government accountability,, whatever the title of that committee is, for information related to that. that took place over the course of several months. in the process, just so you're clear, was an iterative, collaborative process that included speeded we will leave this hearing for john ratcliffe, the nominee to be cia director. the senate could vote on his nomination today. in the meantime lawmakers are contingent debate on legislation that would require medical care for a child born after a failed abortion. senate majority leader johnson has set up a vote for tomorrow on whether to advance the bill. the measure is coming up this week to coincide with friday's march for life. live coverage of the senate on c-span2.

all others who are watching this should know there is been commissioned by congress and national security commission on emerging biotechnology. charged with looking at the national security implications of our current biotech leadership but also making recommendations to make sure the united states can stay ahead of our adversaries in particular china. so we will produce of those recommendations in the spring timeframe. i'm chairman of the commission currently, and some of those will implicate very directly our

intelligence community. i would just ask you and your staff review that report when it's published and work with this committee and others on some of the recommendations. do you commit yourself without having seen the report but to be attentive to its recommendations and findings? >> i absolutely do and i appreciate your leadership on that issue. as we talked about and we'll talk about more i look forward to supporting and collaborating your efforts in that regard. >> thank you. >> time is winding down. i'm the new guy but one other quick question here. would you like to volunteer any particular approaches that you might want to lead the agency in to delay or degrade the threats posed by four nations using emerging technologies like ai or

biotech? >> i think we can talk about some of those things in the classified section, senator. i think that what i would say in this setting is that when it comes to technology we have so much concern about china and russia and her adversaries and what they are doing and how we need to counter them. i have absolute confidence we can and will. there's only one country in the world that can parallel park a 200-foot rocket booster. the chinese can't do it. the russians can't do it. we do it and we do it in part because of the great collaboration we have and can have a need to deepen between the private sector where o much innovation and ingenuity in the space of emerging

technologies. i'm committed as cia director if allowed to expanding upon that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator ossoff. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. ratcliffe, congratulations on your nomination. thank you for your service to country and congratulations for your family. i enjoyed our engagement picky reskill, useful opportunity for me to learn more about your views and your plans for cia. want to begin with an impact on georgia. on election day, 2024 were a series of bomb threats issued against in dekalb county georgia principally. predominately black comfortably democratic leaning precincts that disrupted the election operations and the ability of folks to vote in the afternoon on election day. our state election officials attributed those threats to

russian actors what assurance can you give my constituents in georgia that cia will sustain collection to identify threats to voting rights and election administration in the united states? >> so thank you for the question. i enjoyed our visit as well. i can give every assurance. as you know the cia doesn't have domestic authorities when we talk about election security issues. the fbi and dhs are the agencies that provide that protection. where the cia plays a role is if we have bad actors who want to influence or impact our elections as you have related in this case, i have seen that specific intelligence that, for instance, russia, russian actors were behind those threats. those are the kinds of things the cia not only should do but must do and, frankly, do better in terms of collecting

intelligence on how our adversaries in ten, whether it's through physical means or through cyber means of disrupting or influencing elections. the cia's role should be to identify those threats over there before they come over here. >> thank you for that. appreciate the quantity the opportunity to provide some clarifying information about events of that of attracted some scrutiny in september 2020 when you sent a letter to the chairman of the senate judiciary committee which declassify certain intelligence about russian analytic products that had been collected by the intelligence community and which pertain to events for your spouse during the 2016 election, a controversy over alleged links between the trump campaign and the russian government. my purpose not to interrogate,, to relitigate that ancient history from 2016 but to

understand why you chose to send that letter to the senate judiciary committee declassifying intelligence on that day, september 29. you will no doubt recall that that was the same day as the presidential debate, yes? >> i don't recall it was that date but it may be. >> you don't recall question testimony is you are not aware that that letter was sent to the judiciary committee by you on the same day as the presidential debate? >> i didn't recall that it was on that day. i will take you at your word. the dates to reflect what are. but to your question -- >> i want to drill down on that because my purpose here is not to suggest some kind of political intent but you have made it very clear that avoiding the politicization of the intelligence community activity is a high party, correct? >> correct. >> it strikes me that releasing politically sensitive

intelligence that you would think carefully about the timing of that, that you may consider that doing so on the day of a presidential debate when this was intelligence collected for years in the past might reasonably draw the question of whether or not there were some political impetus. is that greece will? >> it's reasonable for you to ask that. and if i come usb to clarify, if i can do that. >> please. >> you are correct it was my decision but it wasn't my process. so to your point, that effort was actually the request of this committee during my confirmation hearing at dni who to go back a look at the intelligence from 2016 and 2017 intelligence community assessment. i also received separately a request from the attorney general and from then special counsel to declassify certain

intelligence relating to that in support of what would be a public report from a special counsel. in addition to that, i received what i would call requests or even demands from other senate committees to include the judiciary committee and the house homeland, i mean the senate homeland security and government accountability,, whatever the title of that committee is, for information related to that. that took place over course of several months. and the process can just so you're clear, was an iterative, collaborative process that included the attorney general, cia director, the direction of the nsa, myself as dni, and again an iterative process that resulted in a highly redacted product to protect sources and methods but yet to respond to these requests, or demands, to

put that information out. >> that's useful information in my time is running short. we can discuss further in a closed session if we need to. i appreciate your answer. >> very much look forward. >> senator cornyn. >> mr. ratcliffe, i think i have the distinction of having known you longer than anybody else on this committee. i remember when you are -- >> they call that misfortune. >> -- when you with the mayor of heath, texas. how we people live in heath, texas? >> around 7000. >> okay. do you still live there with your wife? >> i do. it's a great community. >> it is. >> i say hi to all the heathens out there. >> absolutely. i have every confidence that you will do an outstanding job as the next director of the cia, and i say that advisedly because

as i said i have known you for a long time i watched your career from the private sector to a u.s. attorney, acting u.s. attorney for a while, to a member of congress. and had the privilege of introducing you to the committee at your previous confirmation hearing as director of national intelligence. so i don't really have any doubt about your qualifications. i do want to talk about a couple subjects, and one is i know people have heard the discussion of fisa and section 702, and appreciate the clarity with which you have explained how essential this tool is. part of the problem we had with reauthorization is people don't trust the people actually implement in that tool because it seemed the abuses by members of the ic including the fbi, particularly dating back during

president trump's administration so they think it well, everybody must use, misuse of these tools. i thought your great analogy when we discussed this on the phone pic you said you probably have a bunch of steak knives in your kitchen, and they can be used for useful and beneficial purpose but they could also be misused. i think that was a pretty good analogy. i want to ask you about one of the full fixes that some people have suggested to the current state of the law, and that is to require a warrant to query lawfully collected fisa information. you have probably identified the fact that this is directed at people overseas, foreigners overseas, not americans, but you are former u.s. attorney and a pretty good lawyer, and you understand what probable cause requires to be able to establish

probable cause in front of a judge. you need to have evidence. and if all you have is a fisa query of a foreign target that happens to mention an american citizen or u.s. person, is there any way for you to go to court and established the requirements of a warrant of probable cause in order to query that data? >> you know the answers that better than i do because you are a better lawyer and were an attorney general. but the answer is no, because the danger there is you really don't have the information to obtain the warrant. and the process of obtaining the warrant, we're talking about national security issues where sometimes minutes matter in the ability to disrupt or interdict that bad actors or to act upon

the intelligence you can gain from that. the process of even getting a warrant, the time it takes them much less the fact as you say you won't have a probable cause basis to get there. >> i i think there's a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about how fisa works. admittedly, i had to go back periodically refresh my own memory because it does get to be fairly convoluted sometimes. the fact of a is it's illegal to use this tool to spy on american citizens, and there are protocols in place to lessen the mr. wyden: madam president, at some point the senate will vote on the nomination of john ratcliffe to be director of the cia. i'm here to outline for just a few moments why i oppose this nomination. let me begin by saying i often

vote for nominees who have different policy views than i do. however, my concerns with mr. ratcliffe are much deeper than that. in 20 i opposed his confirmation to be director of national intelligence because i believed his partisanship and willingness simply went to the proposition of doing what would please donald trump. unfortunately his actions head of national intelligence only confirmed my concerns. today i want to focus on john ratcliffe's commitment to the law and his truthfulness with congress. i'll give a couple of examples to illustrate my concerns. in 2019 congress passed the law requiring the director of national intelligence to submit an unclassified report on who was responsible for the brutal murder of "washington post" reporter and u.s. resident jamal khashoggi. in 2020 after john ratcliffe was

nominated to be the head of national intelligence, i asked him at his confirmation hearing whether he intended to follow that law. he responded that he needed to take a look at the underlying intelligence to see what could be released and, madam president, that is not the same as saying he would do as the law required. after director ratcliffe was confirmed as dni, he decided that nothing more could be classified about the murder of jamal khashoggi. the effect of that decision was to cover up the fact that saudi prince mohammad bin salman approved the operation to capture or kill khashoggi. the public only has the facts today because after the 2020 election, then head of national intelligence abe yal hanes -- abriel hanes abided by the law

and released the report. while john ratcliffe was director of national intelligence, the saudi leadership, madam president, was protected from public accountability. while he was director of national intelligence, director ratcliffe wrote to multiple members of congress saying that he had completed his review of the intelligence and determined that nothing more could be released. and despite the fact that the congress passed a law, director ratcliffe insisted that there was only marginal public interest in declassification. he said this in three letters to me, to acting chair, chairman rubio, and vice chairman warner and to the chair of the house intelligence committee. so to me, madam president, this raises questions about john ratcliffe's commitment to the law. and basically, i have concerns about his truthfulness with the congress. as part of this nomination process, i submitted a written

question asking him why he didn't obey the law. he responded that a review had been necessary to determine what could be declassified, and i quote here, this review was not completed until after i left office. madam president, that statement by mr. ratcliffe just wasn't true. mr. ratcliffe wrote three letters to the congress saying the review had been completed. the fact was even included in the director's representations to a court in a foia case. so here, madam president, is why i am opposing the ratcliffe nomination. if john ratcliffe is willing to make representations to the congress that are contradicted by what is in the public record, imagine how easy it would be for him to misrepresent classified matters behind a veil of

secrecy. there are other aspects of john ratcliffe's record at dni that are troubling. he said at his confirmation hearing he would tell truth to power. the truth suggests otherwise. for example, at the end of september 2020, he released intelligence about hillary clinton's 2016 campaign. that was even though the intelligence community didn't know if it was accurate or the extent to which it was fabricated or exaggerated by russian intelligence. needless to say, this was a major break from standard practice and it is hard to escape the conclusion that it was done for partisan political purposes, particularly given the timing. so i asked mr. ratcliffe whether he had ever taken any actions that were actually in conflict with the position of the president.

his response was simply to offer nothing. madam president, my concerns in 2020 that john ratcliffe was too partisan to be confirmed as the head of the intelligence agency have been validated by these specific examples i have cited today. so as i've said, he also now has a record of ignoring a law passed by the u.s. congress and then misrepresenting basic facts about that decision. so when the senate does vote on the ratcliffe nomination, i want the record to show that i strongly oppose the nomination, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. rosen: thank you.

madam president, i on october 7, 2023, hamas terrorists shocked the human conscience when they carried out a brutal attack on israel that killed innocent men, women, and children and took hundreds hostage including americans. i still remember waking up that day to horrific reports coming out of israel, the heart wrenching stories of people brutalized, women raped, the mass murder of more than 1200 people and the abduction of so many men and women and babies and the elderly. these hostages, they're more than just names, more than just statistics, they are mothers, they are fathers, they are sons, they are daughters, they are friends, they are community. since that horrific day, more than a year ago, hamas has kept them captive, enduring inhumane

conditions that no one, i repeat, no one should be subjected to and in doing so, hamas has inflicted unimaginable amount of pain and suffering on the families of the hostages as well. families who have been living a nightmare, a nightmare. they don't know the fate of their loved ones and they're tormented by every video that hamas releases. for others it meant the heartbreak of knowing their loved one was murdered by hamas, but their body has remained cap captive. families have been unable to properly bury and grieve their loved one. and in the days, weeks, and months since that terrible day, i've met with many of the hostage families repeatedly, both in israel and the united st states. their resilience and their

str strength, i don't know how they do it. they wake up every day and they stand tall and they're resilient and they' they speak out in the face of such pain and suffering. it is remarkable and unimaginable that they have to do this all at the same time. and each time i've met with these families, i've made it clear i'll continue to do everything i can to make sure they're reunited with their loved ones. that's why the agreement between israel and hamas which has paused the conflict and commits to bringing the remaining hostages is welcome relief. a deal is also helping save civilian lives in israel and gaza by putting a stop to the fighting. it's ramping up the delivery of much needed humanitarian aid into gaza. so let's be clear. this agreement was possible because of the united states'

steadfast and unwavering support for israel. and it was brought about because of the advocacy of the hostage families together with bipartisan diplomatic leadership. so now i'm going to take a moment. i'm going to speak directly to all of the families who have been waiting for nearly 500 day s waiting for news, waiting for a phone call, waiting for a moment that they could embrace their loved ones once again. your pain, your perseverance, your strength in the face of heartbreak and tragedy and your tireless efforts pushing forward for a deal, pushing forward to progress, you got us to this point. you did you have made the

difference. and though nothing can undo the devastation in the past 15 months, i can only hope that this agreement can begin to provide some form of relief. i know that we were all relieved to see three hostages finally agreed over the weekend and reunited with their families. roami, emily, and derone, finally home. timely home. the images of embraceswith their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, it filled our hearts. it fuels our resolve. and we know that our work is not yet over. and so i want to be clear, the united states, we will not rest until every single hostage is returned home. now, more than ever, we must

remain ridge tloonts make sure this -- vigilant is make sure this agreement is fully carried out. and the read ahead, undoubtedly, it will be difficult. but with our unconditional support of israel and commitment to regional stability, this deal can bring some much-needed peace of mind to the people of israel, to the hostages, to their families and to the region as a whole. thank you, madam president, for listening. we pray for the families still waiting the return of their loved ones, and we hope to bring peace through strength.

>> if these terrorists are going to raise the cost to pay for tax cuts on rich that would be a travesty, hurt average american families and would be a very,

very bad thing to do. [inaudible question] >> john ratcliffe, since he's not a cabinet official, we're going to look at each nominal economic carefully and determine what to do. yes. [inaudible question] >> well, you are seeing it today. i mean we are exposing what actually these ceos doing to the benefit and who they hurt. this is relentless drumbeat. doing the same thing at the hearings. our theme is we're on the side of working families. they are on the site of the wealthy, the well-connected. we're doing that on everything we do. just as we got into the majority in toys 17 we started out doing it, we kept doing it, we will persist in doing it in and is going be very, very successful.

yes. [inaudible question] >> look, i believe in the safety institute. i believe in them. worked with a republican colleagues to try and have good, good legislation that allows innovation in ai but as safety. >> subpoena affidavit? >> the hegseth nomination?

[inaudible conversations]

>> thank you all for coming this morning, and it's all it is a couple things. i just got back from the white house. our colleague marco rubio is fully sworn in and he was sworn in by vice president vance. things are good. we are going to start this hearing again and welcome the

public year. this is a public hearing of the foreign relations committee. we're doing america's work here, and i over the years there's been interruptions and as i said when i started this meeting last time, the new chairman has zero tolerance for interruptions. there will be no interruptions. there will be no communicating between anyone in the audience and even a witness or members of this committee. if there is we will immediately posit bickering. you will be removed by my good friend here in blue. you also be banned from coming back here for the next 12 months. it's important, we respect the first amendment year. there's all kinds of places you can communicate outside of history but we're doing america's business year and it's important we focus on it, where efficient, always short of time so we ask everyone to respect that.

if you don't, there's consequences. so with that, madam chairman, to give anything to add to that? ranking over. >> i sort of support making sure this hearing can be done in an orderly way that allows the witnesses, the witness to testify and allows members of the committee to ask their questions. i support the chairman efforts. >> thank you very much, and with that i'm going to make an opening statement. i will then refer to the ranking member to make an opening statement. we then had some distinguished colleagues to introduce. do you, yet time to sit through her opening statement would you want to do introduction? i know you both have important things you have to do. your choice. >> met our colleague skill, mr. chairman, if i may speak. let our colleagues ago. don't do that to them.

[laughing] >> can we go? >> shelley. >> thank you. thank you, chair and ranking member for walking me and want thank my good friend elise stefanik for honoring me today that the privilege to introduce her before this distinguished committee. i also want to say what a privilege it is to share the podium with my friend tom cotton. congratulations also to both of you. your positions on this committee is to in order to be here to introduce someone who i admire greatly. the job she has been selected to carry out for president trump is not an easy one. but it is extremely important. in its our information it was believed that the united nations required u.s. leadership in both its creation and in the actual business of the organization to prevent conflict and to advance freedom but lately when many of us look at the united nations this body that is meant to advance values of peace and freedom and human dignity we

don't see those american values reflected. we see rampant anti-semitism against the world's only jewish state as the faces attacks from all directions directions. we see oppression and aggressive autocrats celebrated and elevated to leadership positions. we see china, russia and iran empowered in this organization to advance their values, not the values of peace and freedom that americans stand for. it is clear the need to reestablish u.s. leadership at this broken institution, we need to do that. i cannot think of anyone more qualified or more ready to fulfill that role than my friend elise stefanik. i've known her for several years. during her career in public servant and i'm excited to highlight her qualifications for this important role for which she has been nominated. as a of the house of representatives she has shown remarkable leadership. as a of both the armed services

and intelligence committee she shown an exceptional command of national security issues. elise understand the dangers world and the growing threat that our country faces. she has the strength and the skill to reassert u.s. leadership on the world stage, and world stage that needs moral clarity and leadership now more than ever. elise has shown that moral clarity by exposing, she has shown her moral clarity by exposing anti-semitism on our college campuses. she has shown that moral clarity i posted on social media every single day about the innocent, innocent hostages taken by hamas during the horrific attacks of october 7, more than 450 days later days later. the united nations is a tough place. elise is from new york. but elise has never backed down from a challenge. at the time of her first congressional election she was a

youngest woman ever elected to the carcass in the united states history. she went on to become the youngest woman ever to serve in an elected house leadership and she will confidently and skillfully executed for president trump and for all of the american people at the united nations. additionally, on a personal level, elise is a good mother. you can see her son sam back and she such a good mother they of legos ready to go. a great wife, a great daughter, and a wonderful friend. her steady hand and genuine caring nature combined with her fierce intellect will bring exactly that person at president trump and our nation needs at the united nations. i look forward to voting since a quarter when have a chance and i thank all of you for the opportunity to have her before you today. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator capito. well said. senator cotton. >> mr. chairman,, senator shaheen, colleagues, it's my honor to join senator capito

today in introducing my friend and colleague elise stefanik is a nominee from bachelor of united nations. elise has of houston record of fighting for american interest at home and abroad and urge members of this committee to confirm her swiftly and hopefully unanimously. united nations today has many problems. chief among them are communist chinese influence and incessant targeting of israel. from reading at anti-semitism to opposing harmful chinese and russian policies, the next u.n. ambassador must help restore sanity to the united nations. i can think of no better person for this role than elise. in congress she has unapologetically stood up to our adversaries and will do the same at the united nations. as as a senior member of the he armed services committee and house intelligence committee, elise understands the stakes of her competition with communist china. she helped stand up to china task force and house later became the bipartisan select

committee of the chinese communist party. .. also a tireless advocate for hostages taken by hamas. police have dedicated joining

service to serve the people of new york. your constituents best known for working across the aisle to the lives of new yorkers. i know she will americans first. i'm grateful for answering the call of duty and think emily support. elise and her 3-year-old son sam who is apparently departing in this very moment. [laughter] i'm sure one day they will look with much to be proud of even if boring stuff like my voice. dedicated public servant and american patriot, she's the

right person for the job nomination. thank you. >> thank you, senator, and well said. we appreciate you coming to the committee and helping us out. welcome to our committee. he will find us kind and generous most of the time. we look forward to hearing from you. you will hear what you have to say. let me start by saying there is great difficulty in the united nations. it is widely recognized on the

hill. i know your well aware and one of the important things is the vast majority in recognized in the united nations from will write original there is great difficulty there. we need significant change the threats from china, russia, north korea and iran continue to grow. your physician will be at the heart to stand up that seeks to undermine the united states at every turn in short partners and allies are doing their part. i know you are up to that task. the un was found true peace and

stability in the left. it now working. lots and lots of dollars but today the united states to 5% of the peacekeeping budget and what have the american people gotten? chaos, the dysfunction at the un and worked in place of right and wrong. by the time the realization from american values national security and in jeopardy.

no president trump has nominated you. you are not afraid to stand up to the american people and ensure taxpayer dollars are truly putting america first english back against the wheel problem that plagued the united nations and the un extensive succession, waste, fraud and abuse maintaining peace and security in partnership on many issues and become a fantasy. accountability for vladimir putin's invasion of ukraine and the human rights abuses, genocide and they are all dressed but what is supposed to be international organization

and as axis grows against democratic nations, he went will depend back into the paralysis that's marked the cold war news on its course which it has no indication has and our adversaries weapon is the un against americans for democratic and putin used the security council walk any action to hold them accountable for its current. china has discussed the government-sponsored genocide against the leaders and they blocked our ally, taiwan from fully participating china manipulates which we all know in the use it to his will and his diplomats into the un bureaucracy that only served china's goal and interest.

his a deep anti- israel bias the united nations that's only grown stronger the unprovoked attack israel. spearheaded by the un relief and works which had numerous employees participate in october 7 terrorist attack and allowed was in facilities to be. there u.s. tax dollars to help fund. for years with the legislation to and anti-semitic organizations which ultimately what i grabbed is not what the american people want. our contributions serve american interest first. i know you will bring that message the units system loud

and clear. i believe it is reasonable to evaluate every agency to determine if what they are doing directly beneficial to america and hold it till the resounding yes brother contribution and the patient in the un is beneficial to the american people. and what it will do for our country future generation. >> welcome your family.

stemming the flow of fentanyl that killed americans combating transnational crime across america negotiating conflict the work of united nations the effect americans across the country and benefit from and lifesaving assistance to places like sudan and ukraine. we don't just do this out of our hearts, we find these efforts because they americans the secretary rubio said in the hearing safer, stronger and more prosperous and equally if we don't do it in our competitors will. welcome committee congrats.

the quality counsel the relevant experience for this role but i like to hear your vision for the united states and taking note of the this is expressed by others in the incoming administration and also your introducers for the great the united nations are an imperfect body. the american taxpayer money. u.s. disengagement is something our adversary wants especially russia and china. china is almost adversary and facing contribution to the un seven times what was decades ago

china has had great success employed at the un so when we come back, they are ready and eager to fill that void. anti-semitism can affect. when we stepped back, beijing seven. i was interested in your thoughts and keeping china across every agency. one agency equally important is the un population fund globally one in every five is married before reaching age 18. too many girls in countries as you know very well female

genital utilization and force marriage. critical reproductive care reached three times as our family planning program and some areas is main provider lifesaving reproductive health supply. childbirth lubricates for women giving birth i believe it is euros leasable. i hope we can work together to advance united states interest at the un is one united states takes a leadership role, americans and people around the world are better off. i welcome the testimony. >> the floor is yours.

>> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. honor my lifetime to serve in his cabinet as u.s. ambassador. the american first bank national security leadership on the world age. before i begin, i'd like to recognize my family. we all know we do not have the opportunity to serve the support of our loved ones. my mom and brother are watching closely from upstate new york. there's no question would not be here without that lifetime of unconditional love or encouragement for that, i am

forever grateful. i want to thank my husband are private and joy, are 3-year-old who made his debut in the senate. in q4 the warm welcome. by far our greatest blessing. positive confirmed, most important title mom. i'm before today is a daughter, sister, wife, father, congresswoman, you upstate new york. pratt american. i believe in the american dream because had the opportunity to live it. born and raised in upstate new york and grew up in a small business family for my parents instilled in me hard work, ingenuity and quit. first member of my immediate family to have the opportunity to graduate from college. i graduated with honors in the

domestic policy council staff. after nearly a decade in washington, i returned home to work in my family's small business and decided to run for congress. 2014, is elected to congress making history as the youngest woman in time. and was elected by my colleagues to serve as house republicans congress there. the youngest woman of either party to search his house leadership. in the workforce committee and proud to be the longest serving woman on both on services and intelligence committee.

quantum computing and cybersecurity and missile defense. in history of congress, this hearing was heard around the world and in resilience of time. it exposed anti-semitic in colleges and universities and a watershed moment in american higher education. answer regional peace and a

quarter century. the united nations serves the interest of the american people and represents president trump, america first, peace through strength and policy. crisis after crisis was hostages including americans held in hamas in captivity and national security challenges from china, russia, north korea and iran and never been more critical of the united states especially important for the most precious ally israel who faced the jewish people october 7, 2023. and u.s. taxpayer dollars. tax dollars should not be complicit in entities that are counter to american interests,

anti-semitic or engaging corruption our terrorism. we must invest to strengthen national security and deliver results. we must drive perform. i will be the first un ambassador in over two decades to come directly from congress and the an understanding of the oversight appropriations will have the state of branch and look forward to using my senate relationship to deliver these much-needed reforms. and international peace and security.

and international problems and harmonize un is not without to this. and they would easter strength returned to the mission of the most security around the world. i will forever be grateful to constituents in new york thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve them at the highest levels of congress. took a chance of a young unknown candidate who very few believe could win so i want to thank hard-working families and small businesses, law enforcement officers and military families, veterans, seniors and so many with whom i worked so closely to work on our committee.

we are excited for the next chapter to serve this role but i look forward to your question. >> five-minute question how many and it doesn't mean it will be another five-minute round of those anxious to have more questions answered so with that, let me start. i was impressed to hear what he insisted on and it is a great,

brilliant white. andy original which is really unfortunate have in the past, and i hope in the future, rely more on multilateral agreements without the united nations and perform some of the things united nations to do ourselves when the united states of america and we certainly can perform those. the best example is the abraham accords. probably going to be looked at

history as it turned in the middle east and it was done under president trump last time in the united nations and it is great. and very few great successes. we put a tremendous amount of money into the united nations. we do a lot of it ourselves. the un has hired them to do it. i don't want any connection to that yet here we are so there's a lot of things we can do that will ratchet down up there and

make it a mission. your thoughts? >> i wanted to say i'm glad you brought up the abraham accords. i think we can look at the success of bilateral relationships and multilateral elation shipped within the un. we have him accords. the greatest breakthrough or normalization over a quarter of a century. all of the investments to any foreign policy strategy hand-in-hand testified represents american interests.

i think we can look to the programs that are successful in one example is the food program which is significant bipartisan support and it is by american people and often times the most success of and transparency and one thing that is very concerning is we keep getting outvoted. it turns out every country has one vote and when you look around, you find out they are spreading money throughout their

government and they either quote you can't even get a resolution for their invasion of ukraine and absolute violation of the foundation of the united nations and when the secretary comes to see me, you can't even get a resolution and get a response. your thoughts. >> it is a question that they have made inroads, it is a long-term strategy in the nations and we need strong american leadership and push back on this. every country no matter its

size, we need a strategy to push back within global and even the western hemisphere. we can build on bilateral ownership and make sure they understand the importance of to a partnership with the united states. the smell strategy has been of particular concern china has made inroads in chinese diplomats of the most. >> what bothers me is the corruption and fraud is just flat wrong.

>> i think we would all agree the un is not perfect and the multiplier for the u.s. and a prime example of global burden sharing in times of crisis. i was pleased to see the trump administration will maintain this position to the united nations. around the world and more important, members of congress. in order to provide china, russia, iran and other adversaries.

appreciate opportunity ahead of time, i will do with your question related to how we the american people elected officials and the importance of investment. a review and these agencies and looking at what's most effective in addition to world food programs, voluntary commit bipartisan support and delivered significant results for millions around the globe and strengthens national security so when it comes to key questions, safer, stronger and more prosperous, i believe those are examples of programs that do. i clearly think there are certain programs not in the mission and we will likely have a policy from that but i think we need to roll up our sleeves up dollars are going to programs

in the un that work now the rule of law and transparency and accountability. an address the utilization. will you commit to personally reviewing work before the administration makes any decision without invoking this? >> it come from, i am committed to doing a review across the un program.

in the i have a strong record when it comes to women's health issue, particularly addressing fertility rates pre-and postnatal care addressing infant malnutrition. and that is important. and women make up half of the world's population and we need to do what we can to ensure it is protected. and we have seen inconsistent report for ukraine and greater

support initiatives to support ukraine and the support on initiatives at home to hold russia accountable. discuss the attempted genocide ukraine? >> is a public commitment to bringing this to a resolution to stop the killing campaign on this issue and i believe it falls squarely in line with the united nations international peace and security and if you look at the record, i have a strong record when it comes to deterring russia and back including during the trump term voting for aid to ukraine. peace through strength is our strongest deterrent and i'm proud president trump term it was the only one for did not

invade another because of the rebuilding in the national defense so i think our efforts supporting president trump's mission to bring that to a resolution and deter russia long-term. >> had we hold russia accountable for the human rights? their destruction for infrastructure for life lost? clearly it is a war on vladimir putin's initiative started so other things we can do that will hold russia accountable? >> it will be important to support trump's support. in my colleagues use this

position to support his strategy and maximum flexibility to bring this to a resolution. >> welcome to the committee and thank you we can have a chance to talk before and i appreciate your service to our country and look forward the strong credentials you bring to the table. winston churchill said the un not to give us to heaven but only from hell. mismanagement and so forth and that will be important.

and that was more than 185 nations combined. % of the overall budget invest a lot there. and drive the reform. we say we are going to put money into the program if they establish the transparency you were talking about? if you don't, we are pulling our money out, is that one way? >> absolutely and i believe we have to. we owe that to american taxpayers to ensure all of our dollars represent our values and answer the key questions, does it make america safer and stronger and more prosperous? that's important representing, i understand we are to be good words taxpayer dollars so that is a key tool to demand greater

reform. >> communist china has the un to push interest and the chairman has laid out problems. what can we do to get more u.s. leadership to combat that? >> we need a strategy in this came up in virtually every conversation from both sides of the aisle and it needs to be a long-term strategy with allies and partners the most junior level make sure we are running allied nations in the elections process for leadership pay particular attention to the communications or civil aviation. we need to ensure taiwan has

maximum dissipation. i also believe it is important to ensure the language, we seen inserting their language which is counter to our values. very strong all the documents and statements coming out at large. >> so recruiting more americans into the un do it and all caps on because between 2009 in 2021, communist china increased employment by 85%. it's how they worked there the un. it would be naïve to think they are not driving communist china

agenda whatever role they have so the strategy for getting more leadership but also how we recruit more americans. >> we have trouble mission recorder at the most junior level. i think we need a strategy rubio to make sure we have the highest caliber which we do of course in terms of those serving at the u.s. mission and challenges in the region, i think that is very important and i intend opportunities to partner with higher education institutions, private sector opportunities in each of your states for house member states that we can address this long-term personnel challenge. >> find new ways to recruit people because if we don't have our people the un, we are

leaving it open to china do what they are doing and this is one way they are trying to have it played out so i look over potentially another round. >> thank you for your willingness to continue serving and welcome to your family and i hope they will get to enjoy some of this and i enjoyed our conversation and look forward to working with you. i will just continue briefly. i think our will that work and strength and stability and security in a global ally. they have nervous neighbors, they use coercion but not genuine allies so they have made

concerted effort to advance their interest for the different idea and standards for human rights. we believe in and into visual right to liberty. and work closely to make sure the organization wasn't run by the national as we spoke about. and work closely as and increase funding virginia professional officers.

and compete for and seat of the technical organization and compete for and succeed in staffing. and the success story and the intellectual property organization, that is a model task force and it led whether it is building on relationships

with the quad or off, we have an opportunity to build on those organizations within the un. >> sometimes frustrating dysfunction of the un security council they've used it to block accountability measures, they did pass and overwhelming resolution but we couldn't get it through the jury resolution. they did unanimously pass a resolution continuing sanctions so it is not completely merited but one things was security council reform and include the security council more into a functional body. what should you do to secure

access the council reform, it is very complex and challenging with russia and china. i want to work with the committee and the president primarily on any proposal for security council reform. in my opening statement, i was mostly talking about ensuring taxpayer dollars are going to entities that function very well by them open to conversations and a broader energy reaching out in the global south. they have done it through telecom and a whole of government approach and obviously not the un alone, usaid ustr civic and economic investment.

the toolkit before. does it include the program? ukraine energy grid. and the support for getting energy back online it's pretty critical. in the order to compete with

china's influence in the region. i hope we can work together to get some clarity and obvious partnerships. >> my wife and i have known you 20 years so i'm thrilled. in making america great again too much. [laughter] as we discussed, i'm deeply troubled by the indictments room and the brutal massacre and in pennsylvania and across the country has seen an explosion in hate. it's not theoretical for me in

pittsburgh we had a tragedy. you've done an incredible job in the institutions and universities for lack of moral purity and i was one of the first to call for the wiring of you been because of the tough questions you forced in the effectiveness and leadership and let me start by asking how you fight against anti-semitism and operate with impunity in the massacre with october 7 and how you will work with allies and

other organs and anti-semitism and it's important to pennsylvanians. and it's one of the reasons in my conversations interested in this because if you look at the anti-semitic within the united nations, there's more resolution targeting israel than any other crisis combined and significant security council anti-semitism un women failing condemned hamas terrorist attack and regime against innocent civilian women using raven targeting women specifically taking them hostage and overjoyed three young women hostages were returned home and commit to enjoy every hostage brought home and met with the

cost of families. a voice of moral clarity on the un security council and united nations at large for the world to your importance in this will mark the 50th year zionism is racism resolution of the united nations. spoke out strongly against the resolution and that is the type of leadership i hope to bring it confirmed to the united nations and the tremendous record to stand with israel about the abraham accords, his commitment to anti-semitism recognizing jerusalem, a strong record and i hope the un is confirmed. >> the chinese communist party

delivered human rights council in the un system and the false narrative like the un to undermine. >> there is quite and it goes back to working with our partners and allies making sure we are strengthening those relationships and ensuring a strategy and not able to make inroads of the most senior level of these organizations and agencies across the un or at large and another top priority.

>> the un climate accords. how will you advocate for dominance and in all of above approach? >> i want to make sure we represent american values and american interest. that means supporting strong american energy dominance and not giving a free pass when we have the cleanest water and cleanest air in the best record when it comes to all of the above approach will be back to first term and we were energy dominance so that is my commitment. >> thank you and congratulations. you and i have political

differences but we talked about adams in which we agree in a couple of others that your position is one thousand agree with. i like the fact that we had a good exchange. i am wrapping with that and comments you made in the past and the political right from may of 2022. they desperately want wide open borders. like to put that in the record. >> as a campaign tweet. and raised the question but at least we had a good meeting. we talkid about important issues and share ideas -- have four

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. kennedy: mr. president, last week president biden -- i wish him well -- gave his farewell address to america. he said a number of things, but one in particular got my attention. he warned america about, quote, his words, not mine, quote, a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of very few ultra wealthy people. president biden went on to say, and i quote again, today an

oligarchy is taking shape in america of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy. our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. end quote. now, i don't know who president biden was talking about. but i -- i know one particular circumstance about which i'm going to speak that fits his warning. again, i don't know if the circumstance i'm about to describe is what president biden meant, but if the shoe fits,

ware it -- wear it cinderella. let me cut to the chase. mr. george soras is an oligarch. he's one of the wealthiest people in the world. he's a friend of president biden's. nothing wrong with that. in fact, president biden just gave him i think the highest civilian honor that a president can give to a civilian, the presidential medal of freedom. mr. george soras is buying wwlam radio in new orleans. let me say that again. that may not mean much to you, mr. president, but it means a lot to my people in louisiana. mr. george soros is buying wwlam

radio in new orleans. wwla -- wwl-am radio is practically an institution in my state. it's been around since 1922. 1922. over 100 years. it's a clear channel is what the communication experts call a clear channel class a station. its transmitter power output is about 50,000 watts. that's a lot, folks. that's the maximum for am stations in the united states. it's the lead station on the new orleans saints radio network. it's an important station. and mr. george soros is buying

it. now, what does that mean and how did this happen? wwl is owned by a national company called odyssey -- audacy. audacy has about 220 radio stations nationwide, one of which is wwl. the second largest radio network in america. it reaches, i think, 45 different markets throughout our country, mr. president. 165 million americans. it's huge. audacy borrowed too much money. they took on too much debt. they took on about $1.9 billion worth of debt and they couldn't service that debt with their

revenues. so what did they do? they did what many other corporations do when they can't service their debt, they went into what's called chapter 11 bankruptcy. not chapter 67. chant -- not chapter 7, that is when they liquidate the company. this is when you go in front of a bankruptcy judge and says, we want to get our debtors together and restructure our debt so we can come out of this bankruptcy as a surviving entity. they went into chapter 11 with a bankruptcy plan. mr. george soros immediately pounced. of that $1.9 billion in debt, he bought about $415 million of it. cash on the barrel here.

paid $0.50 on the dollar. one of the tenets of the reorganization is that all the current shareholders would be wiped out. the new creditors would assume equity positions in the company. i know that sounds complicated, and it can be, but really what it means is that the bound holders, one of which is mr. soros, after he bought it, bought $415 million worth of debt, became a shareholder. and mr. soros is now the largest single shareholder in audacy radio associations, including wwl-am in new orleans, an institution. now, in america you can't just go do this. why is that? because those airwaves on which

wwl and the other radio stations broadcast, they don't belong to the radio stations. they belong to you and you and you and you. these airwaves, this spectrum, if you will, they're owned by the american people. and years ago we created the federal communications commission, the fcc. we set it up to be in charge of the -- of the airwaves that belong to the american people to make sure those airwaves were being used prudently by radio stations. for example, if a radio station is bought by a bunch of foreign nationals or foreign entities, the fcc has got to approve it. for example, any time a broadcast license, as is the case with audacy, is

transferred -- audacy is transferred, the fcc has to approve it. so mr. soros's purchase of wwl radio and the 219 other radio stations had to go before the fcc. and it did. and it went -- the approval for mr. soros went through the fcc like green grass through a goose. and it was a party-line vote. it was last september. all three democrats -- there are five people on the fcc. all three democrats said, let it go. and they short-circuited the normal process. now, i'm not an fcc expert, and i'm not a communications expert. but i've read -- this has been widely reported, and i've read

about it in many reports. normally on a deal of this size, when 220 radio stations are being transferred, their licenses, using airwaves that belong to the american people, and there's a substantial percentage of foreign owners, it would take about a year to get through the fcc. fcc did -- would do a complete investigation. not this time. no, this time was special. what happened was what some members of the media have called the soros shortcouple of they just -- shortcut. they just got together and rammed it through. did i mention it was like green gas through a goose? 3-2. now, the three republicans on the commission, they're screaming the whole time --

whoa, nellie, why aren't we doing our due diligence? they were outvoted, 3-2. you know, even in a democracy, when you've got the votes, you can make a porcupine like hot peppers you've got the votes. that doesn't make it right. a number of people petitioned the fcc. one of the groups that petitioned the fcc was a group called media research center. the fcc -- three democrats, two republicans -- dismissed them. but this is what the media research center said. quote, their words not mine, there is no question that george

soros and his affiliated businesses are looking to control these radio stations to advance their particular brand of activism, close quote. and the mrc urged the fcc not to create, quote, a special soros shortcut, close quote, that would circumvent their rules and allow the deal to move forward. they did it anyway! here's what mr. troy a. miller, nrb president and ceo said. he said, quote -- my word or his word, not mine, quote, the fact that the fcc is apparently willing to bypass the usual protocols -- that means the normal procedures -- to get this transaction done just weeks

before a presidential election and right after the president of the united states gave mr. soros the presidential medal of freedom seriously undermines the commission's credibility. -- and raises unwarranted questions of whether the administrative process -- administrative processes are being manipulated -- manipulated -- to exert political interference and preference, end quote. here's what one of the republican members of the fcc said. commissioner brendan carr, who is soon to be chairman of the fcc now that there is a new sheriff in town. here's what mr. carr said. the commission's decision today approving mr. soros' plan is

unprecedented. never before has the commission voted to approve the transfer of a broadcast license, let alone the transfer of broadcast listeningses for over 2 -- licenses for over 200 radio stations a across more than 40 markets without following the requirements and procedures codified in federal law. pass me the sick bucket. this isn't right what they did. now, this is america. you're entitled to believe what you want. if it's legal, you're entitled to do what you want. and mr. soros is certainly entitled to his opinion. he is. i don't agree with him, but he

is certainly entitled to it in america. i'm not much into this cancel culture, and hopefully we've seen the end of it. but when you're acquiring radio licenses which can influence public opinion and you're doing it in part -- not exclusively, but in part -- with foreign money, well, that's why we have the fcc. but, i want to make this clear. i believe in free speech and free expression. you're not free if you can't say what you think. you're not free if you can't express yourself. and mr. soros has that right. but here's what -- here's where he stands. i want my people in louisiana to know who's buying wwl radio in

new orleans. mr. soros is a billionaire, god bless him. he made his money himself. he has poured much of his wealth into what, in my opinion, are radical causes. he's now working with his son, who i understand is a very smart young man. his name is alex soros. mr. george soros and mr. alex soros have -- hold some -- how should i put this? -- nonmainstream american beliefs. for example, mr. george soros has called the united states, quote, the main obstacle to a stable and just world. mr. soros believes that our country is, quote, the main obstacle to a stable and just world. not china, not iran.

not north korea. the united states of america. pass me the sick bucket. mr. soros has also said that china has, quote -- his words, not mine -- china has a, quote, better functioning better than the united states of america. mr. soros does not believe that the united states should have secure borders. he once called national borders a, quote, obstacle, end quote, to his plan for widespread i am grant resettlement. -- immigrant resettlement. mr. soros and his family, as you probably know, have spent millions and millions of dollars to elect prosecutors throughout america who believe that violent

criminals are the real victims. these prosecutors believe for the most part that if a cop has to shoot a criminal, it's always the cop's fault. but if a criminal shoots a cop, it's always the gun's fault. these prosecutors that mr. soros has backed with millions of dollars all believe that if you are concerned about crime, you're automatically a racist. mr. soros and his son alex have called for -- alex in particular -- have called for softer sentences is on violent criminals. this is what he has said -- i'm quoting, his words, not mine. but if we're serious, mr. alex soros said, if we're serious about ending mass incarceration,

we must also rethink our response to crimes that are more serious, including violent ones, even those who have been victims of violence increasingly do not believe in long-term prison sentences. in short, mr. soros -- both george and alex -- believe that america would be better off if we had open borders. they believe that america would be better off, in my opinion -- this is how i read their writings -- if we ended jails and if we ran our government like the communist party of china. i don't agree with that. but mr. soros, both of them, are entitled to their opinions. but my people in louisiana are entitled to know who is opinion

they're hearing -- whose opinion they're hearing on the radio. and this has not been reported once in louisiana. let me say it again. mr. george soros, through an expedited procedure -- it i'm trying to be evenhanded here -- who received the presidential medal of freedom from president biden and who is close to president biden and all my democratic colleagues, on a 3-2 vote at the fcc has been able to buy over 200 radio stations throughout america, including wwl radio. and i want my people to know about it. and i want to make sure that it was done legally. i'm not saying that it wasn't done legally. i am saying that -- i am saying

that it's -- it looks funny. not funny, ha ha. it looks weird the way this was done. it has the aroma of politics, and i hope the new fcc revisits this issue. these licenses and these airwaves do not belong to me or the fcc or to audacy or to wwl. they believe to you and you and you, the american people. and we're supposed to make sure, through our fcc -- that's why god created the fcc -- that these licenses are not just given away. mr. president, let me say one other thing quickly. i didn't mean to go on this long. you've heard me talk about this before. i'm going to talk about it

again. this is india. this is china. right here, these are the shego asylums, right now owned by the united kingdom. and america, the united states of america, with your tax dollars, has a very important military base in the shea goals islands. now, the united nations, as i said before, has said to britain, u.k., which acquired the islands from france, the folks at the united nations with their whey protein powder and man purses, they say, you are a

he a bunch of clone -- colonialists. give the islands back. not back to the people of the islands. gift it back to this island down here, mauritius. mauritius, over a thousand miles away. give it back to mauritius. that's who had it when france transferred -- mauritius was a province of france when france transferred its ownership to mauritius and to the chagos islands in the early 1800's. and the new government in the united nations said, awww, we feel so guilty, we're going to give it back. and our air force base with it,

which we use to rearm and restock our submarines in the indo- -- in indochina and in the indian owe hasn't to combat -- ocean to combat china. this kind of stupid takes a plan, folks. this kind of stupid takes a plan. and the united kingdom, okay, we feel guild h. guilty. we're going to give it back. we're going to give it back to mauritius and start paying mauritius over $9 billion pounds. you know who went along with it? the prior straechlths i've talked to president trump about this. and i've talked to marco rube embryo shall -- marco rubio about this. the united nations has no jurisdiction over the united kingdom or us in america. and this is our military base. alr already, if we give the chagos islands to mauritius, mauritius

says they'll lease us our own base for about 9 billion pounds over ten years, already china is circling mauritius. already china is trying to be mauritius' best friend. and i don't have anything against the government of mauritius. they're wonderful people. i understand they want the money. they want our money. they want your money. they want us to pay them for our own military base. we need to stop this deal. president trump and secretary rubio need to pick up the phone and call prime minister stramer in the united kingdom and say with all due respect, stop dipping into your ketamine stash. put down the bong. we need this military base to combat china. don't do it. and if the president will do that, and the secretary of state

will do that, i believe mr. starmer, who tried to ram this through the week before president biden took office but was stopped, i believe that he will give in. i don't have anything against mr. starmer. i don't have anything against the people of mauritius islands. i'm sure they're all wonderful people. but our struggle with china is serious. it's serious as four heart attacks and a stroke. and it is bone deep, down to the marrow stupid for us, because of guilt over colonialism, to bow to the wishes of the united nations and give a military base that we built to mauritius, which eventually will end up in the hands of the communist party of china.

that's why i say that kind of stupid takes a plan. final point, i wanted to highlight this, mr. president. the people of mexico have sent some of their firefighters to help us in california, and i want to thank our friends in mexico for doing that. other countries have sent their firefighters too, but because we're proximate to mexico their firefighters were able to get here earlier, and i just want to thank the people of mexico for their generosity. my work here is done, mr. president. i will show myself to the door. and before i do that, i will suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

credibility comes from calling anti-semitism out. let me turn to one issue that has come up several times and ask for a quick response. the decision to leave the who is a mistake. you would agree, we are going to need to find a way to play a role super nationally in global public health standards. we don't want the chinese, essentially, set the rules for us. pandemics will find a way to us. can you commit notwithstanding the decision to leave the who to find a way to have an impact on the stage for public health rules. >> yes, we need to be the leader in terms of global health. there are programs committed to global

health. we are the leader and must continue to be so. >> thank you very much. next up we have senator scott. >> congadlations to your appointment to the u.n. you are the perfect person for america first. the united states helped fund the united nations. especially establishing and keeping peace. this is not what the un has been today. what are your thoughts? >> they have not lived up to international peace

and security. he said it was great potential. if you look at the anti-semitism that's not meeting the mission. i also thank the good stewards of taxpayer dollars and the system that works, functions, they are results based and the american people support them and support the national security strategy. there are parts i'm concerned about and in need of reform. >> now to es rail. the un has a long history to disproportionately targeted. this agenda item is unique to israel. not applied to any other nation like china, iran,

venezuela. given the funding supports the resolutions that single out israel. what's your plan to increase accountability in human resources and american taxpayer dollars? >> this is a key question i'd like to work with this committee. the chair spoke about the importance of knowing where every dollars goes. that's my commitment to do so. accepting all of our programs so see if they are accepting and supportive of american values. if not we need serious conversations. >> thank you, how do you plan to hold them accountable. that was one of the lessons here with

the colleges and universities. when you speak out with moral clarity. the world and american people listen. we need to have that moral clarity with u.s. ambassador with the united nations every single day. >> there were calls to withdrawal to un agencies that are anti-u.s. and west. they use it for themselves and against us. what actions are available to make clear the united states are no longer accepting to be treated this way we largely fund. >> i think, president trump is the strongest commander and chief in terms of he knows when to walk away i hope to support his leadership. >> i look for your

tenure. i assume you will be there the entire term. i hope this accomplished in your four years. >> i hope to accomplish america first. significant reforms to demand results and efficacy for decades. we spoke about the importance of reform. it feels squarely with his department and i'd also like to make sure every u.s. taxpayer dollars goes to support making america stronger, safer, and prosperous. working with the secretary of state to do so. president trump campaigned on piece and no new wars. he is the president of peace and no new wars. i think we have a

unique opportunity to build on the successes of the abraham accords. >> thank you, are you will do a great job. >> senator rosen. >> well, thank you senator for filling in for chairman riche. thank you congresswoman fur your decades in the house and severing this new role. i enjoy working with you. i'd like to congratulate you on the nomination. i appreciate how you will tackle things with the u.n. because of that bias, we must lean into leadership and not diminish our role. as discussed last week. if we are not at the table our seat will be taken by someone who doesn't share our values and

defend our allies. i'll move onto other questions that have not been asked. i'll move to lebanon. there is a lot going on. the security council stated no armed presence other than the armed forces. they are charged with monitoring and enforcing the resolution. they have expanded the military presence. constructed tunnels and the peacekeepers are not mandated for broad actions. especially against a terror group like hezbollah. in the wake of successful degradinghezbollah. we must support the effort if more are to be sustained. congresswoman, how can we insure 1701 is fully enforced

and work within the system to make sure unifill will play a support role. >> thank you, this is an important question. they have not met their possession and it failed as we have seen digging of the tunnels and tens of thousands of rockets from hezbollah into israel. we had tens of thousands of israeli families that had to leave their homes in northern israel because of them. we need to insure that this is a peacekeeping mission and do an assessment of. this is a opportunity with effective operations we continue to build on the success and not have the ra regime

on terror. >> they also have a role following the previous regime. they provided a road map for government. this resolution, passed nearly a decade ago and a lot has changed. what is the role of security council resolution should play in serious future if it is out dated. i know you will review it. do you have an opinion of what might need to change or respond to recent developments. >> it's a starting point we need to look at. this is a significant change. the brutality and

human rights and weapons used against the people. with the new leadership in citizenship. i'd view that as a starting point. as we discuss this on the national security council. making decisions when it comes to syria. >> we deliver the aid needed. i would would like to talk about the artificial intelligence. we have a seat at the table and shared ai standards. this is an import tan form for global conversations and usage of ai. producing the first ever global standards in november of 2021. china made an effort to increase

inengagements the national security risk for the united states. how would you go about working on artificial intel begins standards. >> i'm concerned about china's standards. we need to use the ai race and work extensively on the bipartisan basis. i happy the joint ai. we need to work with the private sectors. we work with partners. this is a really opportunity to work with partners and allies around the world. make sure our standards that's the approach. this is a decision at the presidential level. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair.

>> ms. stefanic the united nations has a bad history of how they treated our ally, israel. you illuded to the daniel patrick statement about the 1975 resolution basically calling basically zionism as racism. i look forward to your nomination. i have t a few questions. o solve problems. they are looking at us to lower prices. they are looking for help getting food on the table or getting child care or getting their prescription filled. but what they are seeing instead today is republicans lying about

women, lying about health care, and lying about the tragic realities that families face when they learn that their baby has a fatal diagnosis and cannot survive long after birth. of all the bills that we could be voting on right now, it's an absolute disgrace that republicans are spending their first weeks in power attacking women, criminalizing doctors, and lying about abortion. this bill would create a new government mandate that would override the best judgment of grieving families who find out their fetus has a fatal condition. and it would create new medically unnecessary barriers for doctors and patients at a time when doctors already have their hands tied when it comes to providing basic reproductive health care.

republicans' whole premise on this bill is a sham. their whole bill is a disgrace, and we are here on the floor today to call it out. i'm not going to let anyone perpetuate the so-called abortion until birth myths and lies about people who have abortions and the providers who care for them. that is not how abortion works, and republicans know it. killing a baby is already illegal in every single state. in fact, we passed a law in 2002 that made that crystal clear. i'd know because i was here. it passed unanimously. doctors already have legal obligation to provide appropriate medical care to any infant born in this country. and let's be clear, we already know republicans' sham bill is not going to go anywhere, by the way. we've been here before. after all, republicans held a vote on this bill a few years ago, and not a single democrat who's still in the senate today voted for it. the last time we voted on this

bill, i spoke about something republicans refused to acknowledge in this debate. the actual voices and experiences of women who receive a heartbreaking diagnosis late in pregnancy when they actually go through -- what they actually go through and how this bill would hurt them and their families. i spoke then about judy. she's from washington state. her son's organs did not develop properly. one lung was 20% formed and the other was missing entirely. i spoke about lindsey. her daughter had an aggressive inoperable tumor growing into her brain, her heart, and her lungs. i spoke about darla, one of her twins who had serious medical complications. not terminating that pregnancy would have put her other twin's health at risk. how you ignore something like that, i will never understand.

but instead republicans are talking about things that simply do not happen. however, i have a different story to share today. you see, last time i shared those stories of women who were able to make the choice that was right for their family, but the stories now are of women who are denied that choice. and that is because republicans have ripped away abortion rights, and state abortion bans have forced some women into the kind of nightmare republicans are now seeking to take nationwide. in florida debra learned at 23 weeks her baby had no kidneys and it would not survive after birth. she felt an abortion was the right step for her family, but florida gave her no choice about what happened next. they forced her to carry a doomed pregnancy for months.

do you know what it's like to go for months pregnant with a baby you know will not survive and getting questions and comments like, oh, is this your first child? are you excited? do you know what it's like fighting back tears as you try to decide whether to just nod politely or explain that actually your world is falling apart, and all the while knowing you have to go through all of this against your will, because some politician decided they knew better. debra avoided going out. she was afraid to go to the grocery store. and she said, quote, i just went into a really dark place. you know, essentially planning my son's birth and funeral at the same time. that is what happens when we take choice away from patients, when republicans decide they know better. debra is far from the only woman to go through this.

infant deaths from birth defects jumped in florida following their abortion ban. now republicans have a bill here to take that issue nationwide. that is what we're voting on here tomorrow. that is their top priority now that trump's in office. and not only are they trying to take that abortion heartbake nationwide, they are lying about what is at stake here and lying about what women like debra are going through, what their own policies will cause more women to go through. shame on them. this is infuriating. women like debra may not be billionaires, but they should still have their voices heard. and as long as i'm here, they will be. so here's my message for republicans -- families don't need less choice about how to handle tragic medical news. what families actually need is affordable groceries. what families actually need is child care. what they actually need is paid

leave, quality health care, access to programs like snap and medicaid, which republicans want to cut to the bone. i can't predict what attack republicans will launch on abortion next, but i can promise we will be here to call them out for what they are trying to do, lie behm and doctors -- lie about women and doctors, and for everything they are failing to do, lowering costs and making life easier for folks back home. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. first, i really want to thank my friend, our great leader on women's issues and on choice issues, senator murray, for leading this floor block. she has been indomitable on this issue. i can't think of a person who has done more to protect the rights of women than patty murray, so thank you for your great leadership. i want to thank all my other

colleagues who have joined me as well. look, it's donald trump's first week as president, and republicans are already escalating their war on women's reproductive freedoms. they didn't wait long. and the republican desire to impose politicians on, politicians and their views on women's health and substitute their judgment for the judgment of the woman, her family, and her doctor continues. there are many different permutations and combinations of this, but it's always take the woman's right away. let some politician for some ideological reason decide. this week senate republicans will advance their so-called born alive bill, a bill we've seen before and which the senate squarely rejected in the past. the bill is deeply pernicious because it attacks women's health care through false narratives and outright

fearmongering. it seeks to make something that is illegal -- it seeks to make something illegal that is already illegal. in essence the republican bill p would substitute the judgment of qualified medical professionals, the wishes of millions of women and their families with an ultra-right ideology. it's the longhand of injustice reaching down and hurting women from afar, and so much of the legislation is passed, frankly, by men who have really no understanding of what women go through when they're through difficult situations like the one my colleague from washington state has outlined. this would harm the ability of medical professionals to provide health care based on evidence and on science. it would expose medical professionals to the risk of punishment and prosecution if they don't comply with the hard right. so we're here because we need to

expose this bill exactly for what it is -- myth-based feerp mongering, its attack on reproductive care. the p anti-choice movement keeps trying to come up with these scenarios to try and scare people, but they misstate the facts and misstate the evidence. this bill is clear. it's an attack on reproductive care. it's antiwomen, antifamily, antiscience. i'll tell ply republican colleagues -- tell my republican colleagues this, democrats will oppose any attempt to erode access to high quality and safe reproductive care. democrats will continue to fight for america's women, america's doctors and america's families who sometimes have to make heartbreaking, difficult decisions when serious complications arise during pregnancy. that's what makes this bill so, so horrible. it basically takes a woman who is in a very serious, difficult

situation and tries to use her as political football. that's a bad, bad thing. so we should resoundingly reject this deeply partisan bill when it comes to the floor later this week. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, this is not the first time we've considered this measure on the floor, not the first time that i've spoken about it. i want to thank senator murray for leading this conversation on a very serious topic. i want to thank senator schumer for joining in this conversation as well. i couldn't agree with him more when he said what we're trying to do with this bill is to make illegal what is already illegal. i'm going to make an invitation to anyone following this debate, who wants to judge for themselves to reach their own conclusion as to whether or not there are laws existing in america today which cover the situation described in this

bill. i'm going to give you the name of a physician in philadelphia who is serving a life sentence in prison for having violated the current law, and i want you to look it up and read it yourself. don't take my words for it. his name is kermit, kermit, gosnell. write that down if you want to follow this debate and draw your own conclusions by doing personal research. look it up on the internet. kermit gosnell. i'll tell you his story in the moment but it proves the fact that we have existing laws that make this current bill unnecessary. tomorrow marks the 52nd year since our nation's highest court issued a rule recognizing a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. roe v. wade enshrined into law something that should have been a given in america. in america, women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. and as a result of roe, america's women took a giant

leap forward in gender equity. the decision in roe afforded women the right to choose whether, when, and how to start a family. but after nearly 50 years of progress, in june 2022, the supreme court overruled roe with dobbs vs. jackson women's health organization dragging women's rights half a century backwards. following that decision we saw republican-led states open the floodgates to abortion restriction. laws that in some cases have had deadly consequences for women who could not access critical health care that they needed. instead of addressing the health care crisis that dobbs unleashed, republicans are now instead looking to make it even harder for women to access comprehensive and compassionate health care. tomorrow they will attempt to bring to the floor the so-called born-alive abortion survivors protection act. they want to bring it to a vote, this bill as senator schumer said, is already covered in law.

the bill they say creates new standards of care for physicians, providing reproductive health care that are not based in medicine, fact, or science. the goal of the bill that we will consider introduced by the republicans is to target and intimidate reproductive health care providers and make it harder for women to access comprehensive and compassionate health care. this bill offers a poorly drafted and dangerous solution to a problem that simply does not exist. the authors of this bill p would tell you that this legislation simply ensures that all children born alive as a result of the so-called attempted abortion are provided the same medical care as any other newborn of the same gestational age. they say that's all it does, but p we already have a law on the book that assures that any child born in america, regardless of the circumstances surrounding that birth, is afforded equal protection under the law. in 2002 the house and senate passed on a bipartisan basis the

born alive infantsborn. act. do you know who signed that? george w. bush. it is already illegal to kill a child born alive in america and in rare cases where a doctor does harm a baby, they are held illegally accountable. -- illegally accountable. the year was 2013, kermit gosnell was convicted of three murders. he is has life in prison without possibility of parole under existing law and he is serving that sentence in the pennsylvania correct correctional institute. they won't tell you abortions late in pregnancy are incredibly rare. when they do occur, it is because of heartbreaking fetal

diagnosis or because a woman's doctor told her she may not survive the pregnancy or a woman lives in a state that prevented her from getting an abortion earlier. they would have you believe that women are waiting until the final days of their pregnancy to have abortions. this is a cruel political contrivance. these are women who had baby showers, picked out names, persevered through morning sickness, swollen ankles, countless doctor appointments and tests. what is the response? ask the professionals to respond to the bill coming to the floor, the so-called born alive bill. the american board of obstetricians and gynecologists said that this offensively named legislation is another cruel

attempt to interfere with evidence. this is -- are dangerous to families and clinicians. this bill negatively affects all obstetric and gynecological care. that is from the college of obstetricians and gynecologists. what would happen if this bill would signed into law by the new president? take the case of meredith shiner, a constituent of mine in illinois. who was thrilled to learn a few years ago she and her husband were going to have a little baby boichlt at 22 days and -- she thought she had a bladder infection, she didn't realize the seriousness of what was happening until the doctor told her she was in labor. having the baby at 22 weeks and six days meant that although the

baby would be born alive the chances of survival were almost nonexistent. known medical interventions would be futile, they made the decision to take the minutes they had with their son to hold him, touch him, to look at him until he gently passed away as the doctors provided pallative care. this is written in such an overly broadway that had it been the law, the same doctors who provided compassionate care to meredith and her son could face five years in prison. in these heartbreaking situations, it's not time for politicians to dictate the course of medical treatment as it this bill would do. these wrenching decisions, those personal tranlic moments must be left to medical professionals and the individuals in their care, it's the only compassionate outcome. this week we lost a lifelong advocate for women's rights, ce

krifrn le richards. shwe lost cecile to brain cancer that took john m{l1}c{l0}cain and ted kennedy. if they cared about saving lives they would increase funding for medical research that results in new cures and treatments and implement policies that address our nation's abysmal of infant and maternal mortality. i yield the floor. ms. smith: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. smith: i rise with my colleagues senator schumer, senator durbin and senator klobuchar and others to stand up for women and doctors in my home state of minnesota and around the country. i want to appreciate senator

durbin for raising cecile richards who was a dear friend of mine and someone i worked with closely at planned parenthood. she was quote the great american poet eedna, she said it wasn't the same damn thing or another, it was the same damn thing over and over again. republicans are here on the floor introducing this bill, not to talk about what we can do to lower prices for measures, not to talk about how we can lower the cost of housing or how to help people's lives become affordable, more affordable. instead, one of the very first bills that they are putting forward is for a vote in service of a national abortion ban that i can tell you the people of minnesota do not want, the people in america have made it abundantly clear that they do not. i guess the nicest thing you

could say about this is it is out of touch with where americans are. but let's talk about it a little bit more because i think it's important that we fight some of the myths and disinformation that this legislation promotes. you know, what this bill would do is it would put congress and politicians in the middle of personal medical decisions. the patients and interests should be able to make together without political interference. it would override physicians' professional judgments about what is best for their patients and it would put physicians in the position of facing criminal pements if their -- penalties if their judgments about what is best for their patients go against what is described in in bill. so, colleagues, let's be clear. at the core of the debate here is whether or not we trust women to make the very best decisions for themselves and their families, and in difficult medical challenging, often

tragic medical situations, should women and their physicians be making decisions about their lives and their health, often their very lives or is this about politics? i think americans say this is not about politics. politics should stay out of it. i know that everybody on this floor has talked to their own constituents who have experienced what really happens for women who are needing abortion care later in their pregnancy. these stories are inevitably heartbreaking and tragic. and they each are individual and unique. every situation is different, but they always are about women and families that are thrilled to be pregnant and in some cases, as my colleagues have already said, they picked out a name, decorated a nursery, planned a baby shower. it becomes clear as the peg nancy pro -- pregnancy progresses the devastating news that the child is not going to survive and in some cases the mother's life is also at risk,

her health and her ability to have children in the future are at risk. every situation is going to be unique, everyone will have a different diagnosis, different family history and different family circumstance, and that means everybody is going to need to have their own individual care. what every single women have in common is that every single one of them deserve the right to make their own medical decisions without a bunch of politicians getting in the way. but let's be really clear here. women are not waking up in the last weeks of their pregnancy just to change their mind about that pregnancy. i mean, how disrespectful of that -- of women is that attitude because these are terrible situations where something has gone catastrophically wrong. they are not just changing their minds, they are doing everything they can to take care of themselves and their families. you know, mr. president, i know

that we don't -- in this country we don't tell oncologists how to treat their patients and we don't tell other doctors how to take care of patients and we should not tell doctors how to take care of their patients. it would give a seat in the doctors' offices and in the e.r.'s of women all over the country. this has an intimidating impact on providers who are already desperately trying to keep their head down and do their jobs while operating under the chaos that has erupted after the supreme court overturned roe. colleagues, this should be about treating women with respect. woe should all be in agreement, the decisions about women's health care aren't the different from decisions about men's health care or anyone's health care, so why should we treat women's health care differently? let's get out of the business of

poli politicians. i ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobucher: i rise today with my colleagues. i thank senator murray for her leadership but also senator smith who has long led on this issue and stood up time and again for freedoms and reproductive freedom. i -- yesterday she noted we lost cecile richards who was a true force of nature who spent her career fighting for reproductive freedom. we lost her just two days before what would be the 52 ndz anniversary of roe v. wade. but we all know that our country is well into its third year without the protections of roe. in the year since the supreme court overturned half a century of precedent and stripped away a woman's right to make her own health care decisions, going against 70, 80% of measures who

believe this decision should be made by a woman, a family, her doctor and not by politicians who believe, as my colleague just noted that politicians should not be in the waiting room making the decisions for families. women are at the mercy of chaos when it comes to accessing reproductive care. the solution is not the bill before us this week. the solution is not to take rare cases of the most tragic nature, as my colleagues have described. i'm a former prosecutor. i know what murder is. murder is murder, including murder of a baby. we are here talking about tragic cases where doctors have to make a decision in the moment with the family about their -- how they're going to handle very, very tragic situations with a baby. today nearly 20 states have enacted some form of abortion

restriction. the result, a third of women of reproductive age now live under extreme dangerous bans. in states across the country women are being turned away from emergency rooms, forced to travel hundreds of miles for health care. so adding to that situation this idea that we're going to start intervening in these rare tragic cases would be horrible result for so many women. i'm thinking about the pregnant teenager in texas who died after being denied care in three hospital visits. i'm thinking about the young woman from florida who was forced to miscarry in pa bathroom due to her state's restrictions. by the time she finally got to the hospital, she had lost almost half the blood in her body and we'll never forget the heartbreaking story of the 10-year-old in ohio who had to go to indian to get a legal abortion after she was raped.

people said that story was a hoax. it wasn't a hoax. it was true. doctors are being prosecuted for doing their jobs, an issue that will only get worse if we pass a legislation that republicans have brought to the floor. we already know that there have been repeated attempts to restrict mifepristone. just last week a judge allowed idaho, kansas with -- to have fda approval of the drug which is used in 90 countries. this is our reality right now, but it doesn't have to be our future. i call on our colleagues to join us in codifying roe v. wade into law. simply because someone may have different views. i know many people in my own family who may be pro-life but they don't believe their views for what they would do for their personal life would apply to other people and certainly not people, women, who at the very

end of a pregnancy, something they have so looked forward to, having a baby, have the federal government intervene and tell the doctor that she can't do this or she can't do that. this isn't about politics or red states and blue states. people across the countries are on our -- country are on our side on this and we ask our colleagues to vote on our side and reject this bill. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i'm proud to join my colleagues on the floor today in opposition to the born-alive abortion survivor protection act. if you are wondering whether that title to a legislation makes sense, the answer is no. it does not. this legislation is simply a blatant attempt to interfere with evidence-based patient care

and medical practices while enshrining lies about abortion care. my republican colleagues spent the last four years calling democrats alarmists, but here they are aggressively pursuing legislation that would persecute providers for doing their jobs and making a tragic situation for families even worse. medical professionals are and have always been required by law to provide infants high quality care from the moment they're born. there's absolutely no evidence that this law is being broken. to suggest otherwise is deeply offensive and dangerous for any family, any family. and all of us know families if they're not our own, learning their child will be stillborn or not survive beyond birth is a profound loss.

deeply grief stricken. this legislation would deepen that loss. it would remove any control a woman may have over her pregnancy and force the family to endure unnecessary and unethical medical overreach at the hands of politicians. that's right, at the hands of politician, not medical personnel. the bill would force physicians to provide invasive and hopeless measures which are both medically and ethically inappropriate in these situations. that's why the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists strongly oppose this legislative effort. let's listen to the doctors, the scientists, the professionals rather than trying to message bill an antiscientific, anti medical science stand. we've seen now how overturning

roe has emboldened republicans across the united states and in this very chamber to make policies based on their own personal beliefs instead of evidence-based practices. this legislation is just another opportunity for republicans to stand on their soap box and lie to the american people. it also creates fear and apprehensions on the part of people across the country. these policies actively harm fam families. pretending otherwise is a slap in the face to those who voted for all of us and you in particular. let me close by invoking the spirit of cecile richards. after losing her just yesterday, she was a giant. she modelled guts -- modelled

guts and grits and showing fortitude as a champion of women's reproductive freedom. i'll always remember her smile, her fierce determination, her endless energy. they will be with me always and they inspire me to say today to my republican colleagues, please leave alone the women who deserve doctors' care and that care alone, not our interference. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i come to the floor today to express my strong opposition to the republicans so-called born-alive bill. i want to commend senator murray and all my colleagues who have done so much good work on this. this is not the first time the senate debates this bill on the senate floor. and i doubt it will be the last.

republicans claim this legislation will protect women and children. the foundation of this republican bill is that babies are forced to go without basic medical care after they are born. this is a disgusting, stomach-churning lie that is peddled to fearmonger the american people. no child born alive in the united states is denied the health care they need to survive. it is already illegal to do so. in reality what this bill does is turn what is already an impossibly difficult situation for countless expecting parents into a living hell. imagine you and your spouse get the good news that you're expecting. you're over the moon until a few months later when you get the worst news you could possibly imagine receiving during

pregnancy. for reasons out of your control, your baby has developed a terminal medical condition and will not survive once they're born. on top of that, to force the mother to continue carrying the baby to term would most likely be deadly for her. many women and couples are all too familiar with the gut-wrenching decisions that come next. what a statement about republican priorities that this is one of the first pieces of legislation brought to the senate floor just a few hours after donald trump was sworn into office. so republicans talk a big game about being pro-life and being the party of family values. their actions show reality couldn't be any further from the truth. for example, the republicans recently blocked a bipartisan expansion of the child tax credit that would have really helped to lift kids out of poverty. now they're gearing up to cut

food stamps so kids go hungry. they put medicaid and health insurance for millions of kids on the chopping block. if republicans really cared about helping women and children, they'd be using their new found majority to vote on legislation that cuts housing and child care costs, grocery bills, or keeps moms safe. let me close this way, mr. president and colleagues. this deeply flawed republican born-alive bill is the real republican agenda on full display. while republicans are full steam ahead with their crusade against reproductive freedom, all my colleagues who are here today led by senator murray, we're focused on fighting inflation, bringing down costs, getting to work for working families. i'm proud to be part of their efforts and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire.

a senator: i'm pleased to join my colleagues today because i strongly oppose this legislation. i oppose it because it would significantly interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and i oppose it because it would pose unnecessary and harmful obstacles to a woman's right -- all women's right to make our own decisions about our own reproductive health. mrs. shaheen: this legislation has one purpose, and that's to make safe abortion services even more inaccessible by intimidating doctors with the threat of criminal liability. this is fearmongering at its finest. and by choosing to focus on this bill during president trump's first week in office, some republicans -- and i say some because they don't all support this bill -- are choosing to politicize a family's trauma. instead of focusing on making life easier, more affordable, and better for all americans, which president trump promised when he was campaigning.

when he said he wasn't interested in a federal law that would outlaw abortions. abortions performed later in pregnancy are rare, and they are done as the result of fatal diagnoses for the fetus, the mother, or both. these are tragic, heartbreaking situations that no one -- i'm going to repeat that -- that no one wants. and by inserting new uncertainty and risk into criminal liability, this further increases the risk that a woman will not be able to get the medical care that she needs. this bill ignores these important realities in hopes of scoring political points with antichoice factions. and the timing is done deliberately because many of those groups are going to be here in washington on friday. so we should see this bill for what it is. it's a political stunt. again and again at every turn.

some reaction and the trump administration have pushed forward dangerous policies intended to threaten access to abortion care. i think it's just shapeful. -- i think it's just shameful. they should be ashamed of themselves. this bill is just another battle in a long line of attacks on the ongoing war on women's health. now more than ever we need to stand up and defend women's health care, make certain that abortions are safe and legal. and we know that banning abortions doesn't actually stop them. you just make them more dangerous for women. enough is enough. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and its consideration on the senate floor. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire ms. hassan: thank you. i rise, mr. president, to join my colleagues in opposing this legislation that is the

republican party's latest effort to take away a woman's fundamental freedom to make her own health care decision. and take away a family's fundamental right to navigate heartbreaking and complex health decisions without government interference. i come from the live free or die state. granite staters and americans love freedom. our country's promise is that freedom belongs to everyone, but today thanks to the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade and the extreme actions by republican legislatures in some states, women in america are not free. in a sense this legislation that we are debating right now is disconnected from reality. this bill ignores a pretty basic fact. infanticide is illegal in every corner of this country. the claim that this legislation will save lives is disingenuous

and the assumption underlying this bill that an expectant mother would seek an abortion after months of pregnancy for anything but the most dire of reasons shows that the deliberate willingness to ignore the realities of women's health. so here are the facts. all that this legislation will do is make it harder for doctors to perform lifesaving care for their patients. and it will make it harder for families to make the best health care decisions for themselves in mommies of great heartbreak as they face the final moments of a desired pregnancy or the final moments of a terminally ill newborn's life. it's also remarkable that this is among the first pieces of legislation that the republicans have brought to the floor since the inauguration of a new president. this is, of course, legislation in search of a problem. but it is not in search of a

motive. some of my colleagues have decided that rather than address the most pressing issues facing the american people, they will instead push legislation to occur til the freedom of women. just the latest in their long line of efforts since roe was overturned to take away more and more freedom from half of the population. i am willing and eager to work with my colleagues to tackle the greatest challenges facing our country. that's would our constituents expect and deserve of us and something that this bill so clearly fails to do. this legislation will not bring down the price of groceries, nor will it reduce rents or do anything to make it easier for families to make ends meet. but it will make life harder for expectant mothers facing a painful choice. it won't make health care more affordable, though it provides that doctors can be put in jail

for providing care for their patients. it won't keep our children safe from crime or fentanyl traffickers, though it will make our daughters less free. this legislation in short does nothing to address any of the great challenges that america faces. it seeks only to deny and diminish the freedom of our fellow americans. but this is what some of our colleagues have decided to focus on during the first full day of the new administration. across our country in red states and blue alike, in the distant corners of the land of the free, there is no great clamor to further limit freedom. there is no great clamor to have members of congress substitute their judgment for that of a woman, her doctors, and her families. but you wouldn't know it if you follow the action of the senate majority today. we cannot lose sight of what this debate is ultimately about.

at the center of this debate is a very simple question. do we believe in the promise of our declaration of independence that all are created equal? do we believe that freedom belongs to everyone? and do we believe that women deserve to be free and equal citizens in the united states of america? this is america, the world's greatest democracy. here women should not be second class citizens. in this country each of us is supposed to have the freedom to chart our own future. and we know well that freedom includes that freedom includes the freedom to make personal, private decisions that others may disagree with. our commitment to putting freedom first, that's part of what makes america different. indeed, that is what makes us exceptional. the american people understand freedom's importance. their leaders should remember it, too. the american people have not asked for the extreme agenda that this legislation

represents. they haven't asked the majority to further restrict their freedom. i urge my colleagues to listen to the american people, put aside this partisan agenda, and get to work to tackle the challenges that are facing our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. cantwell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. can't -- ms. cantwell: i rise today in opposition to this deceptively named born-alive abortion survivors protection act. tomorrow is the anniversary of a decision that guaranteed fundamental rights to choose abortion before the right was stripped away. multiple states are now -- now reproductive freedom as you understand attack in states. over a dozen i think constituent have passed abortion bans and several pregnant women have died because they could not access safe abortions. in some states patients don't even have access to legal abortion care, even after they have been raped.

multiple states are currently suing to restrict access to even medication for abortion. and we don't yet know how the new administration is going to handle federal protections for pregnant women in medical emergencies. the new administration yesterday took down a government website that offered just information about reproductive care. this was one of the top priorities yesterday of this administration on day one, taking down that website. but instead of working to resolve any of the serious real challenges, my colleagues are instead trying to force a vote on something that is completely unnecessary. it is already illegal to kill a child who is born alive in this kuvenlt i was a member of the senate when we passed in 2002 the born-alive infant protection act to ensure that all infants have protections. the so-called born-alive abortion survivors protection act, as my colleague from new hampshire just said, is

looking -- legislation in search of a problem. it is deliberately mislead for example and offensive to pregnant people and their health care providers. it is incredibly heartbreaking these scenarios where a baby is born with a fatal diagnosis that the parents want to spend with their child but under these extreme ideas doctors would have to perform aggressive medical care that would only prolong a family's suffering. we need to honor that these are medical decisions left to the woman and her physician and to her family, a understand we trust that doctors and -- and we trust that doctors and nurses know how to carry this out. we want to honor these, not politicians, not lawyers. so i will be voting against this legislation, and i urge my colleagues to do so. we also need to make sure that here in the senate, as my colleague has said, we're working to lower costs.

we need to make sure that they don't try to cut medicare or food assistance or the neediest issues for young families who are being impacted. health care in the united states needs to be strengthened. drug costs need to be lowered. and we need to help and protect working families. i thank my colleagues for being here today and i yield the floor.

the vice president: the chair lays before the senate one certificate of appointment to fill the vacancies created by

of vacancy of the senator from ohio. the certificates are in the form suggest by the senate. the receipting of the certificates will be waived and will be printed in full in the record. the vice president: please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? mr. husted: i do. ms. moody: i do. the vice president: great. congratulations, senators.

the vice president: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

i want to thank senator klobuchar schatz and murphy for joining us. moments after taking the oath of office president trump declared it was the dawning of a golden age in america but on day one of his presidency it's clear donald trump's golden age is not for the working and middle class. in fact it's a golden age for special-interest, or wealthy elites and for corporate executives and corporations.

on day one, donald trump signed over 150 executive orders dismantling years of progress on lowering costs for american families on energy jobs and lowering prescription drug prices public health and public safety. with the flick of a pen president trump took steps to make it harder to enroll in health care and made medicaid more restrictive. he then made it harder for americans to save on prescription drugs. he made it a golden age for big pharma and big pharma executives. he cleared the way for big oil and halted leasing of offshore wind farms making it a golden age for oil companies. nothing, nothing that president trump did on day one lowers grocery prices. nothing helped americans achieve their dream of owning a home.

nothing will help working families earn more and save more. who exactly is donald trump's golden age for? it's not for working americans and not for your family and not for you. president trump's golden age is one for america's biggest drug companies who now can worry less about lowering their prices. so golden age for america's richest oil executives who want nothing more than to kill queen jobs and deepen america's dependence on fossil fuels and raise the price for you at the pump. it's a golden age for america's top 1% to who want another trillion dollar tax break paid for on the backs of working families and sadly it's a golden age for lawlessness and lawbreakers who were pardoned yesterday by president trump.

there's no other way to describe president trump's pardon of january 6 offenders as un-american so deeply un-american. and let's be clear president trump didn't just pardon protesters, he pardoned individuals convicted of assaulting police officers. he pardoned individuals convicted of seditious conspiracy and he pardoned those who attempted to undermine our democracy. it's a betrayal of the highest order of our capital police officers who lost their lives. it's so to the families who lost police officers. when president trump talks about a golden age this is what he really means. richard drug companies more

powerful oil executives freedom from criminals who attacked our police officers and attack our democracy. thank you very much senator schumer. when we were together last we talked about how we are democrats are willing to find common ground with republicans and the administration if we are going to help the people that say they want to help to bring costs down by the housing childcare whether it's health care that we will stand their ground when they heard those people and that's exactly what is happening in his first executive order as well as the announcement by the ways and means committee over in the house or how they are going to look to pay for their tax cuts for billionaires. i am focused today on the pharmaceutical industry. as you will know they had a sweetheart deal for years when it came to medicare negotiations for our seniors and after years

of trying, it was democrats and democrats alone that undid that deal, that undid that deal in nature we got lower cost her but now and what the president has dubbed the golden age that gold is at the golden age getting the benefit of this that would be far to sue michael companies if we reverse these policies so they have done it in two ways one is what they just announced in the house of ways they want to cut things on the backs of the prescription drug negotiations and some of those programs in the second is trump's executive order for health care plans. he cut the affordable care act enrollment. marc short and reverse the policy that made it affordable for parents to add their kids to their health insurance. he's also making harder for 24 million people to keep coverage year-to-year by

revoking automatic re-enrollment and affordable care act plans. for prescriptions into the program encouraging medicare prescription drug plans to offer generic drugs for a flat two-dollar co-pay for common chronic conditions. we will post seven do everything we can to bring back a competitive principle for drugs for seniors. the other thing to watch and this is the key under medicare negotiations the last group that president biden, former president biden announced was $1.5 billion savings in out-of-pocket, 15 -- 1.5 billion for common drugs like jabbar deanne. now at the end of this administration they announced 15 new drugs including weight loss drugs by ozempic, ozempic and wegovy. these drugs also millions and

millions of people are on them and those are the next set of drugs that should be negotiated but we as democrats are going to hold this administration accountable for negotiating these drugs and getting us the next. once one set of drugs doesn't save $1.5 billion in one year at a profit and creates incentives for the companies lower costs for people who are not seniors, that is true competition. that is how you bring the money down. so we are going to pose these actions that will add cost to working people to help the oligarchs and everyone else that we saw around the capitol and to make sure when it comes to pharma they don't get their sweetheart deal back and we are going to hold this administration accountable when it comes to reducing prescription drugs under medicare part b for seniors. thank you.

i guess it wasn't about the price of eggs after all. anyone who has been involved in planning a wedding understands seating arrangements are important. they are significant and they are embedded with meaning and where you put people on the inaugural stage is a strict definition of where you think they rank. so it wasn't a trivial thing that the wealthiest people to ever walk this planet who control our communications platforms were seated in front of the cabinet itself which by the way has a few billionaires and 100 millionaires but not as wealthy as the people in front of proximity to power and that's the point we to underscore. which is so was never about reducing the price you pay at the pump and it was never about reducing the price you pay for

your mortgage for your rent or your insurance for your grocery bill, it was always about cutting medicare, medicaid the affordable care act social security public education in order to pay for the largest tax cuts in human history. that's what this is. they are ripping you off. >> well remember when oil industry came to mar-a-lago at the beginning of last year they cut a deal with donald trump and it was widely reported they would donate $1 billion that's a lot of money, to his election campaign in exchange for breaks for the oil and gas industry to allow those companies and those ceos to make even more money. the oil industry made good on their promise and back to donald

trump in the selection and yesterday he made good on his side of the deal handing those corporations and those ceos millions and millions more in profits and salaries. this is a graft plain and simple. if you help out donald trump he will help you out. the billionaire ceos that were standing behind him, they have no interest in cutting costs for average americans. jeff bezos wants a contract to keep up with elon musk. they want the ftc lawsuit dropped so they can make more in profits. they want to make sure they can continue to make its phones in china. they aren't interested in lowering costs. interested and making executives richer and richer. i appreciate senator schumer

talking about the most unconscionable thing that happened yesterday the pardoning of 15 rioters. many of them engaged in brutal, brutal acts of violence against police officers here and that's an affront against democracy when a stalled political violence becomes legitimized and celebrated but it's all part of the same story. because this white house is about one simple thing. we saw crystal clear yesterday. if you help but donald trump personally you donate a billion dollars to his campaign, you storm the capitol and his name to keep him in power he will help you. if you are just an ordinary gas station owner out there were security guard that goes to work for close to minimum wage he doesn't care about you. he cares about the powerful

people who can help him in cares about people who engage in violence to keep them in power. [inaudible] >> we are looking at the future. [inaudible] >> look the bottom line is these tariffs will raise the cost for average american families as a way to pay for tax cuts for the rich. that would be a travesty and it would hurt average american families and would be a very bad thing to do. [inaudible] john ratcliffe since he's not

the cabinet official that we will look at each nominee carefully and determine what to do. [inaudible] you are seeing it today. we are exposing what actually ceos do in and who they benefit in who they hurt. this is a rodless drumbeat. we are doing the same thing at the hearings in our theme is where on the side of working families and you are on the side of the wealthy and the well-connected. we are doing that with everything we do and just as when we got into the majority in 2017 and we did it and we will persist in doing it and it will be very successful. [inaudible]

i believe in the ai safety institute and we are working with our republican colleagues to try to have good legislation that allows innovation and ai. thank you. a discussion on board opposing immigration policy and that the trump administration and to guess chad the former homeland security secretary from 2019 to 2021 serving currently is the america first post institute the center for homeland security and immigration executive director and joining us in the studio is the immigration hub chief executive director and to both of you thanks for joining us today. >> thank you. >> a little bit about your

various organizations. mr. wolf wu of your time at the trump administration america first policy institute what do you do there? >> we are a 501(c)(3) created 3.5 years ago at the end of the first trump administration. we advocate for america first policies across the spectrum anywhere from education to health care to national security and homeland security. we will continue to doubt. >> ms. talbot same question your organization a bit about it. so then i'm codirector of immigration hub and we are network of organizations that focus is on sensible humane and fair immigration policies. >> and i'll ask you first must tell that would have be learned about the trump administration sense of immigration policies from the first day yesterday >> the rest of those executive orders were incredible and unfortunately amounts to a ban

on immigration at the usa now. i think it's really unfortunate considering our economic situation and how much we depend on immigrants and how much community need immigrants to rejuvenate small towns and to help us grow. these executive orders basically turn everybody away. even people coming on visas its mass deportations but also the people trying to come lawfully. >> a person for you what's the trump administration's policy on immigration that we got from yesterday? well i would say the action is what the american people wanted to see. after four years of basically unchecked immigration to have over 10 or 12 million depending on how you count illegal aliens coming to the country the majority of them staying here in very few few would deported or removed i think it's okay to take a pause and say okay lets get our arms around this year

tried to put better vetting employees to understand who is coming here and making sure you enforce the rule of law. for four years and immigration law simply hasn't been a force so i think the american people wanted to change it and i think the executive orders to live that change. mr. wilpon executive order signed yesterday when it comes to immigration or border security what was the strongest in your eyed tea quick >> the national emergency along the border allows resources to obviously help in that fight making sure the border border secure and there is over others such as starting the border wall construction. we need physical structure in certain areas not entirely cross our border but in certain areas and that construction was all but halted for the past four years and a lot of that wall was sold off. and then the directive with

minor protocols is critically important. >> ms. talbot if that's the case yesterday what was the most concerning of the executive order signed yesterday >> it's got to be the so-called birthright citizenship order which we call a second class citizenship order and this relates to kids who were born in the u.s.. this has been around for hundreds of years that if the child was born in the united states they are citizen. that's critical to make sure we don't have a second class in this country. we believe in border security and it's a total fallacy that the border is out and arrival at the border is lower than when trump was in office. >> the basis of that birthright citizenship what will the room is there within your mind if any of the present would issue its >> it's unconstitutional. the constitution is clear and the 14th amendment that these kids are born here they are

citizens. >> mr. what the question do about that as far as what the 14th amendment says. >> i think their questions among legal scholars and others on what the content take the statute and begin the action is limited when you talk about the birthright citizenship the present issue. it's just for children illegal aliens that come here illegally and it's not for everyone that applies to. let me go back to a comment made earlier when we talk about the lowest number under the biden administration it's a complete fallacy to say because the dropped. it's not true when you funnel most of those who the cbp-1 app for the parole process those individuals would normally be counted as illegal apprehensions but when you decide is the biden administration did to count the individuals coming across the border differently of coarser numbers are going to draw. the flow and the pressure on the border patrol has not subsided

at all. >> do you want to respond to that >> i totally disagree for the members have been counted the same way for decades and looking at the exact same numbers buying crackdown on the border. >> if the viewers want to ask questions about immigration or border policy and the administration (202)748-8000 and 202-74-8200 -- (202)748-8001. what does the trump administration desire to do in congress through other aspects are immigration policy? >> be said about the version of h.r. 2 pass to the last congress that stalled in the senate. my guess is they'll go back to the elements of that. provides dh is the department of

justice a few more authorities they would otherwise have that you can secure the border today using executive authority from the president or use your secretarial authority from the dhs secretary. we heard from the biden team that they need to congress to do more and yet the last year of the administration they did a few more executive orders and a few more things and they didn't do it all the way. so it can be done. is it preferable for congress to make lasting changes? absolutely that you don't need congress to secure the border. >> such as what? you can do lasting changes such as making sure you have the ability to return individuals back to their home country quicker especially children. we have seen an unaccompanied alien child in crisis over the last four years and up to 500,000 that have been trafficked into united states that's because it's difficult to return those children back to

their parents in their home countries if they are from canada or mexico. the changes like that will go a long way. >> you support security issues and you voted for the president because of these issues? what is it about the current state of immigration to give you pause as far as how things are handled? >> i would like to see a long-lasting reform in congress. it's like to see a path to citizenship and strong border security. that's what the american people want. they didn't vote for cruelty but they ended for an end to chaos and that's what we support. we want long-term reform in laws that promote security and success. i'm reminded of how many attacks they were on children. there they go again talking about attacking children. that's what happens under mr. was the first trump administration with families.

>> let's remember the biden administration has lost over three and a 30,000 children in the immigration system so this idea that they care for children and that's what their best interest was over the past four years their actions did not show that. >> they are talking about two different things. what mr. wolf was doing was separating children from their parents and that's what everyone was upset about and 20 team. the biden administration [inaudible] seemed mr. what their response >> just as "the new york times." the conservator writers at "the new york times" they were the one that broke the story and over 330 loss because the biden administration time after time when they got a chance to make a decision to protect children they continued to cut money to allow those children to be issued sponsors they were not fully vetted and did not follow up on where the children went. >> before we take also want to

ask both view the men at the center the policy when it comes to border administration tom altman the so-called border czar. mr. wolf what does he bring to the table would you expect them to do in his position in the white house? thomas and operator previous decade and i want to say 30 years experience not only as an ice officer but also border patrol agent. he understands how the system works and he understands the bounds of what can be done within the current system and the authority that ice in dh s. have any notes and remove individuals from the country. if you allow law enforcement agents who are trained to do their job as congress intended them to do you can bring a lot here and bizarre sitting in the white house advising the president on but the strategies are it's just the department to execute that that field operations another so i think it's going to be a good mix.

>> ms. talbot as far as the position the trump administration when it comes to border administration what concerns you have >> i have concerns over all about the administration targeting families and kids. i don't think that's what the american people want us to have little kids separated from their parents with no one to pick them up after school. nobody wants that. so i'm concerned this administration will run rampant over these families. >> is joining us for this discussion our first caller is from wisconsin independent line. you are on with both of our >> guest: ahead. >> good morning and thank you for being here. my concern is the fact that we have an amendment process that we have in our country and we give the president the power to research deputy borders borders. a 14th borders. at the 14th amend an executive order which the president has

signed wanting to end birthright citizenship. my concern is the fact that as an executive order override the amendment process and what is that going to look like in terms of my constitutional question, we have a lot of executive orders being signed by president to have an amendment process for the 14th amendment states ending birthright citizenship and i want to know what do both the people here have an opinion about this and i'll take this call and wait to hear what you had to say about that. it's totally true there's an amendment process, and this was an amendment during the civil war. everyone born in the united states is an american and that's who we are and makes us americans on executive order cannot overrule an amendment to the constitution.

>> mr. wolf? >> something i said earlier the executive order to president issued his very narrow. it doesn't say every child here is afforded this opportunity. it's very specific talkin bout the children of illegal aliens who came into this country illegally so it's critically important. i agree there's an amendment process and i think the basis of the 14th amendment as was said it's dated and the purpose for that i think is not questionable but it's up to interpretation but i think the president's comments yesterday and others who said it's going to be a challenge in a court of law so ultimately my guess is the supreme court will decide on whether or not it's unlimited to anyone and everyone that comes here or there are some bounds and there's ability for presidency which an executive order around this issue. >> from florida this is kim on the democrats line.

hello. >> hi. what mr. wolf was saying about immigration at the borders. we don't know who came across that border during the administration but i think we should lock the border down and let the people stay in the country illegally because of something was to happen to one of those people that came across that border and it happened to a democrats family they would be up in arms and they would feel really bad knowing we should have vetted those people. we don't know. we need to keep the border chat, cross legally go to the american embassy in your country get a visa, apply for it and immigration status in your country and if you're given that you are given it and if you are not, you are not. it can happen to one of my grandchildren.

if somebody came to this country illegally and destroyed a school. >> mr. was to talk about this idea of security and shutting the border down so what's the manpower required and does the federal government have that? >> when we talk about shutting the border down the talk about shutting the border down and the cartels in gangs and others. there's a good amount of trade, legitimate trade and travel coming across our border that should continue in as far as manpower and resources going to take more and that's what the president has made it a national emergency emergency. for four years the border has been broken in one manner or another. we had to get in there and assess what's been done and build the capabilities and let border patrols agents detail.

if it was not a control he would have agents being held from all of the country. first they had to get their hands around what's been broken in a look back up and i'm sure the new administration is talking to congress with a package about what more resources not only dh is the doj take the parts the elements that are critically important to securing that border. and what about this idea of more money to deal with issues along the border >> the by demonstrations wanted more money. republicans draw is blocking it so we do think there's an important role to play for technology and setting. we do know who's here and they do people in the biadministration was trying to push people through legal channels but i want to call mr. wolf's attention to executive orders because a lot of those are coming across the birthright citizenship ones.

there's a kamala harris provision in there saying if you're a parent came on at the zendaya the kid here it does not qualify for citizenship so that would have ruled her out for president so i think we need to be careful here about a sweeping immigration bam. >> mr. was >> again is what the american people voted for. we saw four years of an out of control border where we allowed anyone and everyone to come across. we saw individuals on watch lists that were released in the united states and we had to find them because of the overwhelming number of individuals coming to that border time and time again. the measures the president has put in place along with what the american people want to see. you may not like it but the majority of americans voted to make sure that border is secure and we stuff the hundreds of thousands and millions of individuals coming across the

border released into american communities are almost as quickly as they come across that border. american people want to stop and they voted for president trump and that's an executive order. >> mr. wolf one of the actions was the shutdown of the musa misa at. what is the app was the purpose of the shutdown and do you agree with it in a degree with it and we talked earlier about how you count numbers they think the comment was his way devising counter. we never use the cbp app in a manner that president biden used it. that's fact in reality what allows if you are an illegal alien and were in northern mexico initially they brought not to anywhere and you could sign up on the cbp-1 up for an appointment at the port of entry allowed to come into the port of entry and released into the united states. they weren't asked about asylum status. you were given parole and you can claim asylum at a later

time. that was facilitating folks come into the country legally. the biden team called it illegal pathway. obviously that stopped on day one as well as a program for countries. these two programs facilitated more and more illegal aliens into the country and begin the american people said we have had enough of it. >> and those that are in the queue so to speak their appointments are automatically canceled what would you say to them >> if you haven't an appointment six weeks in our six month are now the american people i think the trump team was very clear throughout the campaign and others that they intended and that program quickly. >> missed all but the implications >> i think the american people would agree they stand in line to get what you are standing in line with the government prana

said that it's unfortunate that we are moving away from where we should be headed which is an organized situation where people can stand in line and that's what the american people want. i don't think they voted for the chaos of these executive orders about the cause. what they want is a very orderly situation at the border and mostly they voted for the economy. they want prices to go down and immigrants helped prices go down. i think people are going to be shocked when their prices at walmart go sky-high in the grocery store go sky-high because these immigrants were picking strawberries in helping with fruits and vegetables suddenly are being rounded up. i don't think that's what people want. >> that's a common argument we have heard us for his immigrant economy would he make of that >> the argument is our economy is so dependent on illegal

immigrants that we should ignore the law allow them to come in and stay. i don't fundamentally believe that and if you enforce allow the smart way we have heard them talking about the criminal aliens and communities with over 60,700,000 of these individuals in the united states that have been delivered 1.5 million in orders of removal. they have no legal right to be in the country and you need to remove yourself and they decided -- even if you focus on depopulation and you remove them and deport them that's in the start number of individuals without giving too a lot of other ones that are here legally t agreement to have a vote on the confirmation of john ratcliffe to be the cia director. not today, not tomorrow, but the senator from connecticut decided to object at the last minute. i don't really understand the

objection to mr. ratcliffe. he was confirmed by this senate to be the director of national intelligence. he was fully vetted through the bipartisan process on the senate intelligence committee. we voted him out yesterday on a 14-3 vote. senator schumer today here yesterday how we're going to cooperate on highly qualified, capable nominees with integrity, which john ratcliffe is. the only vote we got yesterday was senator rubio. but we're not going to have a vote today or tomorrow, which means i hope that no one is making any plans for the weekend or the evenings because we're going to get these nominees confirmed starting with mr. ratcliffe, following with mr. hegseth and mr. nome. i guess it will be the hard way starting on thursday.

so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader on january 22, the senate proceed to executive session to consider executive calendar number 1, john ratcliffe, to be the director of the cia and there be up to two hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders and their designees and following the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on the nominees. if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. reserving the right to object. as the senator knows, there are many concerns that many of us

have about john ratcliffe's ability to distance himself from president trump and his work as cia director in his short eight months as dni in 2020. he politicized intelligence in a way that raises for many of us real questions about whether he's going to spin highly sensitive intrengs his agency will -- agency will year -- will gather. i don't think it is too much to ask to have a full, real debate that lasts two days on the senate floor given the serious questions that have arisen about his qualifications to do this job in a political, and i understand that we have differences about the qualifications of this nominee, but it is important for the american public to hear us have a debate here about the

qualifications of folks who are going to be leading the most sensitive national security agencies. if he's got the votes, he can be on the job this weekend, and for that reason i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: it's fine if the democrats have legitimate concerns with this nominee, or any other nominee. we had legitimate concerns with president biden's nominees. come down to the floor, get it off your chest. we talk about a full debate for two days, i hate to disappoint people watching here, you are seeing more debate than we will see on john ratcliffe's nomination in the next 24 hours. we could have debated this any time today. we debated it for two months in the intelligence committee. the senator from virginia, the vice chair of the committee

worked with his team, my team to process this nomination so it would be ready for confirmation yesterday. on a bipartisan basis, 14-3. not many other nominees are going to come out of committee with that kind of vote. so i understand the democrats are opposed to some of president trump's nominees, and i understand they want to vote no, and i respect that. but should we be denying the country a senate-confirmed cia director in such dangerous times for no good reason? again, maybe senator murphy has more to say, i would invite him to come to the floor if there is more to say. i predict though that this will be the longest debate we have about john ratcliffe's nomination over the next two days. what this is really about is trying to drag out all of these thoimgss to -- nominations to play procedural games as we are

about to with pete hegseth's nomination, to try to deny president trump his cabinet in a prompt and timely fashion. it happened in 2017 and 2020 as well. because around here, the shoe gets on the other foot, it didn't happen in 2009 or 2001 or before that. we should get back to that practice many we should especially get back to that practice when it is a highly accomplished, well-qualified nominee of integrity like john ratcliffe is. so i regret we're going to spin our wheels for two days, but as i said, don't make plans for the weekend. don't have any dinner dates scheduled starting on thursday night because we're going to get these nominees done. the easy he -- the easy way or

hard way. i yield the floor.

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is not. mr. thune: mr. president, i was listening to the chair of the intelligence committee just a moment ago talking about this nominee and i was curious, i asked the senator from arkansas, the chairman of the intelligence committee, what was the vote coming out of committee for mr. ratcliffe? mr. cotton: the vote was 14-3. mr. thune: so 14-3 coming out of the committee. we now wasted a whole day when we could have been acting on that nomination. the question before the house is do we want to vote on these folks on tuesday or vote on them on friday, saturday sunday?

that's what we're going to do. this can be easy or hard. this kim out of the intelligence committee 14-3. it is a bipartisan nomination to the central intelligence agency. this is about america's national security interests and we're stalling. so that's not going to happen. we're going to file cloture on him. you can force us to stay around here and we can vote on these things, thursday, friday, saturday, and sunday, with you wore going to vote on them. and this one shouldn't be hard. i understand there are some that will draw opposition from the other side of the aisle. but democrats and republicans in a very big bipartisan fashion agree that he is very qualified for this job, that it's an important job to america's national security interests, and frankly, i believe we ought to fill it as soon as we possibly can. so it's going to be a big vote here on the floor. everything we're doing right now

is just stalling. and i don't know what that accomplishes for you. but we're going to be here voting on them. with that, mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 1. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, central intelligence agency, john ratcliffe of texas to be director. mr. thune: mr. president, i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of john ratcliffe of texas to be director of the central intelligence agency signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. thune: i ask, mr. president,

that -- unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso.

the clerk: mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal.

ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. [applause] [applause] [chanting] usa, usa, usa, usa.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] and good morning. the hearing will come to order. the committee on armed services has convened this hearing to consider the pending nomination of mr. pete hegseth to be secretary of defense. and at this point in light of the continued suffering and death in and around los angeles, california i'm going to ask my

colleagues and those in the audience to observe a moment of silence. thank you. i also want to take this opportunity to thank my good friend ranking member jack rood. this is my first opportunity to cheer this committee in this congress. i want to thank senator reed under his chairmanship he proved time after time that he cares deeply about national security and about the united states of america and particularly the men and women who wear the uniform here and around the world to protect the united states. senator reed that want to thank you for your many courtesies that you have extended to me in the past and i look forward to working with you again in a bipartisan fashion this

congress. it's also appropriate to recognize and welcome three verynize and welcome three first senate armed service committee hearings as members. senator banks of indiana, senator sheehy of montana and senator slotkin of michigan. we are excited to have you as committee colleagues and look forward to many important contributions from each of you and senator slotkin as i look downmr at the end of the dais ty are it seems only a week or two ago i was sitting in that very chair being recognized by the chairman of the committee, the distinguished senator from michigan. so time flies. now let me say this. we had very appropriate

expression of approval by the members of the audience as our nominee and his family walked in. the distinguished ranking member and i sincerely hope that is the last signal of approval or disapproval in today's hearing. people of the public are here and they are welcomed to observe today's hearing and senator reed and i agreed that no disruptions will be allowed. although it's members may not burgarly or physically distract the hearing to include shouting standing or raising signage or gestures that block the view of the audience. and we are very serious about this. aren't we mr. reid and those who

do so will be immediately escorted from the room. so again welcome to the witnesses and to his friends and to interested members of the public. if confirmed mr. pete hegseth would assume the role and a moment of consequence. the united states faces the most dangerous security environment since world war ii. we are witnessing the explosive growth and reach of china's hard power. we are also observing the emergence of an axis of aggressors. that coalition is characterized by broadening and deepening military cooperation and the dictatorships ruling china russia iran and north korea.

terrorism remains a threat is israel wages against hamas and hezbollah and is the assad regime collapses in syria. america -- and the department to focus on leadership. hegseth begin with the secretary of defense. >> to many of my distinguished colleagues have served in the significant tenure on this committee and our meetings are long. we should reflect previous secretaries of defense and their hearings and ask simple questions has the civilian leadership of the pentagon under the administration of both parties proven up to be the challenge and often the answer has been no. the civilian leadership is not built for the department of defense to meet the moment. and this is our moment to correct it.

a few examples illustrate how leaders in the past have fallen short. most of the department's signature programs run years behind schedule at billions of dollars over cost. vital initiatives have suffered such as the f-35 the icbm and the navy shipbuilding program including the constellation class birgit. the department of defense need civilian leaders to listen to the advice of commanders many of whom would benefit from innovative systems yet a risk-averse culture has kept too many promising technologies on the wrong side. that tenuous period between experimental prototypes and production contract. defense companies backed by venture will receive less than 1% of defense contracts. as we all know the pentagon still cannot pass an audit in the department must simplify and streamline its fizzy soda could

respond innovation. staff has blended organizations are top heavy civilian leaders have promised time and again to slim down the pier obviously and perhaps generally hoped to. every day men and women make tremendous contributions to u.s. security. they and the american people deserve the pentagon that does the same. today's department defense is no longer prepared for great power competition. there's not a national defense is station ready to achieve and sustain technical logical supremacy across the range of operations. admittedly this nomination is unconventional. the nominee is unconventional just like that new york developer who rode down the escalator and 2015 to announce his candidacy for president. that may be what makes

mr. hegseth an excellent choice to approve this unacceptable status quo that i just described. he is a decorated post-9/11 combat veteran. he will inject a new warrior ethos into the pentagon, that can cascade from the top down. mr. hegseth will bring energy and fresh ideas to shake up the bureaucracy. he will focus relentlessly on the warfighter in the military's core missions deterring wars and winning the ones we must fight. he. will bring a swift end to distractions such as bmi. today many acknowledge and live with the problems i mentioned earlier. acquisition accountability technology transition and organizations civil service reform. mr. hegseth will move to fix these issues decisively. in short i'm confident that

mr. hegseth supported by a team of experienced officials will get the job done. the secretary of defense is an incredibly important position where the secretary of control is limited. of 300 -- a successful secretary understands steering the ship means focusing his attention on strategic level priorities but the secretary must be supported with subordinates who will run the day-to-day affairs of the office of the secretary of defense. the military services and the old eady component but as an infirm and 10 mr. hegseth understands the military principals of the commander's intent communicate a clear objective in power subordinates to use initiative and judgment and hold everybody accountable.

mr. hag south will excel in a skilled many of his predecessors have fallen short. much as been made about personal life and some of his policy pronouncements. regarding his personal conduct he has admitted to falling short, as we all do from time to time. it's noteworthy the vast majority of the accusations leveled have come from anonymous sources. contrast these anonymous accusations of the many public letters of support and accommodation. we've seen letters of people who have served these individuals i work with them professionally.

they know him and his character for these patriotic americans have been willing to put their names and reputations on the line to support mr. hegseth. i look forward to sharing these testimonies with the american people. let me mention one right now. it comes from david who earned the medal of honor for heroic actions in combat in iraq. david writes the following, pete is fearless, unflappable confronts conflict head on. he is a leader to the core paid when pete is confirmed as an ex- secretary of defense of the niceties of america, this country will finally have the privilege of having a true ambassador able to speak on behalf of this generation and its two decade war on terror but washington does not build men like pete. combat builds men like pete. as i said there are more letters

expressing the same endorsement. today we will hear from the nominee directly. i want to thank mr. hegseth as well as his loved ones for being here today. i look forward to discussing his nomination. look forward to hearing from mr. hegseth about the ways he hopes to rebuild the american that just cracks at your intimate friend and calling ranking member reed for his opening remarks. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. at first like to congratulate you on your chairmanship. i look forward to committing continuing our key committees strong bipartisanship and collaboration. thankful for your thoughtful. cook thank you very much mr. chairman. like to also take a moment to join chairman wicker and welcoming our new members welcome. we look forward to working with you. mr. hegseth, i welcome you and your family to today's hearing.

i'm also glad to recognize my former colleague and congressman mike waltz thank you. i want to begin by saying i respect and appreciate your military service in the army national guard. i know from experience or is no greater privilege than to lead american soldiers i thank you for answering the call. given not meant to be secretary of defense for the secretary is responsible for leading three nap service members, annual budget of nearly $900 billion, hundreds of thousands of aircraft, submarines, combat vehicles, satellite and a nuclear arsenal. the secretary also plays a powerful role with her allies, partners adversaries. as we speak china is seeking to undermine our interest come intimidate our friends and challenge her standing in the world. russia's campaign against ukraine threatens not only europe but the entire global

order. the ideologies and actions of violent extremists endanger our citizens. even on our own soil as a recent tragedy in new orleans painfully reminds us. these are perilous times the position of secretary of defense of unparalleled experience, wisdom and above all else character. the secretary is expected to be a fair nonpartisan responsible leader as well as a trustworthy advocate for the men and women that he leads. mr. hegseth i do not believe you are qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job. we must acknowledge the concerning public reports against you. a variety of sources including your own writings implicate disregarding the law's word, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol abuse,

sexual assaults, sexual harassment and other issues. i reviewed many of these allegations and find them extremely alarming. indeed the totality of your own writings and conduct would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military much less being confirmed as the secretary of defense. nonetheless and said you rejected many of these reports they involve whistleblowers, nondisclosure agreements and numerous sources. including those of face political intimidation for sharing their services i hope you address each of these allegations thoroughly and truthfully during your testimony just important to help you pledge to prevent any repercussions for whistleblowers both civilian and military if confirmed. mr. hegseth during our meeting last week if confirmed your top priority will be quote restoring

a warrior culture to the department of defense. you believe the u.s. military has been weakened by political correctness. over the years you may clear your opinions of military diversity initiatives as you have said quote diversity is not our strength, unity is. a recent podcast you said quote i'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. i join the army as a young office of the 19 u.s. military was with racial tension women were prohibited from serving in most roles, kate service members were banned we relied on the draft to fill our ranks the soldiers eye surgeons are proud to do so but it certainly was not the nation's most capable military by any standard. we have made great progress since then. today is fully integrated women serve in all combat rolls in leadership positions. sexual orientation is irrelevant

visibly reflects the nation it protects. our military is more diverse than it has ever been. more importantly it is more lethal than it has ever been. this is not a coincidence. mr. hegseth why do you believe such diversity is making military week and how you propose to undo that without undermining military leadership in harming readiness, recruitment and retention? mr. hegseth another reason i'm deeply concerned about your nomination should disregard on call but your support for service members have been convicted of war crimes. you have championed the pardoning of military members who were championed by their fellow soldiers let me emphasize that. there turned a bright fellow soldiers and fellow seals. also pardoning military contractors convicted of killing 14 iraqi citizens without cause.

waterboarding that have been defined as torture and you have belittled the advice and counsel of judge advocates general while on deployment. in your book the war on warriors you're right quote should we follow the geneva convention? if our orders are for forced to follow rules arbitrarily asked to sacrifice more lives to the international tribunal art we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules? mr. hegseth i would ask you explained if you can verb you would have good order and discipline within our forces and the support of our allies and partners by rejecting international law and the law of war? i'm also confirmed by concerned ability of a competent manager and far less complex the department of defense. from 2008 until 201,011 the organization veterans for

freedom. which at an annual budget of less than $10 million. each year you were in charge inspects is its expenses far exceeded revenues until the organization teetered on bankruptcy and had to be merged with another group. in fact going to the public reporting, an independent forensic accountant reviewed the organization's finances discovered evidence of gross financial mismanagement. i would note this report has been not been made available for any government agencies. which is i think alarming. republican advisor to you during your tenure at the organization read the report stated and i quote i watched him run an organization very poorly, lose the confidence of donors, the organization ultimately forwarded was forced to merge with another organization hope individuals could run and managed funds on behalf of donors more responsibly than he could. i do not know how is going to

run an organization eight and $57 billion budget and 3 million individuals that the only comment we have had the only access we have had to the forensic report. a similar thing happened on the concern for veterans of america the second veterans group you led from 2011 until 2016. during this five years tax records show organization spent more than it raised. just as troubling reports a a ra significant amount of debt was incurred from social events and parties filled with excessive drinking and questionable personal behavior. mr. hegseth i hope you'll explain what actions you will take if confirmed to be a better steward of defense department large budget. finally, wiper sugar meeting last week it's unacceptable he did not meet with any other democratic numbers of the committee before this hearing. as has been a bipartisan tradition but during my time in the senate i voted for it were close to a secretary of defense

appointed by republican presidents but we may disagree there is rank partisanship should have no place when it comes to providing for the men and women who serve in uniform. i'm troubled by the many comments you have made as a commentator and in your published writings. for example in your book american crusade you wrote quote moderate leftist is the soul of the party literally hate the foundational ideas of america. you also wrote the other side, the left is not our friend. near middle we agree on nothing else. mr. hegseth if confirmed as secretary of defense you lead an organization that, like the country represents, is composed of democrats and republicans. yet, your language suggests many of these men and women as foes.

and trust they will not be targeted during their tenure. the challenge of the secretary of defense is to remove partisan politics the military. you propose to reject it. this rate insult to the men and women have sworn to uphold their own apolitical duty to the constitution. mr. hegseth or the ninth know many of secretary of defense i've been had the honor to consider as a senate armed services committee voted in favor of all of your predecessors including those in the first trump administration. unfortunately, elect the character and composure and competence to hold the position of the secretary of defense. thank you. >> quick thinking senator reid. and now it is my privilege and honor and pleasure to recognize two witnesses who have come

forward to introduce our nominee. first i recognize my former colleague norm coleman of minnesota for the purpose of an introduction. norm, we are glad to see you and glad to have your back and you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member reid, members of the committee, my former colleagues. i'm honored to introduce a set of minnesota to you pete hegseth. as a set of minnesota spent many hours with this young man as he walked the halls of congress advocating on behalf of americans veterans. he is young and the best sense of the word. he is strong, focused, intelligent, incisive, great listener and almost supernaturally energetic for just what we need as secretary of defense. with times of massive change. he is the real deal.

scott fitzgerald was a writer in my city of st. paul he said the problem with america is there are no second acts. he was wrong. he was a brave soldier has been able communicator. i believe is about to be in a great second act as our secretary of defense. please do not give into the cynical notion that people can't change when the ones who can change to lead us to be beacons of hope and to remind us that grace can lead us home. four years ago lloyd austin a good and honorable man received 97 votes on the floor of the senate. we went to the debacle of the afghanistan war, booted and graded ukraine, the houthi endanger shipping lanes that witness is really miracles against america's enemies in the middle east with the united states is more of an impediment than a help. recruitment numbers have sunk

dramatically was slow but dangerous invasion. yes, pete hegseth is out-of-the-box nominee and i say it's high time to get out-of-the-box. one more thought country longs for a government of a less division more respect and dignity. my hope is this committee hearing provides what they are asking for. disagree? yes. strongly if necessary. come to support the nominee, this nominee pete hegseth of the one president we have at the time laying aside partisan politics of the essential of security upon which everything else depends. mr. chairman, a yield. >> thank you. i do appreciate that your presence today. -- the motion is agreed to. the senate will come to order. mr. thune: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 3.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. the clerk: mr. banks. mr. barrasso.

pete's story is not that much different from that millions of other veterans and they know what they appreciate him for the experiences he has gone through. after our countries brutally attacked on 911, pete hegseth answered the call of duty like so many others. he put the interests of this country ahead of his own. and i can tell you firsthand, as can the hero's sitting in this audience behind me, pete's character up country, his selflessness, his duty these are the key tenants who shaped him

into the leader he is today. these are the traits president trump recognized when making the decision to nominate pete for this critical role. he will bring the perspective in the first secretary of defense to serve as a junior officer on the front line not in the headquarters on the front lines in the war on terror. recognizes the human cost, the financial cost in the policy drift discussed often in this very room that led us to decades and decades of war. not only does anderson the threats he faces is the chairman mentioned he is brilliant in my mind is communicating those to the american people in a way that's often not communicated in washington d.c. to reach out to the american people so that they understand why the military it needs to do what it needs to do.

i have no doubt he is going get the pentagon back to its primary mission, lethal readiness. that warrior ethos is what they will respect. that is what her enemies will fear and that will keep the peace. ladies and gentlemen in my humble opinion our military deserves better than it is getting. our country faces a devastating recruitment crisis. men and women are not volunteering to serve at the levels ready. our costs are up every weapons system often discussed in this very room is causing too much, delivering too little and taking way too long. the bottom line is the status quo is unacceptable. it is not working. the members of the committee you

all know it. you know it's not working. the members of the house armed services know it is not working. we have hearing after hearing, year aftero. year and here we ae decades later describing the same problems. the pentagon has continuously failed audits. the businesses that want to do business have to pass an audit. standards have not been weakened. as a result the adversaries have been emboldened all over the world ladies and gentlemen it's time for change. it is time for change. you all have literally seen thousands of veterans as the chairman cited one amazing medal of honor recipients. we have seen thousands of veterans expressing their support for pete. can reinvigorate the ethos and this is a man that will lead.

i cannot imagine having a more capable partner and my position at as national security adviser pete is a man of family, of faith, he is committed to making our country strong again. most importantly, i know this to my core he will always have first principle of service members that are out there on the front lines for all of us at the heart of every decision he makes. so it senators, i urge you to support this confirmation. it is critical that president trump has his national security team in place for the challenges ahead and i thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. each and every member of this committee will want to have you on speed dial for the next few years. thank you both. our two guests may stay.

or they may have other engagements and responsibilities also. thank you both your testimony. at this point i am required to ask you as nominee series of questions that we ask all civilian nominees who appear before if you would please simply respond in the affirmative or negative to each question s you would hear to applicableee laws governing conflicts of interest? >> yes, sir. >> have you assumed duties are r taken actions that would appear to present the outcome of the confirmation process? >> no, sir. >> exercising our legislative oversight responsibilities makes it important this committee, subcommittee's other appropriate committees of congress receive testimony, briefings reports records other information from the executive branch on a timely basis. you agree if confirmed to appear and testify before this committee when requested?

>> yes, sir. do you agree records, documents electronic communication in a timely manner when requested by this committee and subcommittees? or other appropriate and consult with the request regarding the basis for any good faith and providing we are sure your staff complied with deadlines on this committee for the production of reports and other information yes, sir. and response to congressional requests? >> yes, sir. >> of those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their testimony a briefing? >> yes. >> all right.

at this point, you are recognized for your opening statement. >> thank you chairman wicker, ranking member read all the members of this committee for this opportunity today. i am grateful for have learned a great deal from this advice and consent process. our founders knew what they were doing. should i be confirmed senators from both parties to secure our nation. i think the former for his mentorship and friendship in this process. in chemic national security advisor, congressman moore importantly colonel mike welch for his powerful words i'm grateful to them both. thank you to my incredible wife, jennifer. who has changed my life and has been with me throughout this entire process. i love you sweetheart, and i think god forki you.

as jenny and i pray together every morning, all glory regardless of the lung sort lord and savior jesus christ. his grace and mercy abounds each day may his will be done thank you to my father brian and mother penny our entire family including our seven wonderful kids gunner, jackson, peter boone, kensington, luke, rex, i'm sorry there's a lot of them. [laughter] and gwendolyn. your future, safety and security is in all of our hands. to all the troops and veterans watching in here in the room, navy seals, green berets, soldiers, pilots, sage sailors, marines, goldstar andrk more, to make friends and name for it officers and lives in black-and-white, young and old, men and women. all americans all warriors.

this hearing is for you. thank you for figuratively and literally having my back. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> own to thank the authorities for a swift reaction to that outburst similar interruptions will be treated in like manner. mr. higgs at the may continue. i will say again, thank you for figurative and having my back. i pledge to the same for all of you. president donald terms nominee for the office of secretary of defense. two months ago 77 millions

americans get president trump a powerpoint mandate for change. to put america first at home and abroad want to thank president trump for his faith in me and is selfless leadership for our republic. as i have said to many of you in private meetings when presidentt trump's chose meet the charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the department of defense. he, like me once a pentagon laser focused on meritocracy, or fighting, accountability and readiness. [inaudible]

>> you may continue sir. >> or during the pentagon back to war fighting, that is it. that is my job. suspend your remarks let me just say this. capitol police are going to remove immediately individuals that are disrupting the hearing. i see a pattern, and attempt to be inflicted on the committee we simply are not going to tolerate that. you may proceed. >> and bring back a war fighting if confirmed i'm going to work with president trump, and this committee to one, restoring the warrior ethos to the pentagon and throughout our fighting force. in doing so we will reestablish trust in our military addressing the crisis, the retention crisis and readiness crisis.

>> will members of the security force will remove him. mr. hegseth you may. >> a strength of our military is our unity in our shared purpose not our differences. number two, we are going to rebuild our military. always matching threats or capabilities this includes reviving our defense industrial base, reform and the acquisition process as you mentioned no more valley of death for new defense companies. modernizing our nuclear triad. ensuring the pentagon can pass an audit rapidly fielding technology we are going to reestablish deterrence but first

and foremost we will defend our homeland, our borders and our skies. second, we will work with our partners and allies to deter aggression in the indo-pacific from the communist chinese. finally we will responsibly end wars to make sure we prioritize our resources to reorient to larger threats. we can no longer count on reputational deterrence. we need real deterrence. the department of defense under donald trump will achieve peace through strength. and pursuing america first security goals will remain patriotically apolitical, and stridently constitutional. unlike the current administration politics should play no part in military matters. we are not republicans, we are not democrats, we are american warriors. our standards will be high and they will be equal.

not equitable. that is a very different word. we need to make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapon system for every pilot is qualified and current on the aircraft they are flying. every general flag officer selected for leadership or promotion purely based on performance, readiness and merit. leaders at all levels will be held accountable. or fighting, lethality the readiness of the troops and their families will be our only focus. this has been my focus ever since i first put on the uniform as a young rotc cadet at princeton university in 2001. i joined the military because i love my country. i felt an obligation to defend it. i served with incredible americans in guantanamo bay, and

iraq, in afghanistan and on the >> in uniform and my mission never stopped is true that is been acknowledged i don't have a similar biography defense predict the president trump supy the right credentials, whether they are retired generals academics, or defense contractor executives rated and where has it gotten as and he believes that i humbly agree, that is time to give someone with dust on his most of the home and a change agent and somebody with no vested interest in certain companies, or specific programs or approved narratives.

my only special interest is the war fighter. these remorse and he called winning wars, by ensuring our warriors never enter a fair fight and we let them win, and we bring them home. like many of my generation, i have been there and inland troops in combat and i've been on patrol four days and the trigger down range in her bullets whizzed by, insurgents and your support and led by the facts, dodged the ied's and the pulled out dead bodies. and i know before the battlefield cross. this is not academic for me. this is my life. i led then and i will lead now. and if anyone is ever worked for me, or with me. i know what i don't know. my success as a leader in a very much look forward to discussing

my organization successes every human concerned veterans for american an incredibly proud of the work we have done. my successes leaders always been setting a vision hiring people smarter and more capable than me, and empowering them to succeed holding everyone accountable driving toward clear metrics. the plan, work the plan, the more harder and everyone else around you. i have sworn an oath in the competition before and if confirmed, i will probably do it again. in this time, for the most important appointment of my life. religion be a faithful partner to this committee, taking input and respecting oversight. which of the singles, ready military, health and well-being of our troops any strong and secure america. you for your time and look forward to your question.

>> thank you very much before i begin, i would like to remind my colleagues pete hegseth, consistent with an agreement from the center and in concert with exactly how this committee dealt with the land and last secondary to the defense of any each member will be recognized for one rather seven minutes to question the nominate the respect of the time of all members of this committee, time limits will be tightly enforced. you know been here for 45 minutes i think that we have done very well with time but at this point, i will begin my questioning of the nominate, mry have you criticism of your nomination since it was announced in november. let's get into this allegation. assault inappropriate workplace behavior and alcohol abuse and financial mismanagement in your

time is a nonprofit should noted that the majority of these have come from anonymous sources. the liberal media publications. but it will give you an opportunity to respond to the allegations. >> mr. chairman, thank you for that opportunity. you are correct. winter took this responsibility and obligation. to do right by them for our large fighters will became very heavy to us are evident to us from the beginning, there was a coordinated smear campaign orchestrated in the media against us. it was clear from moment one. and we knew is that it was not about me, most of it was about president donald trump to endure the very same thing for much longer amount of time. and he endured it incredibly strong and so in some ways knew it was coming we did not understand the depth of the

dishonesty that would come with it rated so from story after story, and the media left-wing media, we saw an anonymous source after anonymous source, based on second or third hand accounts. in time and time again the stories would come out and people would reach out means that you know i've spoken to this reporter, about who you really hard and is willing to on the record. but they did not print my quotes. they did not print any of my quotes. or and i work with you for ten years or i was your account and was your chief operating officer. i was a board member. there i was with you on 100 different tour stalls for concerned veterans for america nobody called me. no one asked about your on the record are often record in in the city small handful, anonymous sources were allowed to drive a smear campaign and agenda about me these are left-wing to media in america

today sally does not care about the truth and only were out to dupe mr. chairman, was to destroy me. and why do they wanted to destroy me and my change agent and a threat to them because donald trump was going to choose me to empower me to bring the defense department back to what it really should be which is war fighting so i'm willing to endure these things but what i will do is i will stand for the truth and for my reputation. false facts and anonymous. depa defense, peter hegseth of tennessee to be secretary. mr. thune: mr. president, i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of peter hegseth of tennessee to be secretary of defense, signed by 17 senators as follows.

mr. thune: mr. president, i ask consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. thune: mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 4. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. thune: mr. president, i send a cloture motion -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of homeland security, kristi noem of south dakota to be secretary. mr. thune: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close

debate on the nomination of kristi noem of south dakota to be secretary of state of homeland security signed by 17 senators. mr. thune: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent to resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on wednesday, january 22. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 4, s. 6. finally, that the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to calendar number 4, s. 6, at 2:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

the presiding officer: the >> visited today to proceral votes to president trump's defense secretary and c nomination, lawmakers are back tomorrow, work on legislation requiring medical care for teleport after a failed abortion pretty mr. front of thi week to coincide with fday's annual march for life. watch live coverage of the seneca here on "c-span2". cspan, democracy mental group are funded by these and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪♪ >> buckeye broadband supports

c-span as a pubc service, along with these other television providers giving your front row seat to democracy. house democratic l hakeem jeffries has responded to president trump says apartments and coming patients for most of the january 6th reuters in the present that one of his first priorities upon taking office pretty minority leader poshis, house republicans are celebrating parties issue to a bloodthirsty moppet violently assaulolice officers i would have into acting the blueprint for right extremes haveecome the party of lawlessness and disorder pretty and he had still never lecture america again about athing. >> on wednesday, office of management and budgeinee russell boat will answer questions from senate b committee members and it confirmation hearingnd he served in the firstmp administration in the white aring live at 10:00 a.m.o ernn c-span three, cspan

now free mobile app or online at cspan.org. >> to minority leader chuck schumer along with other democratic leaders, criticize the executive order signed by president trump after his inauguration and suggesting orders would go to benefit the wealthy elites rather than the working middle class and this is about 15 minutes. >> okay, the president put 11 the agenda so it took us a while to look it over but anyway i want to think the sinners will be chart and charlie murphy, for joining us and moments after tag the oath of office, president tp declared that it was that daunting of in the golden age in america. but in day one of the presidency, his clothes donald trump's golden age is not for the working and middle-class. in fact, if the gilded age were special interests, the wealthy

elites. and corporate executives of big corporations. on day one, donald trump sign over 150 executive orders in dismantling years of progress on lower costs for american families in an energy jobs, lowering prescription drug prices, public health and public safety. with a flick of a pen, president trump took steps to make it harder to enroll in healthcare made medicaid more restrictive it and even made it harder for americans to save on prescription drugs. he made it a golden age for big pharma and executives. he cleared the way for big oil polluters and halted leasing's of offshore wind farms, making it a golden age where oil company executives it printed nothing, nothing that president trump did on day one lower grocery prices, nothing helped

americans achieve their dream of owning a home. nothing will have the working families learn more and save more. who exactly is donald trumps golden age for ? for the working americans and offer your family and not for you and president trump's golden age is one for america's drink the biggest drug company is put out and worry less about lowering their prices as a golden age for america's richest oil executives who want nothing more than to go clean jobs and deepen america's dependence upon fossil fuels, and raise the price for you at the pump. as a golden age for america's top 1 percent who on another trillion dollar tax break paid for on the backs of working families and sadly, the golden age for lawlessness