesterday. the incoming administration is going to refocus the pentagon on

american strength and on hard power, not awoke agenda which is what we've seen for the last four years. to me this is very welcome news, and i believe it is welcome news to americans all across this country who are worried about the security of our nation and the strength of our nation. we have a significant problem in the military today. it's a problem with morale and a problem with recruitment. pete hegseth is the right person to address both of these issues and to make sure that we, america, have a military that is ready to fight. pete served in combat at the height of the war on terror. he deployed overseas to iraq, to afghanistan and to guantanamo bay in cuba. he's a decorated veteran. he's earned two bronze stars. he also earned the combat infantry man's badge. when pete's executive officer evaluated his performance in iraq, the feedback was glowing.

pete, he said, was an incredible -- incredibly talented battle-proven leader. incredibly talented battle-proven leader. he, quote, always completed every mission with high standards, with minimal guidance or supervision. that's what you want. now, i heard senator schumer ask on this floor, he said why should americans entrust pete to lead our military? well, pete hegseth answered that question yesterday. senator sheehy asked during the hearing, are you going to have the backs of the war fighters to which our nominee said yes, he will have their backs. that's why americans should trust pete to lead our military. it's interesting to hear my democrat colleagues dismiss pete's years of military service. they sounded angry about his plan to restore american strength. they seemed frustrated that he

clearly loves our country and wants to continue to serve. democrats tried to turn yesterday's hearing into a kangaroo court. they claimed that pete isn't qualified. so let's talk about his military experience. the department of defense is filled with people who have decades of experience working in the pentagon. the pentagon just failed its seventh, seventh consecutive audit. think about that for a second. each year the american taxpayers send the pentagon more than $850 billion, billion with a b. yet the pentagon can't pass a single audit. look, if it sounds like we don't need more experience like take, mr. president. we need a new set of eyes arks soldier. pete said himself, with dirt on his boots. being secretary of defense isn't just about managing a

bureaucracy, it's about making military's -- america's military the best and most leastal fighting force in the word. pete is going to be a secretary of dense who respects -- defense who respects the warfighter and who respects the taxpayer. he's a bold choice for the future of our military, a bold choice for the future of our nation, and the right choice to be secretary of defense. a senate confirmation is not an easy process, and the secretary of defense is not an easy job. yesterday pete gave strong answers to tough questions. he is confident and he is knowledgeable. he's ready to lead the department of defense. he knows the cost of war. he knows the price of weakness. and the true value and the valor of american soldiers. as secretary of defense, he's going to reestablish deterrence and rebuild our military. he's going to champion american servicemembers and restore

american military readiness. pete is going to bring the pentagon back to what his mission should be, lethality, accountability, transparency, merit. the focus is going to be on military readiness, not social experiments and partisan policies. america needs a strong secretary of defense now, immediately. senate republicans will get it done. now, mr. president, on a separate matter, today the senate is considering amendments to the laken riley act. the laken riley act is actually bipartisan legislation. it is a lifesaving bill. it's a lifesaving bill that is going to lock up criminal illegal immigrants and then deport them. republicans are offering targeted amendments to make this bill even stronger. senator ernst has an amendment that would detain illegal immigrants who commit murder or cause serious bodily injury.

senator cornyn has been amendment that will detain illegal immigrants who attack law enforcement officers. those are the type of amendments that republicans are discussing to strengthen the bill. i know there are some democrats who are trying to undermine the bill. they want to replace it with thousands of pains of immigration reform owe pages of immigration reform. i said this before and it bears repeating, republicans are not going to undermine or weaken this lifesaving bill. the laken riley act is not comprehensive immigration reform. it's a targeted piece of tough immigration enforcement. republicans aren't going to trade american lives for amnesty. we will make a law that puts the safety of the american people first. that's what americans voted for in november, safety, security for our communities, for our citizens. senator john fetterman of pennsylvania was recently asked about the bipartisan laken riley act.

this is what he said. he said, pretend you're in a parking lot in a walmart in scranton, pennsylvania, as we're out traveling around the state in our own home states. he says, well, he says i'm going to vote against a bill that allows people to deport people charmed with a crime or -- charged with a crime or have a criminal record? to me i hope others have listened to senator fetterman and hear those words and realize how ridiculous it sounds that anyone would vote against the laken riley act. the laken riley act deserves strong targeted amendments and swift passage in this body and then signed into law by the president. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

quorum call: quark: quorum call:

donald trump appointed as the u.s. attorney in new jersey over the objections of myself and then senator menendez. i was wrong in my anticipation that he would not do good things in our state. he partnered with local leaders to dramatically drive down crime he was good for the safety of the city in which i've lived and the one in which i led. part of his strategy was to focus his resources on the most

violent criminals. but that also meant that he use something that you know of called prosecutorial discretion. his strategies align with that of local leaders and was able to create historic drops in our murder rate. do you know, from your experience, that enforcement decisions prosecutors must make every day which charge to bring plea deal to offer or what sentencing makes it is very important that local prosecutors understand that. given this enormous discretion our legal system gives them, they are best determined to make decisions about public safety. i am very concerned that many people are starting to call for a time in our country where the department of justice should prosecute state and local prosecutors who exercise that prosecutorial discretion.

as attorney general, will you commit to respecting the economy of state and local prosecutors? >> senator, we have to work together with state and local prosecutors. that is what i did my entire career. if confirmed as attorney general , i will continue to do that based on a vital function in our justice system. >> you understand in my state that sometimes they will decide not to go after certain low-level offenses in order to use their scarce resources to focus on more dangerous people. >> yes. i completely understand that. part of a public safety strategy >> when i was a state prosecutor , lisa sit down with the u.s. attorneys and talk about cases and work together. that is what i'm discussing about bringing back the cooperation between state and local government e presiding off are. mrs. blackburn: i ask we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you,

mr. president. i have to say, i think the remarks i planned today are so pertinent to what is taking place in our world as we're hearing about the trump effect actually bringing forward a deal with israel, hamas, and the hostages, because my remarks today are centered on unrwa, the u.n. relief and works agency for palestine refugees. now, this has been one of the biggest obstacles to peace in the middle east. to the world, unrwa presents itself as an aid group for palestinians. but in reality, this agency, this u.n. agency that has been the recipient of 7.1 billion

u.s. taxpayer dollars is nothing more than a terror group that works to undermine israel's security and safety. we have known this for years, but in the aftermath of the hamas barbaric october 7 attack on the jewish state, we've learned much more about unrwa's terror ties. early last year, "the wall street journal" reported that 10 prongs of unrwa's -- 10% of unrwa's staff have ties to islamist militant groups. among them, six took part in the october 7 assault that left 1200 israelis dead and hundreds more in captivity. after reports emerged that an unrwa teacher held an israeli hostage in his attic, i pressed the agency to investigate that employee. instead of taking action, the group dismissed this request and

this claim as unsubstarchiaitied, and called -- unsubstantiated and called on the israeli news to, i'm quoting, immediately delete the post. we also know unrwa has indoctrine ain'ted palestinian children with schools that glorify terrorism and promote violent hatred of jews, allowed hamas to store weapons in their buildings, provided support and aid to the terror group. now, a new report from u.n. watch, the top watchdog for holding the u.n. accountable, shows that unrwa works with hamas, as well as palestinian islamic jihad at the highest level of the agency. to quote the report, this secret relationship allows the terrorist organizations to significantly influence the

policies and practices of a u.n. agency with 30,000 employees and 1.5 billion annual budget that is funded primarily by western states. the evidence is overwhelming. in 2017, unrwa's then commissioner general met with leaders of hamas and palestinian islamic jihad to strengthen, in his words, and i quote, a spirit of partnership, to protect the agency's credibility, however, the commissioner general urged the terror leaders to ensure that, and i again quote, discussions not be made public, end quote. of course, open collaboration with u.s. designated terror groups could jeopardize the millions it receives from western countries every year.

so they tried to cover it up. so that they could keep getting these millions and billions of dollars. as i said, u.s. taxpayers, 7.1 billion that has gone into this group. in the years since, unrwa leaders have repeatedly pledged support for palestinian terrorists. that same year, the agency's lebanon director told terror leaders that unrwa hoped to have a strong partnership with them. a year later, their program director in lebanon met with a hamas official to discuss, and i quote, ongoing cooperation and coordination. also in 2018, a former unrwa official appeared at a rally alongside hamas terror leaders who urged support for unrwa

until we return to palestinian, and i'm quoting him, meaning the end of israel as a jewish state. if the unrwa official, of course, thanked the terrorist, and i'm quoting again, for their understanding. in 2021, the former deputy commissioner general of unrwa met with sinwar. that's the hamas leader who later planned the october 7 attack. after one of her employees admitted on tv that israel's strikes on hamas are very precise. in response, the deputy commissioner general removed the employee from his position and thanked sinwar for his, again i'm quoting, his positivity and desire to continue cooperation in facilitating the agency's

work in the gaza strip. end quote. you see, there is a pattern here of participation between unrwa and between hamas and palestinian islamic jihad. this is just a sample of the high-level meetings between leaders of unrwa and these groups. the list could go on and on and on. what this report makes very clear is that unrwa support for terror groups is not something that happens at the agency's fringes. instead, supporting and enabling terrorism against israel is unrwa's main purpose. i want to say that again. unrwa's support for these terrorist groups is not just at

the fringes. it is with their leadership. they are supporting and enabling terrorism against israel, and we need to realize this. this is why president trump canceled u.s. funding to the agency during his first administration, and it's why president biden's decision in 2021 to restore that funding, over 730 million that year, was a huge mistake. after the october 7 attack, i led the charge in introducing legislation to defund unrwa, and in march of last year president biden finally signed into law a one-year ban on that funding. with all we know about unrwa, though, we need to make this ban permanent, which is why i'm working on legislation that will

do just that once we get a new president, and once we begin to say no to these organizations who take taxpayer dollars and turn around and use it against the american people, use it for pro terror, pro-violence organizations and groups. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

will you work with us to make sure the american people get all the facts in this never happens again. >> i was looking forward to working with you and the democrats. this is something we can all agree on both sides.

this should not be happening in the united states of america and work together on it. >> let me ask you one other question. this memo, this targeting catholic parishes repeatedly refers to as an expert source, a group called the southern poverty law center. it has a long history as an anti-religious group that has repeatedly gone after conservative and religious organizations, called them hate groups, called them terrorist groups, they are cited in this memo. the family research council and an arm that government came to the lobby and opened fire. will you put a stop to the use for any department of justice memorandum. >> that will be one of the first things that we look at. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> as you know, the supreme court in trump versus united states, the president has absolute immunity to commit crimes in certain core areas of their responsibility. one of those core areas is the justice department. the majority held to commit crimes using the department of justice to be immune from prosecution. >> justice sotomayor correctly said a live like a local -- loaded weapon. the incoming president will use that loaded weapon, that immunity, to commit crimes to the department of justice and for that reason, it is all the more important that we have attorney general who has the independence, the strength, the fortitude to say no to the

president when it is necessary. my first set of questions has to do with whether you have the independence to say no when you must say no. and you can say this is hypothetical, but it is not hypothetical. let me start with one very specific non-hypothetical. the president has said jack smith should go to jail. will you investigate jack smith? >> senator, i have not seen the file, i've not seen the investigation, i have not looked at anything. it would be irresponsible of me to make a commitment regarding anything -- you are long practicing attorney. without looking at a file. >> you would need a factual predicate to open an investigation of jack smith. >> not a summary by you sitting here, yes, sir be back now to president summary.

>> absolutely. >> that would not be enough for you to open an investigation of jack smith, is that right mr. mark. >> i will look at the facts and evidence in any case. >> sitting here today -- [inaudible] >> have lost faith in the department of justice. >> are you aware of any factual predicate? yes or no. >> senator, i will look at the facts and circumstances. >> you cannot answer that question? >> you are not part of the department yet. there is no worry about divulging this information. so just tell us. are you aware above factual predicate to investigate jack smith, yes or no. >> what i am hearing on the news >> you seem reluctant to answer a simple question. let me ask you a different simple question. the president also wants to jail

liz cheney sitting here today are you aware of any factual basis to investigate liz cheney, yes or no. >> senator, that is a hypothetical. >> no, it is not a hypothetical. i'm asking you sitting here today if you are aware of a predicate to investigate liz cheney today. >> that is a hypothetical. >> you are aware of that. >> no one has asked me to investigate. >> the president -- >> you know what we should be worried about, the crime rate in california right now. your robberies are 87% higher than the national average. that is what i want to focus on. if i'm confirmed as attorney general. >> what you are suggesting today by your nonanswers you do not have the independence to say no. it also requires you, if you will be a good attorney general to be able to tell hard truths to the president. my questions now are can you

tell hard truths to the president. let me start with an easy truth that you can speak to the president. can you tell us, can you tell him that donald trump lost the 2020 election? can you say that? do you have the stature, the fortitude to say, donald trump, you lost a 2020 election. can you tell us that here today? >> senator, what i can tell you is i will never play politics. you are trying to engage me in a gotcha. i will not play politics with anyone. >> if you cannot answer the question, let me ask you a different what should be a simple truth, not a hard one. was there massive fraud affecting the result of the 2020 election, yes or no. >> senator, i am glad you asked that. >> a simple question about -- i can only tell you. >> my question is, can you tell

us whether there was massive fraud affecting the results of the 2020 election, yes or no. >> i can tell you what i saw. [inaudible] >> and easy truth to us let alone the president. it will also be important that you give good advice to the president. are you prepared to advise the president not to pardon people who eat police officers. >> senator, as i said, the pardons are at the direction of the president. we will look at we will advise. i will look at every case on a case-by-case basis. >> follow up with that. will it be your place, i know you said you want to issue hundreds of pardons on day one, will appear advice to the president, no, mr. president, i need to go to them on a

case-by-case basis. do not issue blanket pardons. will that be your advice? >> senator, i've not looked at any of those files. if confirmed i will look at them >> review hundreds of cases on day one? >> i will look at every file i am asked to look at. can i answer the question. i would have plenty of staff. >> you will be able to review -- >> i will not miss read this body nor you. >> let me ask you another question. >> you are censored for congress for questions just like this. it is so reckless. >> preserving the records and the evidence of the department, are you ready to commit that none of the evidence in the january 6 investigation will be destroyed under your watch. >> senator, i will follow the law. i will consult with ethical officials in the department. >> any ethical basis to destroy any january 6 investigation?

why can you not answer the question? i commit to this committee we will never destroy the evidence. why can you not give this committee and the american people that assurance? >> are you frightened because evidence was destroyed against president trump? >> why do you have difficulty answering that question? why do you have difficulty promising to preserve evidence at the department of justice? why is that a difficult question i will follow the law v-neck it should not be a difficult question. to the end of round one. we appreciate your being here. i appreciate you have told my california colleagues that you are willing to work with them even in light of the manner they have approached you.

one thing i think we need to have everybody understand that is watching this hearing today and everyone sitting in here, what we have witnessed over the last four years with a weapon iced doj. my colleagues have talked about this. the american people know this. they know what was carried out against president trump in his administration and in november, they voted to cn and tutu tears of justice. two tiers of treatment. two tiers of access because they have absolutely had it with the lies, with the accusations and with the attacks that have come against so many people who were just seeking to live their lives

and then, all of a sudden, the fbi or another federal agency or the doj knocking at their door. you know, ms. bondi, it would make you believe that my colleagues have learned nothing. nothing from the elections in november. they do not see this as a movie script that someone may have liked to write. what they see is this is real life. they want a restoration to equal justice. equal access. abiding by the rule of law. making america safe again. the intimacy that i hear a good bit about this. as we have discussed your nomination, one of the things i

can mention to people is your career as a prosecutor. you have touched on that sum today. you are bringing that insight of being a prosecutor to they are. i do appreciate that. one thing that i think it's noteworthy and in preparation for the hearing, i look some of these numbers up. during president trump's first term, violent crime in this country actually failed. it failed by 17%. in the first two years of the biden administration, it soared by 43%. this is crime that is taking place in all of our communities. we have seen arise whether it is california or tennessee, we have seen a rise.

so, i want you to talk to tennessee people, california people, all americans about what you are going to do to get this crime rate down in this country. >> senator, thank you for that question. despite the questions from senator schiff, i look forward to working with you in the state of california to do everything that we can to fight violent crime in california and you know as well as i that crime is only going to go through the roof now after these forest fires. you will have looting. you will have price gouging. you will have so many things that i've dealt with in the state of florida and i'm committed to working with california just as much as i'm committed to working with you, senator kennedy and the tragedy that just took place in louisiana. given all the human beings that were murdered in your state. we have the super bowl coming up

in less than three weeks now, i believe. i've been a little busy. we have to ensure, if i am confirmed, that everyone in this country is safe. i will work with you, i will work with you, senator, i will work with all of you in this country for everything that senator blackburn said it we have got to reduce violent crime and we have got to restore integrity to our law enforcement officers. donald trump, we could say he won this election by 77.3 million votes. 312 electoral votes, look at the map of california, senator schiff. it is bright red. the popular vote for reason. people want law and order. they want to be safe so they can take their children to school. so they can go to church, senator holly. people want safe streets. of course we care about our economy and what is happening in this world, but if we are not safe, none of that works. we have got to come together, we have two work together to make

america safe again, and that in turn will make america great again and i do not know where that phrase has become a bad word because i think it's a great one. making america great again. >> something else about law and order. that is section 1507 because making justices protected is important and we also, making it illegal any protest out of the judge's residence if the intent is to influence the judge's decision making. we have heard about the protests outside of justices homes where they were shouting loud and clear things -- if you take away our choices, we will riot. another one, no privacy, no peace for you. in other words, if the justices did not vote to uphold, protesters would continue to

harass them. despite this clear violation of the law, garland did not bring a single charge, not one single charge under section 1507. will you commit to enforcing senator, i watched that on tv and it horrified to me. the protesters outside of their houses. you cannot do that for reason. our justices have to remain safe and unbiased and protected from threats, as do we all. but they do enjoy a special protection and, yes, that should be enforced. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we will now have our second round that announced earlier.

we will each have four minutes. when we were talking in my office, i brought up the importance of your listing the whistleblowers. about 30 or 35 investigations i got underway as the executive branch and not just because of a democrat president, some of them are probably carryovers from republican presidents. it is very important that the executive branch understands the cooperation that you must have with us to carry out our responsibilities, see the president faithfully executing the laws. i think that too often whistleblowers being patriotic people, they want the government to do what government is supposed to do. find something wrong and they want to report it and they want to report it within the agency.

they do not come to congress unless they don't get any help in the executive branch. it seems to me that it is very important that you respect whistleblowers. i have seen them freeze like skunk at a picnic by the agencies they are ran. i think -- i see themselves one time an fbi agent came to me, wes escorted out of headquarters dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: thank you. for the next hour a whole group of republicans will be coming to the floor to be able to talk about one issue, our need for border security and safer communities. this is something not just republicans in the senate are talking about. this is something the american people spoke loud and clear about during the last election whep they elected president trump, a republican senate and a republican house. there's not a single member that's a republican in this body, in the house or clearly

president trump that didn't talk about border security and of safer communities throughout the entire election and every single poll shows this was one of the priority issues that every single american was thinking about. a gallup poll last year found that more than three-quarters of americans support increasing the number of border patrol agents. two-thirds of americans want the president and homeland security secretary to temporary halt all asylum requests when the border is overwhelmed. and a third, that is -- i'm sorry. and third on this list, a majority of americans support expanding border wall construction. people want a secure community. on the floor this week, we started last week and still debating this week, is what to do in what's called the laken riley act. some americans are familiar with laken riley's story. some are not. laken riley was a college student in georgia who was l brutally murdered by a

venezuelan who came into the united states illegally, was detained at the border but then released, traveled around the country wherever he wanted to under a parole system that was given to him at the border in 2022. he committed a crime, was arrested for that crime, and then was released. he committed another crime -- shoplifting -- was arrested for that crime and then released. the third crime as far as we know -- there might have been many more -- but the third crime, as far as we know, was his murder of laken riley. he should have never been in the united states, never been paroled at the border. he should have been detained and deported but he wasn't. he was l paroled in the united states. when he committed a crime in the united states, he should have been deported, but he was not. he was released. when he committed a second crime in the united states, he should

have been deported, but he wasn't. he was released before he ever got to murder. the laken riley act is pretty simple. it says if someone is here illegally and they commit a crime in the united states of stealing americans stuff, like he did, that he's deported. i don't think it's a radical concept to be able to say americans don't want someone to come into their country illegally and take their stuff. why this is even a challenge to be able to pass this, i have no idea. this passed in the house the last session, but the senate never took it up to even discuss it. if i go to any of the great four million oklahomans from my state and say what do you think about someone illegally coming into the country and stealing people's stuff? do you think that's okay that they should still be able to

stay? i don't think i'd find anybody of the four million oklahomans that would say i'm okay with a someone illegally coming into the country and stealing someone's stuff and saying you can go ahead and stay. that's what this bill does. if someone comes into this country illegally, starts stealing stuff, they are detained, they're held, the not able to be allowed to the drifrt around the country to steal other things. they come into our country illegally, start stealing things, they're detained and go through the rest of the process. it doesn't mean they're automatically deported the very next day but they're not going to wander around the country. that's why we believe this laken riley act is so important because we never ever, ever, ever want to have another american that is murdered by

someone illegally present here, especially someone who had already committed multiple crimes before they ever got to that murder. p so let's have the debate. i'm willing to be able to talk to any one of my democratic or republican colleagues that have a question about this. but at the base of this is why would we let someone who was already illegally present in the country, who we already know has committed additional crimes just continue to walk our streets just to commit more crimes? why would we not detain those individuals? on monday, president trump will be inaugurated. i am looking forward to working with him and seeing even what happens on day one to be able to secure the border. this is something the american people want. they want a border that is secure. they want communities that are secure, and they want just basic commonsense things done, like if someone breaks into our country

and then steals stuff, they're actually detained rather than just released to go do it again. let's at least do the basics that we can do while we continue to be able to work towards the big projects that still need to be done. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. multiple of my colleagues will be coming in the moments ahead to be the able to talk to you on this same issue because we feel like on this side it is incredibly important to get this done.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. this week the senate is proud to take another step forward towards securing our are southern border as we consider the laken riley act. i want to extend my deep gratitude to senators katie britt and senator ted budd for their leadership in bringing this bill forward. first and foremost, i want to say that i strongly support this measure. with this bill, the senate will be taking a bold step for the safety and prosperity of american citizens after four years of mismanagement, deklain and ultimately chaos at the border. the laken riley act is the answer to a loud and clear call

made at the ballot box by the american people. to unite us as a country, to put america first, and to address the tragic lawlessness that we see on our southern border. and so the senate's first order of legislative business we are answering that call. the radical open border policies of the left have caused untold suffering to families across the nation. families like the riley family who are still grieving the unimaginable loss of their beautiful daughter laken. laken was just 22 years old, a young nursing student with a promising future ahead of her. tragically she was stolen from this earth by an individual who should have never been allowed to roam free in this country. laken should be alive today, and she would be if her killer had been brought to justice before it was too late.

in laken, we lost a bright and beautiful soul, as those who knew her will attest. the law should serve our citizens, yet is has somehow been laken's killer that benefited from our system. it's time we honor laken's legacy by putting american citizens first. the laken riley act, while too late to prevent laken's tragedy, is a targeted bill that will save countless other lives. it will ensure that other illegal immigrants not dissimilar to her killer are detained for their crimes before they get a chance to commit another and maybe more serious offense. anyone who has entered the united states illegally and then committed a crime should and will face detention and deportation. it sounds like common sense to me. laken's killer was arrested three times and released three

ti times, once at the border, again in new york city, and a third time in athens, georgia, mere weeks before he took laken's life. that will not happen and cannot happen under the laken riley act. this is a problem that cannot be ignored or explained away or made trivial. the american people demand change. the american people want us to fix this system that failed to uphold the law and failed to keep laken safe. her cause is their cause. it's the cause of every mother, every father, every brother, every sister of a young girl who simply wants to go to school and then go out for a run in her neighborhood and feel safe. i know at its core, this is truly a bipartisan issue. we all want to keep our communities safe, all republicans and democrats. our republican caucus and

conference is completely unified behind the laken riley act and we've magaed to win over a majority of senate democrats for the bill's initial consideration, including two have signed on as cosponsors. as my democrat colleague from pennsylvania has noted, failure to pass this bill would represent everything that is wrong with congress. the truth is the american citizens have had enough talk, especially about these last four years. now is the time for action. that's what the election was about. action, not empty words. this week we will have before us a tranche of critical votes that america will be intently watching. to the families watching who have lost loved ones like the riley family, we stand with you. we feel your grief and your pain, and we will guard against this heartbreak ever happening again. now, more than ever, it is

incumbent upon my colleagues and me to support america's families and pass the strongest possible bill for our communities. with that, i look forward to advancing the laken riley act this week. mr. president, thank you, and i yield the floor. .

fifteen democrats. the narrowest margin of any majority since the great depression. to the extent that anyone is interested in figuring out how we, as house democrats should approach this incoming administration, i will suggest that one actually take a look at what house republicans were able to do with an overwhelming majority or unable to do and 2017 and 2018. and what do we think they will be able to do in this particular context in 119 congress with a

oneg or two seat. south dakota. the senator from north dakota is recognized. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. we like south dakota too. they're pretty good guys. oklahoma, we're fond of oklahoma as well. thanks, mr. president. today i join my colleagues in looking forward to january 20, when we can turn the page on the failed border policies of the biden-harris administration, and get back to common sense -- common sense approach to border security under president donald trump. during four years of the biden-harris border policies, our country saw the highest total of illegally alien

crossings and the highest monthly illegally crossings, and the highest total of terrorists on the illegal watch list cross our bothered. the biden-harris administration made our country less safe and secure and more vulnerable to threats from abroad. the american people saw beyond the biden-harris administration that the borders were not secure and last november gave a very clear and compelling man days -- mandate -- secure the border. already the new republican senate majority is taking a first step to protect the american people against the consequences against the biden-harris administration policies to pass the laken riley act. customs and border patrol will

detain those -- to local law enforcement for illegal aliens who committed related crimes. the legislation can empower states to hold federal officials accountable when they fail to enforce federal immigration law. this important legislation is one we should have never had to pass, but because the biden-harris administration played politics with our country's borders and immigration policy policies, senate republicans are here today to work on behalf of the american people. working with the trump administration we will prioritize the enforcement of policies to protect our southern border which include reinstating the migrant protocols or remain in mexico policy, and resuming construction of the border wall.

in his first 100 days in office, trump revoked 900 border security policies. in less than a week, president-elect trump had be sworn that too office. he's committed to taking executive action on day one to reinstate the policies that will secure our border. i look forward to these changes and to working further to address the crisis created under the biden-harris administration. i also look forward to the debate that will take place in the coming weeks regarding how republicans will secure the border to reconciliation and we're hard at work on that. this will be an important legislative tool that will help to refocus resources so the professionals at ice, cbp and at the border patrol can focus on securing our border, removing criminal aliens who should not be in the united states and

addressing potential threats to the homeland. to accomplish these goals we must recruit more border security professionals and better utilize technology like the counter unmanned aircraft systems along the border. because of these threats to our homeland is clear, president biden's failure to secure the southern border. senate republicans stand ready to work with president trump to advance the policies that kept our border secure during his first administration. that's exactly what my colleagues and i will work to accomplish in the coming months because border security is national security. thank you, mr. president. and with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina is recognized. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i thank my colleague from

north dakota and his comments and support for this legislation. one of the highest priorities of the next administration is securing the southern border, restoring law and order and reversing the acts of president biden. too many have felt the tragic consequences of these policies and one was a woman named laken riley. mr. budd: she was a nursing student at the university university of georgia and an illegal immigrant murdered her while she was out on a jog. what makes it more devastating is that the killer should have been stopped but wasn't. he should have been stopped at the border in 2022, but he was paroled into this country. he should have been detained when he was arrested in new york in 2023, but wasn't, he should have been detained when he was arrested in georgia for shoplifting, but he wasn't.

these events are shameful many we must make sure these don't happen again, and that's why i worked with my good friend senator britt of alabama to reduce the laken riley act. this would require ice do issue detainers and take into custody illegal aliens who commit crimes like sheft and shoplifting, woe must stop these individuals when they commit minor crimes before they commit major crimes like the horrific murder of laken riley. this will keep our nation secure and prevent tragedies. ladies and gentlemen, this is common sense, but if you stay here in washington long enough, you'll sometimes feel that common sense is not all that common. but i appreciate the new-found bipartisanship that has seemed to have broken out on this issue. it's wonderful. dozens of democrats are now

supporting the laken riley act. i want to welcome them to the cause of law and order. a word about amendments. i thank leader thune for his wonderful start. he has opened, as promised, to amendments. several on this side of the aisle and some on the other. let's say some of our friends splooil, they have -- on the other side of the aisle, they have an amendment, let's say it doesn't get the amount of votes, let's not use that as a pretext for not supporting the bill. let's support this and then you have our commitment to work on that and then work on that they're trying to introduce by amendment. do not use the failure of said amendment to not support this very important legislation. it's my hope that we can continue in this spirit and make sure that the laken riley act is passed by both chambers and signed into law by our nation's

47th president, donald j. trump. i yield the floo

test: . # #

i started at 17 years old as he director for shirley chisholm and people shirley chisholm was out of place. i remember going with her as she ran for president. in 84 i was there when reverend jackson. in 2004 iran. any continuing journey. and i was in chicago think you have surely when i walked the stage to say she didn't get the nomination but we live to see a woman get one.

[applause] and, and a woman come very close to breaking the ceiling, not only for blacks but for women as well. i've watched her career from district attorney to attorney general to the state attorney, your senator, the u.s. vice president. she never shame us. she never let us down. and i want you this morning to welcome the vice president of the united states, kamala harris. [cheers and applause] >> good morning. good morning, everybody. good morning, good morning. good morning, everyone. good morning. [applause] good morning, man. good morning, man.

iw-1 was hang out. i thought or come by and say hi. both such as one to come by to thank everybody. starting with our reverend sharpton for the truth tellers who are here, in a spirit of dre celebrate him, , his birthday, january 15 and every day, and the spirit which he did what he did. reverend sharpton, you and the leaders of nan lived that legacy of the way that important. this is about soldiers who understand the importance of using our feet, praying, doing good work, that are about lifting up of the people with a sense of optimism and purpose. >> because at long last i can announce a ceasefire and a

hostage deal has been reached between israel and hamas. more than 50 months of conflict began with hezbollah's bruno mars massacre on october 7. more than 50 months of terror for the hostages, their families, the israeli people. more than 50 months of suffering by the innocent people of gaza, fighting in gaza stop and soon the hostages return home to their families. the elements of this deal for what i laid out in detail this last may which was embraced by countries around the world, and endorsed overwhelmingly by the u.n. security council. the deal is structured in three phases. phase one will last six weeks. includes a full and complete ceasefire, withdrawal of israeli forces from all the pipetted areas of gaza. and, and the release of a a nr

of hostages held by hamas including women and elderly and the wounded. and i'm proud to say americans will be part of that hostage released in phase one is real. the vice president and i cannot wait to welcome them home. and exchange commission released hundreds of palestinian prisoners and during phase one palestinians can also return to the neighborhood in all areas of gaza. and surge of eugenicists in the gaza will begin and innocent people can have a greater access to these vital i have seven 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. braun: mr. president. mr. young: mr. president.

president biden is spending his final days in office on a valed valed valedictory tour. here's one accomplishment he won't mention, a crisis on our southern border which spread across across our country flooding our communities with fentanyl and cost innocent american lives. it's correct to call this one of president biden's accomplishments. he intentionally reversed the trump administration's border policies as soon as he reached the oval office. and it was by design, by design, mr. president, that millions of migrants who illegally crossed our southern border were released into our country. this self-inflicted disaster will be a major part of president biden's ignominious legacy, and it is in part why americans chose to return

president trump to office in november. when the american people voted for a republican president and a republican congress, they remember voting to restore the rule of law at the border. they remember demanding -- they remember demanding that their government fulfill its constitutionally delegated duty to provide for their national security. they were demanding that their government do that. and they were arguing correctly that it is not discrimination for a nation to demand that those who seek to call it home do so legally. the american people want the return of commonsense immigration policy, that's all. that i what i hear back home. but you see, this wasn't possible under president biden. beginning next week, we'll have a new president, and there will be no excuses. the open border policies must

end. criminal migrants must go. the number of border patrol and immigration and customs enforcement officers must be increased. barriers to illegal entry must be expanded and enlarged. republicans are working on legislation which will help accomplish all of these things and improve the security of our border, just like the american people expect. it will be too little too late for the family of laken riley, though. for she should still be with us today. the man who murdered her last february should have never set foot in america. her death was preventable. her killer entered this country illegally and was quickly

paroled. then he was sent at taxpayer expense to new york where he was arrested and released. if that was the end of the story, it would still be an outrage and an indictment of the failed biden administration. but from there, he went to georgia, you see, all courtesy of taxpayers, where he was arrested and freed again before brutally murdering laken riley. weakening border enforcement, incentivizing criminals with specious asylum claims to cross our border, failing to detain and deport these very same people for crimes committed far away from it, these, these were the policies that led to laken's death.

this cannot happen again. it can't happen again to another american or to their family. that is why we need to pass the laken riley act. it won't single-handedly end the crisis at our southern border. no, that's not its objective. but it's an important first step in the broader mission we've been assigned by the american people. homeland security must detain migrants charged with crimes. here again, common sense. crimes like shoplifting, one of the crimes for which laken's killer was arrested. the bill we're currently debating, the laken riley act, requires that they do this and that we meet the objectives of the american people as it relates to border security.

enforcing immigration law is a national security priority. i began emphasizing this years ago. i know so many other americans believe this in their bones. it's time washington started acting like it. so this bill is one of many steps we should take to reverse the biden administration's open border policies. stop the madness. stop the madness. i plead with my colleagues to support the laken riley act. we should pass it now. let president biden have his victory tour, but starting next week the insanity ends and we begin to secure our border. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. rickets: thank you, mr. president.

president biden's open border policies created a national security, humanitarian, and drug catastrophe in our country. in 2023, law enforcement encounters at the border found 169 people on fbi's terrorist watch list. in previous years, under the trump administration, that number was in single digits. we've had he 10.5 million border encounters since biden took office. on a single day in december, u.s. customs and border protection encountered 12,600 people trying to illegally enter into our country. that's just along the southern border. 12,600. it set an all-time single day record for the number of people trying to break into our country. in years past, administration

officials have said if there is 1,000 people encountered at our southern border trying to get in, that's a crisis. 12,600 is a catastrophe. record amounts of deadly drugs have also flown into our country since president biden opened our borders. we experienced this directly in nebraska. in 2019 when i was governor, nebraska law enforcement took 46 pills laced with fentanyl off of our streets. 46. then after biden became president, and just the first six months of 2021, nebraska law enforcement took 151,000 pills off our streets. from 46 to 151,000.

while i was governor, after biden became president, we saw that our law enforcement started confiscating twice as much methamphetamine, three times as much fentanyl, ten times as much cocaine because of our open southern border and the cartels taking advantage of it. and just like all around the country, our young people paid the price as well. tara lee griffith, a young mom of two who took a pill that was laced with fentanyl and died because of it. the single largest killer of americans 18 to 45 is fentanyl overdose, all facilitated by president biden's open border policies along our southern border.

jose ibarra was a different kind of problem. jose ibarra was a venezuelan national who crossed our border illegally in the texas area and asked for asylum. his wife said he just wanted a better job, but regardless the biden administration released him into this country. he was bused to new york city, and there he was arrested for acting in a manner to endanger a child under the age of 17. however, new york city is a sanctuary city. he was not detained as he ought to have been. he was released. he made his way to georgia. and once again he was arrested, this time for shoplifting. but once again he was not detained or deported by immigrations and

customs enforcement. and because he was not, he went on to brutally murder laken riley. this tragedy could have been avoided if president biden had been protecting our southern border. if illegal immigrants were being detained and deported. people who break the laws in our country need to be held acc accountable, that's what the laken riley act does. it requires immigrations and customs enforcement to detain people who are breaking our laws. when people come here illegally and they're breaking our laws, they need to be held accountable. with the laken riley act, if you are committing theft, burglary,

shoplifting, you will be det detained, and tragedies like laken riley can be avoided. this is just common sense that we need to enforce our laws. to me it's common sense that we need to protect our borders, and thank goodness, starting in a few days, we will have a president who understands the safety of the american people is the priority and president trump will secure our borders. the election results were overwhelming. president trump has a mandate to secure our borders. senate republicans will stand up to help him do just that. the laken riley act is our first step to be able to help him do

that. and i call upon my colleagues from on the other side of the aisle -- from the other side of the aisle to continue to support this bill as they've done on the priest votes. -- previous votes. let's get this bill passed. let's make sure other families don't have to live through the tragedy that laken riley's family had to live through. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president. our nation, this body, and the american people are all-too familiar with stories like laken riley's, the 22-year-old nursing

student beaten to death by an illegal immigrant, one who was already in police custody in new york city before being let go. unfortunately, after four years of biden's open border, this heartbreaking story has become too commonplace. hardly a day goes by without hearing of another american who has fallen victim to crimes perpetrated by the illegal immigrants the biden administration let flood into our country. and worse, too many times an illegal immigrant arrested for a violent crime posts bail, never to be heard from again, escaping

through hoop holes in the law. this crisis only continues. while these tragedies should have never happened in the first place, my colleagues and i are taking action to ensure they never happen again. my legislation, sarah's law, in conjunction with the laken riley act, will close these loopholes so our laws no longer prioritize illegal immigrants over our own citizens. working to secure the border and protect americans is not a new fight for me, but it became personal nearly nine years ago. on january 31, so at the end of

this month, marks nine years since iowan's michele root and scott root, who i know personally, woke up to every parent's worst nightmare. their daughter sarah was killed by a drunk driver that was an illegal immigrant. sarah, and she is a beautiful young woman. she was 21 years old, she was from councils bluff, and she had just graduated from bellevue university in nebraska with a 4.0 -- 4.0gpa. she had a bachelor's degree in

immigrations. she was driving home to support this with her family and friends. sarah had her entire life ahead of her. but instead, an illegal immigrant edwin majea, who was drunk driving with a blood alcohol level three times over the legal limit struck and killed her. one would think that sarah's killer would meet immigration and customs enforcement enforcement priorities, but no. citing the obama administration's november 14 memo, i declined to take custody

of maeja despite his repeated driving defenses and skipping court dates. before the root family could even lay sarah to rest, her murder posted bond and was released never to be seen again. to rub salt in the wound, the biden administration removed majea from ice's most wanted list. since then, i have warned repeatedly against the dangers of letting illegal immigrants who have already broken our laws roam the country and continue their lawlessness. i have continually called on this body to step up and protect

innocent americans from criminals who are here in our country illegally and pass my bill, sarah's law. a loophole in the law means sarah's killer escaped justice, but today we can do something to ensure no other family has to go through the pain and the grief that sarah's parents, scott and michele, still feel from their heartbreaking day. my bill, named in sarah's honor, would close the alarming loophole that let sarah's killer go free. it would simply require ice to

detain illegal immigrants charged with killing or seriously injuring another person so they do not disappear before facing justice. it's common sense, folks. no parent should have to endure the pain of losing a child like the root family did. but, unfortunately, the riley family is experiencing this same heartbreak. sarah and laken's deaths are both tragic, and unfortunately, are doomed to be repeated if we don't close the loopholes in that law. those who come here illegally and harm our citizens should,

without question, be detained so they face justice. again, folks, this is common sense. we can no longer prioritize illegal immigrants over public safety. we must pass the laken riley act and sarah's law to send this message loud and clear for sarah's family, for laken's family, and for the countless american families that this action would protect. thank you, mr. president.

and figure out how to best implement it and to do in the most efficient manner. and the president ran on fully funding federal programs and providing what is necessary. that should give you a pretty good since even the milk when you get into the specific advice that i get to the president. >> your interpretation the president being a star with support of veterans and i think he definitely ran on that. certainly almost everyone i served with voted for the president's i think also believe that. that would be including protecting va disability, but that would match the president's point of view.

>> again i'm going, i'm looking to get hit of the budget process other than to say it's been a priority to fully fund the needs of veterans and i will continue if confirmed. >> yield back. >> senator scott. >> thank you, chairman. >> mr. vought, congratulation on nomination. i enjoyed working with you when you appear before a know you'll do a a great job. we sang the bloating of the federal government and the biden administration. he's added $8 trillion to the national debt. these increaser federal spending by 53%. a population of 2%. we cannot continue down this path of spending above pre-pandemic levels. for the past four years there has been a series discussion about how to control spending reduce are now $36 t debt. here's what you will hear from

people. we can't afford it. they can't afford this inflation. they said i can't afford to live of years ago but today with this inflation and i can't go buy a house. interest rates are up. can't buy a car here i better assure effective pay off my credit card because high interest rate. what are some of the things you think are doable to deal with inflation and interest rates? >> thank you, senator. obviously one of the things our past budgets have gone after it is nondefense discretionary spending which so happen e where the bureaucracy is funded on an after months of swearing up and down that they were focused on lowering the price of eggs, the price of groceries, the price of gas, the price of insurance,

that was what the last election was about, right? it was about inflation, it was about the amount people were paying. that's what the last election was about. interestingly, the very first thing that donald trump and the republicans have decided to do is to cut taxes for billionaire corporations, and they're going to pay for it by ripping off working americans. now, that might sound like a political talking point. it sounds too convenient. how can you spend four years pounding on the party and power about how much people are getting hit in the pocketbook and they were, and they were. e utilities, the price of gasoline still in hawaii around $4.59 a gallon. people still paying too much. and yet the first order of business is not to do anything about that. it's not to do anything about

that. it is to cut taxes for the wealthiest international corporations in human history. i'm here today with my senate democratic colleagues, and i want to make a sort of broader point. as democrats struggle through, learn about, argue about what went wrong over the last two to four years politically, one of the things that we did not do well enough is stay on the same theme. this place gets crazy and it's especially crazy with donald trump president. i remember. and it's distracting. and even in the best of circumstances, people fly home and then they arrive on monday. there's a 5:30 vote and oftentimes the last vote is on thursday at 1:45 and so we talk about one thing from monday at 5:30 until thursday at 1:45. and the thing we talk about is often whatever is on the floor

or whatever is in committee. we're going to do that. we have to do that. we have to comment on what we're working on. but we're also going to talk about this rip-off tax bill. because that illustrates the difference between the parties. that is going to illustrate in three dimensions that all of this talk about lowering costs was a lie. i'm here with senate democratic colleagues, including members of the senate finance committee led by senator wyden on the democratic side who will be on the forefront of this particular fight. and we're not here because we're surprised that republicans are going to raise and not lower costs because we know that was the plan all along. we're not here because we're shocked that republicans want to cut taxes for the ultrawealthy. they do that like clockwork every time they win the house

and the senate and the presidency. we're here because nothing can distract us from the reality of what is about to happen. this will be a giveaway of the worst kind. at a time when people can least afford it. so how do they plan to do it? this is a little technical so bear with me. so house republicans are saying, you've got to pay for these tax cuts, right? you reduce revenue to the government. in order to pay for it, you have to find savings. you have to either get new revenue. that's kind of off the table for reaction. they don't like new revenue unless it's tariffs which americans pay. or you got to cut something. and so last friday this document was released, and i understand if you're watching this on your phone or even on c-span, it's kind of small, right? i get it. but this document listed their so-called pay-for-s, how are

they going to pay for the massive tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals, the wealthiest publicly held and privately held corporations in human history. and here are just a couple of the things that they are using as so-called pay-fors. $700 billion in cuts kicking millions of people off of medicaid. $500 billion out of medicare, reducing access to care for seniors everywhere. more than $150 billion in cuts to the affordable care act subsidies. what does that mean? if you're on aca, if you get your health care through subsidy goes away. your monthly insurance bill is about to skyrocket. tens of millions of americans who pay for their health insurance through the aca

exchange and receive that subsidy are going to have to pay more. and what happens with that money? it doesn't go for roads. it doesn't go for firehouses. it doesn't go for hubl health. it -- go for public health. is goes for this tax cut. you i'm not exaggerating. this is not a flourish. they are literally cutting medicare, medicaid, possibly social security. the affordable care act. and they're going to take all these resources -- these are their pay-fors -- and shovel it to people so that they can continue their private jet subsidies, pay a lower tax rate, eliminate the 15% minimum billion dollar corps tax. before we pass the tax legislation when we were in charge, there were lots ofle wealthiest corporations -- international corporations in the history of the planet that paid zero taxes. zero taxes.

so would did we do both to generate money but also because it's a question of basic fairness as we established a minimum rate for these wealthy corporations. and then they'll want to eliminate that, too. why? because this is what they do. because that is actually their governing philosophy. they say campaign and poetry, govern and prose. that's not what's happening here. they campaigned on misleading people that their abiding concern, their main concern was gosh, people are paying too much for a dozen eggs. i don't mean to diminish that. people were paying too much for a dozen eggs. but right now inflation is 2.7%. and gas in a lot of places across the country is below three bucks. and so people were paying too much. and people were rightly pissed off. by the way, rightly at democrats for not recognizing how acutely this problem was for a lot of

american families. i get it. but i don't know anybody who thinks the solution to people paying too much out of pocket is to make them pay more out of pocket. there's not a single voter that i know, not a single voter that i know, that i've interacted with who says you know what? gosh, i wish the highest corporate tax rate were just a little bit lower. gosh, i wish the 15% minimum billion dollar corps tax were rescinded. gosh, i wish people who are being subsidized so they can afford health care, i wish we would eliminate that and gosh, i would we would use all that money and shovel it back to the wealthiest people in the world. and so we're not going to stop talking about this. i don't -- i just had two hearings with shaun duffy and marco rubio. lots of very exciting and interesting things are happening. and we're going to have to comment on that we're going to have to engage on that. but every week we're going to be talking about this rip-off.

every week, every opportunity we get we are going to be talking about this because this is the difference between the two political parties. and with that i want to yield to my very good friend who really understands tax policy and with whom i've been working on this. and with whom we fought together to win the aca fight many, many years ago, senator chris murphy from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, senator. i just can't believe we're talking about something that nobody wants. that's what this comes down to. the number one priority for republicans is extending and likely expanding a tax cut that benefits the wealthiest 1%, .1%

in this country at a rate that dwarfs, dwarfs the help for fib else. the tax cut we're talking about extending gives a tax cut for the top 1% of earners in this country. that isn't ten times bigger than working families at the bottom of the income scale. it's not 100 times bigger. it's not 500 times bigger. taxpayers in the top 1% will get a tax cut 852 times larger than working families at the bottom of the income thresholds. 852 times bigger. and what we have seen coming out of the pandemic is that while the broad middle of the country has been struggling, the wealthy

have gotten richer and richer and richer. we have more billionaires than ever before in this country. the folks that don't rely on salaries, that can just plow their income and their earnings into the capital markets have reaped huge, huge rewards. and so the very, very wealthy in this country right now at this moment in time don't need any more help. and yet the average family that is in that top 1% bracket is going to get a tax cut on average of $70,000. well, if you make $30,000 in this country, you're going to get about $100 back in your pocket. and of course the theory is that if you just layer on tax cuts for corporations and for billionaires and millionaires, that money will eventually

trickle down to everybody else. that's a lie. that's not true. that's a fraud. it's never been true. it's been perpetuated on the american public because it's a great way to rationalize given the bulk of tax cuts to the very, very wealthy. the idea is that somehow that will make it down to the rest of us. go on to any main street of this country, go into any subdivision in your state, you won't find many of your constituents who make $50,000 or $100,000 or even $200,000 that have had much of that trickle down to them. and to senator schatz' point, eight years ago when the tax cut was first put into place, it was egregious not because of the balance only but also because the whole thing was barrowed. all that money was just put on the american credit card, a

credit card that comes due and ends up getting paid by middle-class families one way or the other. this time around, i guess the good news is they're talking about paying for it, not borrowing to give a huge tax cut to corporations and to billionaires and million theirs. -- millionaires. instead they're talking about immediately taking money out of the pockets of working families and seniors and poor people. instead of borrowing money and have the bill come due for middle-class families later, this new tax cut for billionaires and corporations is going to be financed by an immediate cut to services and benefits to some of the most vulnerable people in this country. at the end of last year, as a means of passing the continuing resolution, there was a deal apparently cut. this was reported in the press. in which there was a promise

made to finance the tax cut with $2 trillion of cuts to medicaid and medicare. medicaid, poor kids, poor families. medicare, seniors in this country. $2 trillion is a hard number to get your head wrapped around. but there's no way to enact $2 trillion, $2 trillion, a t, worth of cuts in medicare and medicaid without hundreds of thousands of people, senior citizens and poor kids, losing access to care. you are literally -- this is not hyperbole. $2 trillion in cuts means the nursing homes are shut down. people are put out on the streets. means poor kids don't get access to mental health services. and so what happened eight years

ago was cruel. a tax cut put on the american public's credit card, 80% of the benefits going to the very, very richest. none of it trickling down. this version that republicans are talking about passing in a matter of weeks is even more cruel. because it is the same balance, the benefit going to the very, very wealthy. president-elect president trump's friends who paid to get in and out of mar-a-lago, but financed immediately by cuts that are going to be devastating for the people in this country who get up every day relying on programs like medicare and medicaid. so, i agree with my friend from rhode island, we've got to be -- from hawaii, we've got to be on the floor talking about this every day. folks thought it was inevitability eight years ago when republicans made it a

priority to steal health insurance from 20 million americans, and by the skin of our teeth we were able to save health insurance for 20 million americans. maybe, if we raise enough of a fuss about this massive transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very, very wealthy, we can stop this egregious policy as well. i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: mr. president, let's talk about trump's betrayal of middle-class america. in 2017, many of us warned that trump's tax giveaway was a disaster for working families. it was a giveaway to billionaires. it was a giveaway to powerful corporations. it stole from america's

treasury, increasing the debt of this country to gild the richest americans. they wanted platinum treatment. they wanted more money than anybody else has ever imagined. and they got it from trump by draining the american treasury. well, that failed america's working families. there is nothing about giving several hundred thousand dollars to the richest americans that is each one of them that helped a single working american. these policies are coming to an end in 2025. but now trump 2 is coming along, and he says i campaigned on working americans, but i want to raid the programs for them and raid the treasury to enrich them again. i didn't give them enough the first time around. the rich are not rich enough.

i campaigned for working families, but i'm going to betray them with tax cuts, tax give waste, a -- gich-aways -- giveaways, a tax crate on programs and the treasury for the richest americans. that is the trump betrayal that we are facing right now. cbo says extending the trump tax cuts would blow a $4.6 trillion hole in the federal budget over the next ten years. as my colleague just pointed out, republicans are saying they might decrease the size of that hole by raiding health care for americans. what an evil and twisted approximately that is. what an assault on working families across our nation. 4.6 trillion. no, i did not say m for million, or b for billion. we're talking trillion, $4.6 trillion that should go to

basic services for all americans or reduce our deficit, instead going into the pockets of the very few. who are you for? are you for the very richest 1% and 0.1% of americans who have so much money they don't know what to do with it, or are you for working families? because this trump budget is the betrayal of working families. if you're for working families you invest in health care, you don't raid it. you invest in housing, you don't raid housing programs. you invest in education. you don't raid education programs. those are the foundations, those are the good-paying jobs, those are the four foundations for families to thrive. if you work an hourly job and make less than 34,000 a year, which is the case for 50 million american taxpayers, you'd get back $130 a year. $2.50 roughly, two and a half

dollars. that's like less than a cup of coffee. enjoy that every week, because that's what trump cares about for those families who are working at the bottom of the ladder trying to move up. instead of helping move up, he wants to take the programs away from them and give them to folks getting a $280,000 per person tax break at the very top. look hugh skewed this is. working families on the right, get nothing. the richest on the right, get everything. that's what we're looking at. that little, tiny $130, a little change in the cost of drugs or your rent, your groceries, wipes that out. 2,000 times the help for the richest compared to those who are struggling. that is twisted. that is warped. that is the trump betrayal of working families. so, let's stand for working fam families. let's stand for health care and housing and education, the

foundation for every family to move up the ladder. because that's what it means to care about every american families, whether they're in the party of the elite rich, like the trump betrayal presents. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. kaine: mr. president. thank you. join my colleagues on the same topic to talk about the forthcoming debate we'll have about tax policy in this chamber. since coming to congress, well, really before, when i was mayor and governor, i've advocated for smart, simple, pro-growth and pro-family tax reforms. taxes should be fair. they should be consistent. they should be predictable. and they should generate the revenue that america needs to fund social security, medicare, education, roads, national security, and the other critical investments that matter to our constituents. i repeat what some of my colleagues did, in 2017 during

the first trump administration, after the failed effort to take health insurance away from more than 20 million people and deprive all americans of being protected from discrimination by insurance companies if they had preexisting conditions, and thank goodness that reconciliation effort failed when three republicans joined democrats to block that effort, the trump administration and colleagues turned to the idea of tax reform. now, democrats were very willing to work on deficit-neutral pro-growth tax reforms, but instead republicans chose we don't want a committee process, we don't want to include democrats, we want to write a bill, and we'll write a bill that will pass partisan tax cuts that dramatically expand the deficit. at this time, and i know my colleagues remember this, economists were saying that america's corporate tax rate of 35% was high compared to global

averages. so there were some suggestions what we should do is lower the corporate tax rate to put it more in tune with what other nations were charging. there's a little bit of apples to oranges difficulty in doing that, because other nations use a vat tax we don't use. but most economists said they wanted to try to blake our corporate -- to make our corporate tax rate equivalent to other nations, by lowering from 35% to something like 28%. many of my businesses in virginia were coming to me, saying we got to be more competitive, we got to have a corporate tax rate that matches up more with global norms. drop the corporate tax rate to 28%. instead, even though companies were only asking for that reduction, our republican colleagues plummeted and slashed the corporate tax rate, not to 28%, not to 25%, but to 21%, and didn't even pay for it. didn't even pay for it as

senator murphy said, just racked up higher deficits. now, there were a few individual tax cuts in this bill. if you look at the bill from 2017 it was mostly corporate tax cuts. there were a few in that pie chart individual tax cuts, but heavily tilted toward the wealthy, as my colleagues described. analysis at the time showed households in the top 1% would get an average tax cut of 60,000 while household in the bottom 60% averaged only $500 each. the bill also left out our nation's poorest children. nearly 20 million children were left out of the full value of the child tax credit because it was not made refundable. democrats dem on stricted the -- demonstrated in the american rescue plan when you expand the child tax credit and allow it to be refundable, you can lead to a revolutionary drop in child

poverty when it was in effect, but republicans took a different route. on top of these inequities that the bill was too heavily weighted toward corporations, too light toward individuals, and with individuals too heavily weighted toward the wealthy rather than lower and middle-class people, the republican bill in 2017 did another thing that was entirely, entirely unjustified. the bill made the corporate tax cuts permanent and the individual tax cuts temporary. so, big, permanent corporate tax cuts, tiny, temporarily, heavily skewed individual tax cuts. during the debate i offered a simple amendment that virtually all my democratic colleagues voted for. we said hey, look, let's go ahead and reduce the corporate tax cut, but not to 21%. if we reduce it to 25%, which is a big reduction, we can make these individual tax cuts for everyday people permanent, so

that at least the individual tax cuts to everyday people would be permanent, like the corporate tax cuts. all of my republican colleagues opposed it. the senate was majority republican, so we were stuck with a bad bill. and that brings us to today. republicans debating how to ram another 4.6 trillion in tax cuts through the senate. i will remind my colleagues that when the senate republicans did this in 2017, they were really proud because they thought it was going to help them in the 2018 midterms. i think it was heavily driven by electoral strategy. they found after 90 days of talking about it, the american public was so mad that these tax cuts went to the wealthy, rather than everyday people, that they dropped it as a campaign issue and talked about other things, and still lost badly in those midterms. the proposed extensions are going to tilt toward the wealthy, as my colleagues indicated. but get this, the deficit effects likely to be felt in

some of these distributional effects president trump is proposing, why not mitigate those by jacking up tariffs? we're going to do tax cuts for the wealthy, but also tariffs, and who will tariffs impact? president-elect trump often says tariffs won't affect americans, but hurt china and mexico. once the election was over, he acknowledged that he can't guarantee american families won't be affected by costs of tariffs. i'm going to guarantee this -- if president trump moves forward with broad-based universal tariffs and they're not defeated in this body, american families will suffer and pay the costs. we know it, because we've seen it before. study after study showed american consumers bore the brunt of trump's first trade war. this time it will be even more projections raising that suggested that the tariffs will impact american families to the

tune of between 2500 and $4,000 per american household in additional costs. $2,500 compared to this tiny, little tax benefit that everyday americans will experience. so talk about salt in a wound. we're going to do a tax bill for the wealthiest when they don't need it, not do much for everyday people who do need it, but put on the shoulders of those same people tariffs that increase the cost of goods? imagine coming out of covid and having this kind of burden on your shoulders. there's a better path. let me give you an example. the democrats are willing to work with republicans to do tax reform that will be fair. just last year, we saw bipartisan negotiation in the house and how that negotiation can lead to more balanced, more smart, better for the deficit, bipartisan priorities. our colleague, senator wyden, reached a deal with house chair jason smith on a bipartisan tax

package that would have lifted children out of poverty, the child tax credit, that would have incentivized investment into research and development, good for companies who then innovate, and that's good for jobs, and also the third piece of this tax bill that was bipartisan would have expanded our ability to build affordable housing. it was fully paid for. this bill got 357 votes in the house. we can't get that for a mother's day resolution in the house of representatives. but then it died here in the senate because republicans didn't want to take the bill up, because they wanted to wait to do a bill that would benefit the weltiest. i urge -- the wealthiest. i urge my colleagues, you made a mistake in 2017 that busted the deficit and made the american voters mad. don't go down that path again. work with us to find a tax bill to appropriately prioritize the needs of everyday american citizens and small businesses.

with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. booker: senator kaine, will you yield for a question? mr. kaine: i yield to my colleagues from new jersey. mr. booker: that was the stunning thing, who are you working for? are you for working americans, american families or the wealthy of the wealthy. i watch this slow-motion dafrlt for our country economically when i was lobbied by corporations, they were saying we're not globally competitive. so everybody here, all 100 of us, want american businesses to win. so, yes, i think we should have, my opinion was, yeah, let's make our tax rate globally competitive and get rid of these crazy corporate tax loopholes people use so many companies pay zero taxes. so we could have a bipartisan conversation that could have reflected our values, lowered the overall corporate tax rate and find way at that get rid of loopholes where the average

police officer is paying higher taxes than some of the biggest corporations. and i watched you during that time. this is eight years ago, and you began to say, let's make sure that this tax plan benefits working americans because when you invest in middle-class americans, working-class americans, it is a proven way to grow the economy, other than this fallacy of trickle down. so the stunning thing for me -- ail think that was -- i think that was one of the most powerful points i heard -- is when people were coming to me and saying 28%, 26%. the biggest corporations were saying it publicly. i was reading in the newspaper, the lowest i read was corporations asking for 25%. what were those conversations like when you were talking -- how do they end up at 21% and then not even support an amendment to bring it back up to what the corporate leaders were asking for? how could that amendment have

not passed? the presiding officer: the senator will be reminded that the questions will be referred to the chair. mr. booker: i apologize, especially when i see who the chair is. mr. kaine: my corporate sector in virginia have, and my companies are like everybody's companies, are saying, hey drop that 35% rate to 28%. i might have one that said to 25%. they were basically saying, if you do it to 28, we're going to be equivalent to other nations. when the bill was put on the table, we got it late in the evening where we didn't even have an ability to even decipher what some of the handwritten delineations were. i almost thought was a tipo. it was -- i almost thought it was a typo. the companies were only asking for 28%.

and then i looked further in this massive bill and i realized all the individual tax cuts were tiny, temporary, and expiring rather than big and permanent. and so i went to the colleagues and i said, have i got a great idea for you. you can take all these individual tax cuts, if you shave off some of the ones to the most wealthy, and you can make them permanent and still do what the corporations had wanted us to do by having a corporate tax rate equivalent of other nations. i thought i was being helpful. i had a solution to a math problem that i thought they were going to like. instead, what they said was, no, it's got to be 21% around these individuals they're going to be weighted to the wealthy and they're going to be temporary. mr. booker: would the senator yield for one last question and then i will yield to senator lujan. mr. kaine: i would be glad to yield. mr. booker: came to the floor to listen to the good-faith

colleagues of arguments about the trump tax cut. and they said it would pay for itself. twa as mantra i heard over and over again. but independent folks like the federal reserve board, the joint committee on taxation found that their corporate tax cuts did not pay for themselves but they drove our government into a multiple trillion dollar more deficit. 90% of workers didn't see a dime. when overwhelmingly it expanded corporate wealth and the wealth of the top one percent significantly and didn't inure to the benefit of the postal worker, the cop, the firefighter, the plumber, the teacher. it is stunning to me that i sat here and listened to folks, but my challenge to you, because you've been sort of a pragmatic,

moderate guy for a long time, and we're seeing this coming around the corner. estimates are now that their new tax plan that they're talking about could cause a deficit to expand again by now over $4 trillion. and so you've been around here longer that in. when we start running budget deficits that we know factually their last tax plan expanded the deficit into the trillions. this one if they do it again, to the benefit of the top one percent and again very few benefits to the working americans, what will that mean for america's fiscal stability going into ten years from now, is ayears from -- 15 years from now? what kind of pressure will that create and what kind of calls do you have from republicans about how to fix the problems that their tax plan caused? mr. kaine: i hope we can take it up in the budget committee. i have some budget committee colleagues who are here on the floor.

senator whitehouse has been the lead democrat on the budget committee and is now at the helm of other committee. but senator merkley, he is now the lead dem on the budget committee. we need to take up the issue of these tax cuts as proposed and explore what the long-term consequences were. the consequence will be to bust the deficit. the consequence will be to put dollars in the hands of those who don't need them and take dollars out of the hands that do when you combine it with the tariff effect. but the consequence will also be significant on the national debt and as senator murphy said during his comments, the national debt gets financed in ways that keeps coming back and who pays for it? everyday folks. they will not get tax relief. they may see their taxes go up. they'll see their prices go up with the tariff blip and then they will be saddled with debt.

we should take the time to do this right. i use the example of what the finance committee did last year on r&d tax credit, child tax credit and the low-income tax credit. not that that bill was perfect and not that this included everything that you might want to include. but it is an example of you don't have to jam this through with one party holding the pen and shrewding the other party. -- and excludeing the other party. you can do a tax bill that can get 357 votes in the house of representatives on something that will be paid for, not increase the deficit, help children get a good start in life and help people afford affordable housing. if you do it the right way, we'll come up with a good plan, and i hope that we will. mr. booker: will the senator yield for -- mr. whitehouse: will the senator yield for one more question? mr. kaine: i will yield. mr. whitehouse: the senator mentioned the budget committee and the hearings we've had in which we've discussed tax cuts and their ability to pay for themselves. how many times have our

republican colleagues been able to produce a witness who under oath would say that these tax cuts would actually pay for themselves? mr. kaine: precisely zero. even though that phrase, they will pay for themselves, they have paid for themselves -- the phrase was used all the time, but no one would under oath say that that actually happened. it reminds me of a great political maxim who once said, the issues candidate is the one who says the word issues the most times. just saying these cuts will pay for themselves, that's not the same as it being true. it wang true in the 20 -- it wasn't true in the 2017 tax cuts and we could never find any credible witness that could come testify to that effect. i have other colleagues on the floor that are raring to go and i yield to them. thank you.

mr. lujan: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. lujan: thank you, madam president. i thank my senator from hawaii for asking us to come together to have a conversation with the american people. i am a senator from the proud state of new mexico from a small rural community in the northern part of the state. i wanted to come down to the floor to continue this conversation as we have heard from colleagues already talk about what this is and what this isn't. and it seems to me when my republican colleagues last did this that what i heard town hall after town hall across new mexico is, democrats, republicans, independents, voters, constituents, they just want to hear the truth. they want to hear what this is and what this is not. and so i'm going to start off by holding up this report that says that almost 60% of the benefit of extending the republican tax

policies will go to the top .1% of the wealthiest in america. .1% of the wealthiest in america. i'm not talking about the other 99.9%. now, let's define how much money people that are in the top .1% in america are making. they're doing very well. they're making $2.8 million per year. that's a lot of money. and they're successful. but under the guise of giving middle-class families, h hardworking families all across america a tax cut where the benefit goes to the top .1%, if you're making $2. million a year, yeah, this is for you. the american people just with a tonight hear the truth. this is not for those

hardworking-class families back home, my brothers and sisters, policemen and women who fight to keep us safe, ems hot respond when we need them the most, nurses, teachers, electricians, ironworkers, pipe fitters, you know all the folks across america who are doing everything they can to put some food on the table, keep a roof over their head, provide for their kids. maybe save for retirement if they have a little extra. they're playing by the rules. this golden rule promise that if you fight hard and you play by the rules, you will do better than the previous generation and you're going to help your kids and everyone who follows you. so while you are playing by the rules all across the country -- and i am talking to everyone not making $2.8 million a year -- my senate republican colleagues are getting ready to rig the system.

with a tax cut that's going to give more money to the people in the top .1%. remember, people making $2.8 million a year or more. well, maybe that will let some of those folks buy another jet plane or another yacht, if they're doing well. $2.8 million. a lot of money. now, what one of the concerns across the country is, just like this happened before, my senate republican colleagues are going to try to do this behind closed doors all while making false promises that this is for you. working-class families all across america. but at the end of the night, all that they're going to do is stick you with the bill. now, they're going to pay for this as we've heard time and time again by eliminating programs that support our veterans, programs that feed young children or babies, take

care of our grandparents or elders, or giving up your child's ability to see the same doctor that they've been seeing since they were born. now, studies show just extending this republican tax scam would blow a $4 trillion hole -- let that sink in. facts. talking about the realities of what this will and will not do. now, the incoming administration is going to try and pass this off as a -- you heard it here -- a middle-class tax cut. that's how they're going to sell this to the american people. it is a handout to the wealthiest people making more than $2.8 million a year. economic analysis makes it clear that this tax scam will drive up the debt and leave working families behind. we all know the way to grow the

economy is to invest in the working class. lower taxes for working families, bring industry and innovation back to our communities across the country. the success of our teachers, our nurses, our pupil fitters, our -- our pipe fitters, our firefighters and police officers and everyone in between -- that is the success in building up the economy across the america. now, look, you've heard this from my democratic colleagues. i and my colleagues are ready to work with our republican colleagues to lower taxes to prioritize them to target the middle class, to help them. this scam is horrible o that's why i wanted to come to the floor today to have a conversation with my colleagues, to share the facts about what's happening here with the american people and let me colleagues know across the aisle, let's work together.

let's truly deliver on a promise to help hardworking middle-class families all across the country. including in the state of new mexico. i want to thank you again, senator schatz, and i want to yield my time to my colleague from vermont as well, who i had the honor of serving in the house and being part of this debate when this happened before. i want to thank the president. i yield back my time. mr. welch: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: the situation for working families in vermont is really, really hard. activity. they show up at work, they get a paycheck and at the end of the month when they try to pay their bills, there's not enough there. the situation for families is enormously insecure when it comes to housing. we find vermonters who are

working at ski areas can't live within an hour of the ski lift that they're taengd. we find that folks in factories who want to live in the community they grew up in can't afford a house. they are competing oftentimes with cash buyers usually from out of state. and it's folks who are in the economy that have the assets and have risen the rising stock market, and good for them. but we need a tax system that is good for working families. people want to work. they want to pay their bills, and they don't want to have the constant signingty of whether they're -- constant anxiety of whether they're going to miss a mortgage payment or rent payment. to have a discussion about a tax policy that essentially funnels money to folks who have done extremely well raises a fairness

question which my colleagues have talked to, but it also raises a very practical question about how do you grow an economy. you can only grow an economy if folks who are working and committed to the communities they're in can pay their bills, can earn what they need in order to pay the grocery bill and to pay rent and health care. and that's why the starting point of tax reform should be addressing family needs. that, by the way, are employer needs. the child care tax credit really worked. it meant that families were able to afford things, and we saw the results with a 50% reduction in childhood poverty. what we also see is that when we can put money into education so families can be secure about a safe place and a good place for their kids to go to school that will work.

so our starting point should be how does this help the paycheck for the working family. and that's pretty simple. the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, low-income housing credits to build the housing that we need. that's where we have to start. funneling money to folks who are doing really well and who have a massive amount of discretionary income and where for corporations the capital that they need to invest is there. there is not a capital shortage. we need to focus on families, not on the well-to-do and the corporations that got a reduction in taxes that was far more than they even requested. the second point i want to make is about the process that's being used to pass the tax bill or to consider it. it's the reconciliation process. by definition, what that means is it will be a republican-only

bill. there will be no discussion among democrats where we have some points of view that, by the way, are really beneficial to folks in my state, whether they voted for harris or they voted for trump. a lot of working families need that child care tax credit. the reconciliation process means that the political trade-offs have to all be in the direction of the most extreme wing of the house republican party, so that process is going to handcuff us right at the beginning. the third point that many of my colleagues made is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. dream on, folks like to say that, it's as though it's magical. they don't pay for themselves. and this tax cut will add about $4 trillion to the deficit. what's next? we say we've got to cut spending. what spending do we have to cut?

health care. the aca premium support, the senator from massachusetts, that would mean for a family in vermont a lot would pay $300 more each month on top of the high grocery bill. the pressure this, if we have this explosion of the deficit, is to cut spending, and it usually means the veterans are on the block. it means that the low-income folks are on the block. it means that health care for working families is on the block. so let's have a tax system that is fair, also promotes growth, and invests in the folks who want to work to make this economy strong, want to build strong communities and take care of their families. madam chair, i yield back. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts.

mr. markey: thank you madam president. we're in a climate emergency. over the past few months powerful hurricanes and severe wildfires have caused nearly one half of a trillion dollars in estimated damage. the los angeles fires are estimated to be the costliest blaze in the history of our country. insurance is becoming unaffordable. people have lost their lives. people have lost their livelihoods. rather than address our climate catastrophe, republicans' highest priority is passing a new $5 trillion tax scam to subsidize the ultra wealthy at the expense of working families. massachusetts per capita, we're the wealthiest state in america. we're very proud of that.

we believe in capitalism. but i haven't had one millionaire come up to me and say i need a tax break, because they know they don't. and to pay for their tax scam, republicans propose slashing medicaid p and the affordable care act, ripping away food security and other supports that parents rely on to feed their children and keep a roof over their head and ending support for clean energy, which would only add more fuel to the fires raging across our country. los angeles is just the most recent example. house republicans have said they want to pay for their tax cuts for the ultra rich with $300 billion in, quote, the green new deal provisions in the 2021 infrastructure bill. well, i don't know if that means cutting programs to get lead out

of our drinking water or stopping programs to help struggling school districts buy new clean energy buses to cut costs and keep kids healthy. maybe they have a problem with programs that let people walk and bike and live safely in communities across the country. but we're watching hundreds of billions of dollars in climate fuel tragedy in the past few months alone. the green new deal is a systemic response to this crisis. i'll give you a couple of numbers. hurricane milton, hurricane helene, remember them last fall? two storms, two weeks, $300 billion worth of damage. $300 billion. they said let's cut the $300 billion for clean energy programs. oh sure, let's have the storms cost -- cause $600 billion worth of damage, $1 trillion worth of

damage each time. sure. why put prevention in place. why should wind and solar ever be deployed? that's what they're coming for. it's outrageous. donald trump and republicans would rather trade programs to help communities survive the crisis for tax cuts that help their donors provide tax season. this week, in response, i'll be introducing legislation to make polluters pay by increasing taxes on private jet fuel to $2 a gallon. you know what these billionaires for their private jets pay today? 20 cents. that's the tax on the jet fuel they put in their luxury jets to travel around america and the world. so we're just going to bufrn it up to -- bump it up to $2 a gallon that will ultimately raise $1.8 billion. i think they can afford it given

what we're seeing happening in l.a. or florida or north carolina or state after state in the last six months. and the tax dodging ultra wealthy ied to stop fang the plames and -- fanning the flames. to tackle the climate crisis, we need to ensure that those doing more than their fair share to fuel the problem are paying the bare minimum and are held accountable for contributing to the solution. so if donald trump and his cabinet of fat cat billionaires and the three richest people in the world want to fly private jets to monday's inauguration to pay tribute to donald trump, the very least they can do is to pay for the damage they're doing to our environment. per passenger, private jets pollute up to 14 times more than commercial flights. and they pollute 50 times more

than trains, producing as much emissions as 5 million cars every single year. private jets emit as much pollution as 5 million cars per year. just a few hours of flying private offsets the benefits of an entire year of driving an electric car, and that's not fair. in one year elon musk's two private jets produced nearly 5,500 tons of carbon emissions, and that's more than 300 years worth of emissions for the average american. everyday americans should not have to subsidize the lavish lifestyle of the ultra rich. the world's wealthiest 1% burn through their entire carbon budget for the year in the first ten days of january. ten days. so let's not let the 1% blow a $5 trillion hole in our federal budget as well. republicans just spent the past two years complaining about the

inflation reduction act. yet, republicans are preparing to spend trillions on tax breaks. they want to feed billionaires' greed instead of the families who will go hungry when they cut snap. they want to grow billionaire excess while they cut people's health care, including the two-thirds of nursing home patients and 40 million children on medicaid and pursue work requirements that do little. and let me just say this. ronald reagan, 1981, he set the playbook. who followed it? newt gingrich, 1995. who followed him? george w. bush, 2001. who followed him? donald trump, 2017. they each had the same plan. because the republicans have a remarkable ability to harness

voluminous amounts of information to defend knowingly erroneous premises. and the central erroneous premise is that it's possible to dramatically increase defense spending, which they want to do and which those other guys did, cut taxes for the richest people in our country. that's what all those other guys did. and then to pretend with crocodile tears that they want to balance the budget, because all that's left are the programs for regular families, for poor families. we call it medicaid. you want to hear another way of describing medicaid? two-thirds of all people in nursing homes are on medicaid. two-thirds of all people are in nursing homes being paid by medicaid. you want to know another number about them? 50% of them have alzheimer's. how can families keep them in a nursing home? medicaid. you know another name we have for that? they're called grandma and

grandpa. grandma and grandpa are in nursing homes with alzheimer's because of medicaid. they want to cut that? good, come for it. we're ready for this discussion. the poorest children in our country, 50% of all children in our country, 50% are on snap, on food stamps at some point in their liechlts that's the poorest children in our country. that's who they are. that's medicaid, another way of talking about medicaid. the poorest children, most vulnerable seniors. that's the piggy banks they're going to use for tax breaks for billionaires? they are then going to turn and say we're going to to the affordable care act. you know another way of talking about that? that's how people get funding for opioid treatment and mental health treatment. just slash it, sure. who needs to help families with mental health issues? who needs to help families that have opioid addiction? why do that? and then they say we're going to go to wind and solar and we're going to cut that too.

and we're with going to keep the tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. kick them in the heart, you're going to break your toe. that's what this plan is all about. it's what the plan has always been about since 1981. so we just can't let the ultra wealthy play while leaving hardworking americans to pay with their health care or their financial security and bearing the brunt of the climate atrocities. we need economic justice, we need climate justice. we need wealthy to pay, especially jet setting billionaires who are polluting right now and we need a system to work for the american people, not for the billionaire excess that the republican party is going to bring out to the senate floor. i thank you, madam president. i yield to my friend from rhode island, the great leader, senator whitehouse. mr. whitehouse: i make the point to my friend from massachusetts

that when democrats used reconciliation, we used thefrie to do the inflation reduction act and help everyone. the inflation reduction act meant green jobs to red states and it meant less pollution for everyone. the republicans are teeing up to use reconciliation to help big ceo's, billionaires and big corporations who are already doing amazingly well. if you feel you're being left behind by those folks, it's because are you. look at what ceo pay has done, rocketing sky ward, compared to the pay of the top 1%, other folks in the c suite who may not be the ceo, compared to typical worker wages down here.

most americans are right here, and most of the benefit of this tax reform will go to these folks. ceo's are taking a larger and larger share for themselves of the resources of american corporations, leaving less and less to pay their workers, and that's the difference rocketing upward and more or less flat. and they want to make this worse through their reconciliation. if you want to add another backdrop to what's going on here, this is the share of america's revenue that's contributed by corporations. a lot of people in this body seem to want to go back to the good old days of the 1950's when, you know, things were whatever they were then. well, back in the 1950's, more than 30% of america's revenue came from our corporate community. corporations were making a real

and significant contribution to america's revenues and enjoying the significant growth that being an american corporation provides you. but politically they hacked and hacked and hacked away at their responsibilities and now they're paying 6% of america's revenues. as weldsesy as -- wealthy as american corporations are, they are 6% now of america's revenues. and this too will be made worse by this republican program. half the benefits go to the top 5%. if you're over one million bucks, it's a $78,000 tax cut, if you're making $50,000, it is 273 bucks. it will come through medicare, medicaid, and through support for their health care. they will even lower taxes for companies moving jobs and profits offshore.

how about that for make america great again? i'll tell you, when you actually take a look under the hood, what you see every time is that the benefits of these republican tax cuts go to the biggest corporations, to the billionaires, and to corporate ceo's, and within those biggest corporations, the worst ones for moving jobs and profits offshore. it's as reliable as sunrise and as it's wrong as it can be. i yield to my friend, senator rosen. ms. rosen: thank you, senator whitehouse. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. rosen: thank you, madam president. as it's my first time addressing you from the senate floor since i began my second term, i want to start by saying how grateful

i am that nevadans have entrusted me to serve another six years in the united states senate. people in nevada know above all else, i'm a nevadan first, and my track record is clear, i will always support policies that work for everyone. as members of congress, we have the opportunity to make a real and meaningful difference in people's lives, and that starts by working to make the american dream just more affordable for hardworking people. heading into the new administration, i'm deeply concerned about president trump's plan to cut taxes for the ultra wealthy and billionaires on the backs of workers, senior citizen and middle-class families. when the trump tax cuts were first passed in 2017, they overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest individuals and the largest corporations while increasing our national security

debt -- national debt and working families with much less to show for it. and senate democrats, we will fight -- we will fight to stop this from happening again. as we negotiate the upcoming comprehensive tax reform package, we must focus on making sure it provides meaningful tax relief for hardworking families, for you, for all of us. while the trump administration and senate republicans look out for billionaires and corporations, senate democrats are working for you. for one, we should be working to restart or expand several key tax credits that support american families, like expanding the child tax credit, which will increase the amount of hard-earned money families get to keep in their pocket. we also need to use this opportunity to address the high cost of housing, which is impacting families in nevada and

across the country. we must expand the low-income housing tax credit so that we can just build more housing, increase supply that lowers costs for you, for everyone. as someone who grew up in a working-class family, i know what it's like to work multiple jobs and rely on tips to make ends meet. that's why we need to make sure that we put money back in the pockets of hard-working nevadans, which means any package should include the bipartisan plan to eliminate income tax on tips for service and hospitality workers. by ending income tax on tips and adding guardrails to prevent the ultra wealthy and ceo's from exploiting loopholes, we can make sure that nevadans keep more of their hard-earned money. we also need to provide a broad-based tax cut for working

families and the middle class and making sure that families making less than $400,000 a year don't see a tax hike. instead of lowering already low tax rates for corporations, we should be providing much-needed tax relief for our small businesses, like restoring research and development expensing. our country's strength has always come from the middle class, our teachers, our first -- our first responders, our small business owners, factory workers, families that get up every morning, every day, they send their kids off to school and then they go out and they work hard to make our nation run. and they deserve it. they deserve the tax policies that work for them, not tax cuts that leave them behind while the wealthiest of us, the wealthiest of billionaires, the big

corporations reap the tax rewards. so let's be clear, though, if president-elect trump and senate republicans don't work with democrats, republican tax proposals, well, they won't help you, they won't help your family. republican tax policies are only going to help billionaires many we need to build an economy that works for everyone, for you, not just those at the top. so to all the families feeling the stress, no -- know you're not alone. it's time for us to put your priorities first, to lower costs, to expand opportunity. i see you, all of you, and i am ready and willing to fight for you and for all those you care about. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: thank you,

madam president. madam president, i'm joining my colleagues on the senate floor today for the same reasons. and i so appreciate my friend and colleague from the great state of nevada because she is absolutely right. and my colleagues as well. drawing attention to what really is happening here in washington that has an impact on our individuals and families back home. you know, quite often i see so many decisions being made here in this bubble in washington without any true regard or understanding of the impact on main street where we all live and where we come from. and what we're talking about today is what incoming president, donald trump, had passed previously when he was president, which is this massive tax giveaway to billionaires. what the american people don't know, what we know, we're talking about and that's why we're here, is that tax cut for

billionaires is about to expire, and many of my colleagues, republican colleagues, want to extend the entire bill at the expense of middle-class families across the country. now, the nonpartisan congressional budget office says that reauthorizing the trump tax bill as is would add $4.6 trillion to our national debt. that would raise interest rates and make it more expensive for families to buy a home, to tend their kids to college or start a business. and based on how much my colleagues across the aisle have spent the last four years as i've sat in your seat, madam president, listening to my colleagues, i've heard them say that we should be talking about the deficit and doing something about it. and i would hope that they would want to avoiding trillions of dollars to it, regardless of

who's in the white house, even now, unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case. instead, my colleagues now, my republican colleagues have come up with two options for selling this legislation to the american people many again, this legislation that will mainly benefit the very wealthy in this country, the billionaires, legislation that's going to add $4 trillion to the deficit, and this is how they plan to do it. one option is republican leadership in the senate has suggested that because they want to extend policy that currently exists, that we should just iing enterthe cost -- just ignore the cost of extending it, that alling of a sudden -- all of a sudden that $4 trillion increase to the deficit just doesn't exist. i wish we all could forget about the national debt, but not what the american people do. i can tell you every family

across the country has to live within their means and manage their budget. my family, my grandparent, my parents, everybody, every individual. so we should be working together to address this issue. the other option that i've heard from some of my colleagues across the aisle, to reauthorize this trump tax bill, is they have suggested a pay-for which is to cut medicaid in order to cut tax breaks. tax breaks for the very, very wealthy, the top 1%, on the backs of working families, on the backs of individuals, our middle class. to me that's just outrageous, padding the pockets of the top 1% at the expense of working families is unacceptable. and nobody should stand for that. and i urge my colleagues and

leadership in this body to work in a bipartisan manner on this and find solutions that will benefit all americans, not just ceo's and their board members. there's a way we can come together to make sure middle class benefits, that our companies, small businesses, and companies, by the way that are essential for the middle class and our labor force, because you need both, to work together, to benefit, and really work and identify a pay-for and how we're not going to add to the deficit. i can't stress this enough. we need to come together and build on spending reductions from the bipartisan fiscal responsibility act instead of targeting america's health care, and let's ensure the wealthiest pay their fair share to protect middle class and their children from the exorbitant trillion dollar bill.

there is an option that can work, i will stress it again. we need to work together in a bipartisan way. this should not be a bipartisan issue, this should not be done just through reconciliation without any input from the democrats because at the end of the day, our communities are no different, our families are no different, the firefighters in nevada are no different than the firefighters in your state. the hardworking laborers, whether it's the service industry or somebody washing dishes in a restaurant in nevada is no different than that person washing dishes in some of my colleagues' states. everybody benefits if we come together in a bipartisan way and that's how this should work and i am hopeful my colleagues are willing to do so. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, yesterday i came to the floor of the united states senate to talk about the importance of promptly confirming president trump's cabinet. the american people having voted for president trump, having said that they are unhappy with the direction the country is going in is entitled to his team to help him actually do what he said he would do during the

campaign. well, today i'd like to reiterate that message. but in particular i want to highlight some of the hypocrisy of our democratic colleagues on this important matter as it pertains to our country's democratic processes. we know that our colleagues are frequently warning the ways the republicans are allegedly undermining democracy. but this is like the little boy that cried wolf. you cry wolf often enough and people begin to believe that it's not really serious and indeed it shouldn't be taken seriously in the case of the allegation that republicans are somehow trying to undermine democracy. let me give you an example. back in 2022 when republicans passed state laws that included

commonsense election integrity measures, like voter i. didn't, democratic -- i.d., democratic leader chuck schumer criticized these which were intented to ensure the integrity of our elections. you would think that would be a no-brainer, that everybody would want to embrace measures that would protect the integrity of our elections. but he claimed somehow it was an attempt to suppress people from voting. well, i remember it wasn't that long ago when barbara jordan, a democrat from texas, revered justly as an incredible leader for our state and country along with james baker iii cochaired a commission that came out with voter i.d. as one of the consensus recommendations. but now democrats claim making sure that people are who they say they are and using the same

sorts of things that you need in order to get on an airplane or to buy tobacco or a six-pack of beer, somehow that undermines democracy. it just doesn't make any sense. but here's senator schumer on the senate floor. he said republicans across the country are trying to stop the other side from voting. that tears apart, rips apart the very fabric of our democracy. i can almost see him crying crocodile tears as he says that. well, i did a rough check a moment ago, and 152 million americans voted in 2024. if republicans were trying to suppress the vote, we're doing a lousy job. because you're seeing historic numbers of people, a lot of whom have nod made a practice -- not made a practice of voting before, showed up at the ballot

box this time because they hated the direction our country was going in. and they felt like this was our last chance perhaps to save our country as we know it. well, the senator from new york uses this argument to advocate for changes to the senate filibuster rule, the requirement you get 60 votes to close off debate, in order to pass what he called federal voting rights legislation. well, first of all, what it would have done, it would have preempted the states' laws when it came to voting practices and created a single, uniform standard here at the federal level which would have prevented some of these commonsense measures, like voter i.d. from taking place. well, president biden also expressed this same sentiment. he pressed for the filibuster be changed to advance the so-called voting rights package saying the panel must be pass -- package

must be passed, quote, to defend our democracy. well, actually, it would have made it easier to cheat. now, ironically they use the same argument for democracy to undermine the senate filibuster which is one of the bedrocks of this institution. but what i've noticed if an issue can be framed as a threat to democracy, democrats throw any other concerns out the window. hence the sky is falling. more recently in 2023, democrats brought up the same question of protecting democracy as a reason to advance legislation addressing artificial intelligence. well, as it turns out, artificial intelligence has been around for decades. it's recently captured the popular imagination because technology has taken us to places we never dreamed we could

go. well, in 2023 the committee on rules and administration held a hearing on a.i. and the democratic leader said this. if left unchecked -- here he goes again -- he said if left unchecked, artificial intelligence use in our elections could erode our democracy from within and from abroad and damage -- and the damage unfortunately would be reversible. this is a pretty common scare tactic. you scare people enough, well, maybe they're willing to let you do things that they otherwise wouldn't do upon calmer reflection. he went on to stress the importance of republicans and democrats working together to protect and reinforce our democracy. we're for that. but here's what he said. i can think of few issues that should both unite both parties faster than safeguarding our

democracy. it will take all of us, the administration, the private sector, congress working together to protect our democracy, ensure robust transparency and safeguards, and ultimately keep the vision of our founders alive in the 21st century. well, taken at face value, that sounds pretty good until you start beginning to look at the details about what he says we need to do in order to accomplish that goal. that's where you begin to see the huge disconnect. it's in pursuit of another agenda. democrats have become the party that cried wolf or -- excuse me -- threat to democracy and the more they say it, the less meaning it actually holds. for what it's worth, i agree that the administration, the private sector, and congress should work together to protect rather than undermine democracy. we do have some different

perspectives and points of view about how we might do it. that's a laudable goal but not in pursuit of a purely cynical and partisan policy agenda. there's a very tangible way that democrats can join with us to do this week. we can cooperate with the president and the people -- that the people elected at commander of chief of the united states by confirming his cabinet. how is that for protecting democracy. the opposite which is to stonewall the president's cabinet nominees, to burn as much time as possible before we're able to get that done is not preserving and protecting democracy. it's undermining it. our democratic colleagues never seem to lose an opportunity to

say that whatever the subject, it's a threat to democracy. but here they are today participating in a campaign to stonewall president trump's nominees chl i would argue is -- which i would argue is undermining the democratic process. it's denying an elected president of the united states who won not only the electoral vote but the -- the college vote but the popular vote as well, to deny him his team so we can actually get to work on january 20 doing what he was elected to do. just yesterday senator schumer, the democratic leader, came to the floor to air his grievances on each of the president's nomineeses for the cabinet. he argued that many of the policies they would implement would be disastrous. but the fact of the matter is the american people have chosen. they did that on november 5 when

they went to the polls and they gave president trump a substantial majority and even a mandate for a new direction in the country. they repudiated the failed policies of the biden administration starting with what's been happening at the border, which is an unmitigated disaster from a public health and public safety point of view. and it would indeed be a threat to democracy if our democrat colleagues chose to ignore the will of the voters and den night president his cabinet or delay it for no good reason and prevent these nominees from getting to work to implement the policies that the american people elected president trump to enact. unfortunately this is sort of reflexive. it's kind of what our democratic

colleagues do. i've been amazed to listen on television and here in person for the last however it's been, hour, democratic colleagues who come to the floor to speak but they didn't talk about the pending business, the laken riley act. this young woman who was killed by an illegal immigrant who should not have been in the country. i asked pam bondi who is the nominee for attorney general this morning during a confirmation hearing, i said if president biden and harris had secured the border, do you think laken riley would still be alive? and she said yes together with many others who have been victimized by illegal immigrants who come across the border to do americans harm in one way or another. not all of them.

but when you open the border to ten or more million people with two million of them got-aways evading law enforcement, you don't know what you're going to get. well, i take that back. you do know what you're going to get. you're going to get some people who do not intend to come here for a better way of life. they come here to rape and pillage and rob and to commit crimes. well, republicans are tired of hearing excuse after excuse from our democratic -- from our democrats. some of the hearings are be delayed due to incomplete background checks. but ask yourself who is responsible for the background checks? well, it's joe biden's fbi. the fbi owes it to the american people to work around the clock

24/7 to get these background checks done on a timely basis. otherwise we are literally undermining a democratically elected president. so i would urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to heed their own words when it comes to confirming president trump's cabinet. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk a big talk about defending democracy. i'd like to see them put these commit m.b.t.s into -- these commitments into practice but ending the un-democratic obstructionist tactics that they're using to deny this president his team. madam president, i yield the floor. and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: