home after i was iran's ambassador to the u.n. i went home and stayed in the university for six years. and i was sort of reincarnated as foreign foreign minin after my term as foreign minister ended, i went to the university and i had three wonderful years writing to macbooks. and now i'm back. i can go back to university. or have a retirement. it's time. >> mr. vice president, pleasure to have you. >> good to see you again. >> the up-to-date in the latest in publishing with booktv's podcast "about books" with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find "about books" on c-span now, our free mobile app where you get your podcasts.

>> the u.s. senate is coming in from a work on legislation requiring medical care for a child born after a failed abortion. there would be a vote on whether to advance the bill at about 2:30 p.m. eastern. 60 votes are needed to end the filibuster. that measure is coming up to speak to coincide with friday's march for life. now looking head procedure votes on three president trump's cabinet nominees are expected tomorrow on the nomination of john ratcliffe to be cia director, pete hegseth as defense secretary, and kristi noem to be homeland security secretary. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will open the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who restores the soul and gives life in the midst of decay, empower our senators to do your will. be to them a faithful guide on the challenging road they travel. lord, teach them to find contentment in striving to please you and provide them with your powerful companionship. as tomorrow's difficulties loom large, remind them that you can move mountains and create opportunities.

blaze the trail ahead for our lawmakers with your might and wisdom, for you are our shelter and hope. keep them from flinching before the unknown ways that spread before them and give them your peace. we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: now will you please join me in the recitation of the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 6, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 4, s. 6, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to prohibit a health care problemingticianer from failing to exercise the problem degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempt add abortion. -- attempted abortion. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. grassley: in early february of 1972 when abortion was not the issue it is today and probably after california had changed its abortion laws under then governor reagan, the iowa legislature considered repealing iowa's law about abortion. i cast my first vote in that assembly that year, and our abortion law stayed in place, a vote of 44-44. then one year later everything changed. today marks the 52nd anniversary of roe v. wade. i invite my colleagues to a moment of silence and somber reflection to honor the millions

of lives quietly lost to abortion since 1973. i also invite my colleagues to share my heartfelt hope in this new era we're in following the 2022 dobbs v. jackson supreme court decision. since then, we've witnessed the american people in their respective states reempowered to protect lives in the womb. these young lives are precious, vulnerable, and equal in worth to each of our own who are here today and millions throughout this country. i recall with joy the moments i learned that i was a father, a grandfather, and now a great-grandfather.

i'm amazed at how technology has changed over time to reveal the humanity of the unborn evermore clearly. through ultrasound imaging, i saw my grandchildren and great-grandchildren in early stages of their development. these ultrasound photos show how similar these little ones are to you and to me. their hands and feet were tiny, yet indistinguishable from mine. we're all part of the same human family. i look forward to working with my colleagues in the 119th congress to continue to support mothers and babies and families through common legislation.

mr. grassley: i'd like proudly to say that ten days ago i had the opportunity to see a great-granddaughter, representative-elect -- reagan grassley, open the iowa legislative session. her father, pat grassley, is speaker of the iowa house. i've had a chance in his six years of being speaker to see reagan grassley, now only a freshman at new hartford high school, give the opening prayer

at each one of those opening sessions, and i'd like to repeat for my colleagues her prayer. heavenly father, we gather today with hearts full of gratitude and hope, as we celebrate the commencement of the 91st general assembly of the iowa legislature. we thank you for the trust placed in these new and returning lawmakers by the people of iowa. lord, we ask for your wisdom to be upon each legislator. grant them clear thinking in their decisions, clarity in their thought, and integrity in their actions. may they be guided by principles of justice, compassion, truth, as they navigate the

difficulties of lawmaking. bless them with the courage to uphold what is right, even when it is not easy. gift them with patience and perseverance to address the pressing issues of our time. we also pray for their families, that they find support and strength in each other as they share in the sacrifices and challenges that come with public service. lord, let this assembly be an inspiration of good governance, where every decision made reflects a commitment to the welfare of all iowans now and for generations to come. in your name we pray, amen. so you can see why i'm proud of that granddaughter doing that

from sixth grade now to a freshman in high school. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. >> rambling speech that followed. also absent from donald trump's speech was any mention of specific policies that he will do to bring down the cost of grocery, housing, childcare and medicine. if none of the executive orders will do anything meaningful to

make life more affordable to working families. what we got was a room pull of the richest -- full of the richest people on earth applauding the prospect of more tax cuts for them and more corporate consolidation that will lead to fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. my local costco was out of eggs weekend -- mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, later today the senate will proceed to a vote on whether to move to the born-alive abortion survivors protection act. it is a simple bill, mr. president. it simply states that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion musting given the same -- must be given the same protection of medical care that any other newborn baby would be given. that's it. a baby born after an attempted ad bortion must be given the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby would have given. mr. president, this shouldn't be

a controversial bill. we should all be able to agree that a baby born alive after an attempted the abortion must be protected. i fully expect that later today my democrat colleagues will vote no on this legislation. they will vote against protection for a living, breathing newborn baby simply because that child has been born alive after the attempted abortion. why are they going to vote like that, mr. president? after all, i think most democrats would still claim to oppose infanticide even with the moral line at times appears to be slipping. yet democrats are going to vote against legislation to provide appropriate medical care to living, breathing newborn children. i'm sure they'll offer some vague justifications for their opposition, like keeping the decision between a woman and her doctor, even when the decision we're talking about is denying a child appropriate medical care.

but, mr. president, i think it's safe to say that what it all boils down to is this -- democrats will oppose legislation to provide appropriate medical care to newborn children who survive abortions because they are afraid. they're afraid if they recognize the humanity of a living, breathing born baby in an abortion clinic, it might end up pointing to the humanity of the unborn baby in the abortion clinic. that's what this boils down to. democrats are afraid that by recognizing the humanity of the newly born child, they will inadvertently point to the humanity of the unborn child. and i do understand where they're coming from. after all, once you recognize the humanity of the newly born baby, it it goes a little harder to say that that child wasn't human just a few minutes ago simply because he or she wasn't yet born.

and so because there's nothing more important to democrats than abortion, they will vote against legislation to provide appropriate medical care to babies born alive in an abortion clinic, just in case such a law and hes up jeopardizing their cherished, quote, right to abortion. and i think this should make democrats, frankly, mr. president, it should make all of us think. when the supposed right to kill unborn babies starts motivating you to vote against protections for born babies, perhaps you should start questioning the whole abortion project. because if there's one thing that controversy over this bill demonstrates, it is this -- once you start denying the humanity of some groups of human beings, once you start saying that some human beings' lives aren't worth as much as other

human beings' lives, you jeopardize respect for all human lives. so we now find ourselves sat a point where nearly 50% of the united states senate is unable to clearly state the humanity and value of the born child. where nearly 50% of the united states senate is going to vote against protection not just for unborn children but for born babies as well. i got to say, mr. president, this is a disturbing place that we've gotten to. and i hope -- i sincerely hope -- that it will lead us to reflect on what a lack of respect for unborn children's lives as cost us. mr. president, we are better than this. we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creators with certain unalienable rights. that among these are life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. mr. president, i pray for a day when we fully live up to that promise and when the right to life of every human being, born and unborn, is respected. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. >> thank you, representative. good morning, everyone. i'm congresswoman kelly morse ifson, i represent minnesota's3rd district, and for more than 300 the years eve had the the -- 30 years aye had the honor of caring for patient, and new i'm proud and humbled to be the first and only to-choice

ob/gyn in congress. the supreme court issues the -- issued the dobbs decision overturning roe v. wade, and for the first time in our country's history, taking away a right. today as we recognize what would have been the a 52nd anniversary of roe v. wade, we acknowledge the harsh reality that our country is facing. a maternal health crisis was unfolding across the united states before roe was overturned, but that decision has only served to accelerate that crisis. if today women have less rights to health care than their mothers and grandmothers did. 44% of women and more than half of black women of reproductive age live under abortion bans. over a third of counties in the united states are maternity care deserts. and we're facing a shortage of ob/gyns that is only expected the get worse. these are serious and dangerous threats to women, children and families.

if voters across the country have shown that they want to preserve a woman's right to access the health care that that she needs. if voters in red, purple and blue states from missouri and montana to arizona and colorado, to the new york and maryland voted for reproductive freedom in this past election on state ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments. and i want every woman to the know -- to know we see you, we hear you. house democrats will do everything we can to prevent this republican congress and this administration if from going against the will of the people and further eroding your rights. unfortunately, later this week republicans will resume their efforts to restrict access to maternal health care, pushing through a bill designed the confuse, frighten and misinform people and criminalize medical providers. a cruel bill that singles out parents who are facing one of the worst days of their lives.

in this moment we should be doing everything we can to support women and their doctors, not attack them. so on this anniversary of roe v. wade, we mourn what has been lost, and we redouble our efforts to restore your rights. we will never back down. we will always fight for your right to reproductive freedom. thank you, and i will turn it back to the chairman. >> questions. nick. >> [inaudible] >> look, our job so to give members the information that they need and to support them in the decisions that they make the

represent their constituents. members will vote their cricket -- districts. members have to balance, as i've talked about a before, hair love for this country with the job that they have to do for their constituents. we expect them to do both in the votes that they make. we have said very clearly on the topic of immigration that the democratic caucus believes in a safe and secure border. we believe many order at the border and a fix to our broken immigration system. we also believe in ensuring the public safety of our communities. we've talked extensively about bipartisan bills that senate republicans killed at the request of donald trump that would have done that, would have had meaningful change to our border system and our immigration system. at the request of donald trump, they didn't take that up. we will work with anyone,

including republicans, on fixing these issues. we will not fall for their heightened rhetoric, and we will ensure the safety of our communities. michael? >> [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> we live those -- thank you for the question. we live those values each and every day. this is the most diverse caucus ever assembled in the history of congress. from every corner of our country, every background. that's who the democratic caucus is, and so we will carry forward with those values because that's who we are. in the committee work that we do, in the decisions that we make, in the policy that we advance, we live those values. it's unfortunate that that a lot of the decisions including this one that donald trump did on day one don't do anything to address real issues that americans are facing. none of these effect lowering the prices of groceries that donald trump said he would do on day one, and they reduce our ability to hear different ideas and perspectives when we make decisions. that's the goal of what we should be doing, and that will continue to be the north star of what house democrats advance

moving forward. joe and cassie? >> [inaudible] >> hook are, i think what we support are local cities and local are states making decisions that they kneel are in the best interest and the best safety interests of their communities. many states have taken positions on immigrationrd in to protect their communities, and one of the first steps donald trump does is how raids -- allow raids in churches, workplaces, community centers, funeral homes. those are the decisions that donald trump and his administration if are making. so we understand that people are scared. we understand that people are frightened because donald trump, with the support of house republicans, has now said this is within bounds.

and so what we expect are local leaders and law enforcement to live by decisions, to live by the federal rules, state and local laws that guide this. and some of them have taken different positions on that. and so we respect the rule of law. we hope that republicans do as well. cassie. >> [inaudible] is preparing -- [inaudible] members of the committee. i'd love to get your reaction to that, and also i know -- [inaudible] a little bit about whether or not -- [inaudible] >> look, i look forward to a robust debate in the judiciary

committee. i'll yield to the vice chair here momentarily that has discussions about what the limits of presidential pardon authority should be. i support that robust discussion, and i would live by the law of the land. as i mentioned in this room and i've mentioned, you know, publicly, i didn't advocate for a pardon. i didn't feel service the necessary. i felt -- feel it was necessary. i felt we did our job in a bipartisan way to tell the truth of what happened on january 6th. we did so with the speech and debate clause as a protection to the work that we do. and but i understand why president biden made this decision. but it's the not lost on me that donald trump doesn't care what a single piece of paper says. he will do what he wants to do, and if that means retribution against members of the committee, he will do it whether it's through the burleson bill or through other means. a simple piece of paper does not protect anybody from donald trump and his administration. we know that going in. so we're going to to carry out

the work that is ahead of us. but we're also going to continue to talk about the promises that donald trump made that affect if evidence americans and the cost -- everyday americans and the costs and the burdens that they face. and he's doing nothing -- all of this january 6th pardons, putting public safety in danger, you know, that's, that's what is so tough. and let's give you an example of the type of people who donald trump pardoned. a guy named albuquerque cosper punched officers in the chest, he was the one who yelled, "i got one, "when he put an officer in a chokehold. when some rioters tried to protect the police officer, this guy attacked him again and hit him in the head. he was sentenced to 7 years and 6 months. he was not in the wrong place at the right time -- at the wrong

place at the wrong time. he had 45 previous arrests. that is the type of individual that donald trump has a now put back into the community in which he came from. nas wrong. that is -- that is wrong. that is not m be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: well, mr. president, donald trump made a lot of promises on what he would get done on day one. well, today is day three of donald trump's presidency. nothing donald trump has done will help lower grocery prices. nothing donald trump has done will lower prescription drug costs. instead, president trump's biggest accomplishment to date has been to issue unconditional pardons to 1500 lawless rioters who attacked police officers and invaded the capitol. why on earth is the president already spending so much time focused on the past, focused on

his grievances, instead of focused on costs and jobs and improving health care for the american people? the american people have to wonder how on earth will pardoning january 6 rioters help me pay for food at the grocery store, help me get a lower cost for buying a home, or help me save more money for my retirement? how on earth will americans feel safer if -- that the president rewards lawbreakers who assault police officers by setting these criminals free? so much for focusing on lowering prices, pardoning lawless rioters is not what the american people signed up for when they voted for donald trump. they wanted to -- they wanted the president to get to work quickly on issues that impact them -- costs, safety, health care. the first three days of donald

trump's golden age has been golden for everyone but working americans. it's a golden age for big corporations. it's a golden age for pharmaceutical companies. it's a golden age for polluters. it's a golden age for lawlessness. it is not, not a golden age for hardworking americans who want their costs reduced. on nominations, yesterday i met with president trump's nominee to serve as director of omb, russell vought. i walked into my meeting with mr. vought, of course, skeptical. then i walked out of the meeting even more deeply troubled. of all the extremists president trump could have picked for omb, he picked the godfather of the ul ultraright. mr. vought's goal is clear and simple. he wants to dismantle the social safety net and starve america with the most radical budget cuts in living memory. in the past, he's called for gutting social security, gutting

medicare, medicaid. he wants to eliminate the department of education. he's proposed cuts to disability payments for retired veterans. he wants to cut snap benefits, raise drug prices. all in the name of an ultraright, extremist ideology that prioritizes the needs for the wealthy few. they wants to cut the daylights out of everything else so they can give tax cuts to the very wealthiest in our society, who are doing quite well. web i asked him -- when i asked him which parts of project 2025 he disagreed with, he was unable to give me a single answer. i'm also deeply worried mr. vought will disobey the law when it comes to following through on congressional spending. president trump has begun issuing executive orders that jeopardizeses billions in bipartisan infrastructures across the country. they say this is temporary but we know how this works.

temporary trial balloons turn into permanent anchors. congress has be approved these investments, president biden signed them into law. these projects help red states and blue states and support families, help parents raise kids, lead to stronger communities. if donald trump does in fact freeze these funds now so he can resume them and take credit down the line, people's jobs and livelihoods would be at risk. and mr. vought, i fear, would only enable this unlawful behavior. in fact, vought is one of the leading proponents of impoundment of funds which would be frightening not only to those who represent blue states, but also those who represent red states where so many of the investments are going. mr. vought is testifying right now before the senate committee on budget. it's important that we build a record about the deeply harmful plans he has for the country. it's an opportunity for americans to see for themselves how truly radical president trump's second term could well

be. on the born alive bill, under president trump, under president trump it will be a golden age for the anti-choice, the extreme anti-choice movement. the bill we're voting on today, the republicans so-called born alive bill, is as pernicious as they come. it attacks women's health care using false narratives and fearmongering and adds more legal risks for doctors on something that's already illegal. so much of the hard right's anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by people who have little or no understanding of what women go through when they are pregnant. the situation targeted by this bill is one of the most heartbreaking moments a woman could ever encounter. the agonizing choice of having to end care when serious complications arise in pregnancy. it is moments like in when we should support women and doctors most, not use them as a political football, as this bill does so heartlessly. remember when republicans

claimed they would leave the issue of choice to the states? remember that? that's out the window. this bill is a metaphor for what's to come, an emboldened, extremist anti-choice resurgence, far more to the right than the american people are. here's a message to my republican colleagues -- today would be a great day for senate republicans to do something, lowering the cost of groceries, instead of attacking women's reproductive care. it would be a great day for senate republicans to do something to make prescription drugs more affordable. it would be a great day for republicans to help do something to help americans trying to buy a home. instead of lowering costs, senate republicans are putting their energy into controlling women's health care. this is not what the american people signed up for. and finally, on a.i., yesterday a group of a.i. and tech companies announced their pledge to invest as much as $500

billion to ramp up our nation's a.i. and data center infrastructure. of course if a.i. becomes one of the central technologies of our lives, as is expected, we must build the capacity to support that demand, no question about it. but already president trump is tying himself into knots and talking out of both sides of his mouth. ed on the one hand, he goes on about how we need more power, we need more electricity to meet the demands of a.i. then on the other hand, he spent his first day in office proposing executive orders that cut clean energy investments, halting wind and solar and putting those jobs at risk. these a.i. data centers will depend on more clean energy production and transmission, and cutting clean energy will cut a good chunk of the new energy that's about to come on board. so for president trump to cut clean energy investments is tantamount to cutting a.i.'s

potential. one hand doesn't seem to know what the other hand is doing. if president trump wants to help a.i.'s growth instead of hurt it, he should revoke his promise to kill the clean energy jobs we're going to need to support american energy needs. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

>> host: joined by clifford order young, author of the book "poll, pollsters and public opinion: a guide for decision makers." welcome back to the program. >> guest: it's great to be here again. >> host: okay. so we've got a lot to go through. we were just talking about the january 6th pardons earlier, and a new poll suggests that 58% oppose pardons for january 6th, 2021, protesters. tell us about that poll. >> guest: yeah. that's a out arers poll that just came out last night. we were in the field over the last few days. we've asked that question in different ways, mimi, and it all

says sort of the same thing, tells the same story, that americans don't like pardons in general whether it be of the january 6th protesters, whether it be some of the biden pardons. they don't like it. they feel like it's breaking the rules and doing an end run with the system. >> host: let's talk about the question about donald trump's approval rating. do you approve or disapprove the way donald trump is handling his presidential transition, and we've got the numbers here x this also gives you an idea of previous presidents going all the way back to eisenhower who, incidentally, had the highest approval. this is after 100 days in office. this number that you have, it's 55%. tell us how you got that number. >> guest: that 55% is an average of many polls. not just ipsos, but policy across the market, across polling firms. we wanted to get an idea about

pre-approval, where he stood in a relative sense; that is, where trump stood in a relative sense. we just got his actual approval if numbers last night from our reuters p.o. we have -- poll, we have him at 47%. what does it suggest? trump goes into office his second time in a better place than in his first, in 2017. in 2017 it was 4 is % approval. we have to remember back then he did not win the popular vote, is so there was some dissonance there. he didn't have the same sort of consensus that he doesed the. he comes into the white house, into washington in a a stronger place. but historically speaking, he's below the average. the average is around 55% or is. that's the incall a place a president starts at the -- typical place a president starts. he is below that but better than he was in 2017. >> host: and typically approval ratings decline. there's a honeymoon if period. and of after 100 days in office, it goes down.

so what are we expecting for this administration? >> guest: yeah. presidents don't have a forever stamp on hair approval ratings -- their approval if ratings. they typically decline fairly quickly. between 100 days and 6 months in office, that's when you get your primary agenda through. obviously, at six months everyone's looking towards the midterms already. the average decline in those six months is about five points, and so trump has to take action quickly. and and we've already seen that at least with executive orders. but when it comes to congress, he'll have to do that as well. and from 47% where he is today after a taking into consideration the average 5-point decline, that puts him at 42. we're to you're around 40, it's difficult to push your agenda forward. right now it's action, action, action, or should be at least for president trump. >> host: and we will take your calls for clifford young of ipsos on anything related to the

polls that you'd like to talk about, ask about. the numbers are 2022-748-8000, democrats, republicans, 800. and independents, 20 the 2-748-802. you can start calling in now. the question that i want to ask you about now is about which of the following issues are most important the you personally. and the top issue, as expected, was the economy and inflation. but it's interesting that the second one came in as health care. is there a difference when you ask what's personally the most important thing to you, or what do you think is the most important issue for the country? >> guest: yeah. you have to be careful with question wording. it can produce if different results. if we had asked that question slightly differently, if we had asked about the problems in the country, most probably immigration would be in second mace and health care would be ie would be in third place. we can ask it both ways because

it's the good practice to get an idea to trey ang -- triangulate a bit about where people are. how the read the poll. it's cost of living, cost of living, cost of living. donald trump won on that issue. people are concerned about that issue today. your own personal if health, the health of your family and you personal ifly together with immigration, those are the with two competing issues today in americans' minds setting aside cost of living. >> host: and the poll continues, so 47% for economy, inflation. health care at 30. immigration at 26 and and then taxes and then crime. >> guest: yeah. that's a typical ranking. ones again, if we tweak the wording one way or the other, you might have a little different rank ordering, but those are the primary issues americans today are worried about. k unanimous consent that e quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you. yesterday i had a chance to meet with president trump at the white house, shared with him

that his nominees, they are receiving strong support here in the united states senate, and i assured president trump that republicans in the senate are committed to working around the clock to confirm his nominees. to put this into perspective, yesterday president trump invited several of us to travel with him later this week. he's going to be going to north carolina as well as los angeles to see the impact of the disasters and the devastation in both places. we thanked him for the invitation, told him that we have pressing responsibilities right here on the floor of the united states senate, because we're prepared to work late into the night and long weekends if democrats choose to deliberately delay the votes on his cabinet as it appears they are doing right now. so that's exactly what we're planning to do -- continue to work fo get these individuals who are strong and tough

confirmed by the united states senate. last night what we saw here in this body, where democrats decided to stall the confirmation of john ratcliffe. mr. ratcliffe is president trump's nominee to be director of the central intelligence agency. the nomination is supported completely, bipartisan. actually his specific nomination was voted 14 in favor to only 3 against in the committee, the intelligence committee of the united states senate. but last night here in this body, democrats chose last-minute obstruction. they're going to slow it down anyway even though he has been supported out of the intelligence committee bipartisan, 14-3. what they are doing is shameful. our world is far too dangerous to delay confirming the head of the cia.

so i hope my democrat colleagues don't have plans for the weekend, because i guarantee you the senate is going to be here in washington voting to confirm president trump's nominees. so get ready for some long nights, long hours, day after day after day. we're going to be here thursday, friday, saturday, sunday if we have to. we're ready to work around the clock, and we mean it. that's what americans voted for. according to a recent fox poll, 78% of americans say democrats should work with president trump. the american people elected president trump to change washington. to get the country back on track. they voted for common sense. and president trump is a commonsense president. president trump has proposed an agenda that is popular, it's optimistic and it is unifying. and he has chosen a strong team

to work with him. president trump has built, i would say, a cabinet that's not business as usual. his nominees are motivated. they are qualified. and they are committed to americans' safety and prosperity. they're going to work aggressively, aggressively to address the challenges of high prices, of open borders, of crime, and what we have seen in the last administration, which was an america-last america policy -- oh, they're ready to go after the burdensome regulations that face people all across the country. hours after president trump was sworn in, senators voted unanimously to confirm marco rubio to be secretary of state. this week we have more nominees to consider, and as the senate exercises our constitutional duty, we should remember a few

facts. first, let's compare this to president obama, who had seven cabinet nominees confirmed on his very first day in office. second, the current democrat leader at that podium moved quickly to confirm president biden's nominees, and he said that swift confirmation votes, he said, are traditional for a new president. third, democrats are actually supporting many of president trump's nominees in the committees. that proves that -- well, it proves what we already know; that these nominees, in addition to being bold, have bipartisan support. all but two democrats voted with every republican to support kristi noem after her hearings in the homeland security committee. she's been nominated by president trump to be the secretary of homeland security. her vote was 13-2.

several democrats also voted with us to support scott bessent, who is president trump's nominee to be secretary of the treasury. let me remind my colleagues what democrats have said about president trump's nominees. senator tammy baldwin of wisconsin introduced sean duffey for the president when he was nominated to be secretary. he is the right guy to help deliver for which is families, businesses and workers. our colleague john hickenlooper of colorado introduced chris wright to be secretary of energy. secretary hickenlooper said this. he said, mr. write is quote, a scientist who has invested his life around energy. senator mark kelly said lee zeldin is a, quote, qualified candidate to lead the environmental protection agency. senator martin heinrich said

doug burgum is, quote, a talented nominee to lead the department of interior. i think we should pay attention to those comments. democrats know that president trump's nominees are ready to get on the job and are qualified to do the work. yeah, the senate should give advice and consent. that's an obligation we have. but disgruntled democrats should not use the senate's constitutional power as an excuse to delay and deny. americans want results. that's what they voted for in november. they did not vote for resistance. they want to get this country back on track. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, yesterday i met with kash patel, president biden's nominee to serve as director of the federal bureau of investigation. we all know the fbi. it plays a critical role in keeping america safe from terrorism, violent crime, and other threats. the person who is in charge of our nation's leading law enforcement organization, the fbi, should be someone who is nonpartisan, solid, reliable, with a demonstrated skill in law enforcement. we were reminded of this on 9/11, that the fbi is the leading agency that we in america rely on to keep us safe. the 30,000 professionals at the fbi have the skills and resources to do the job. they deserve a leader who understands the gravity of their mission. after meeting with kash patel, i

have grave concerns about his fitting in for the role of fbi director. mr. patel has neither the experience, the temperament, or the judgment to lead the federal bureau of investigation. he is a staunch political loyalist who has repeatedly peddled false conspiracy theories and threatened to retaliate against those who have slighted him personally and politically. start with january 6 -- i was here in the senate that day. i'll always be grateful to the u.s. capitol police and d.c. police officers who defended everyone who works in this building from an angry mob that was egged on by president trump. you've seen the videos. you know i'm talking about. but kash patel, the man who claims he should lead the fbi, actually says -- and i quote --

the fbi was planning january 6 for a year. planning january 6 -- the fbi. and he posted on social media, and i quote, january 6 -- never an insurrection. then he said, cowards in uniform exposed. let me say those words again. cowards in uniform. that's what mr. patel said. i asked him about that statement in my office yesterday. he couldn't explain it. who were these so-called cowards in uniform when the mob stormed the capitol building on january 6? who were these people? were they the capitol hill police or the d.c. police officers who literally risked their lives to protect us and the vice president? in light of the deaths and serious injuries they faced, mr. patel should not even suggest the possibility that

these were cowardly acts. these were acts of bravely and courage -- bravery and courage. many of them risked their lives for us, as they do every single day. to the people who've gathered in the balcony here to observe the senate in session, to the thousands of visitors to this building, look around you. quietly standing guard are men and women in uniform, capitol hill police who are ready to step in and protect you, if necessary. on january 6, they did it at great cost. so what are mr. patel's plans for this fbi that he said was actually planning january 6? he said he wants to, quote, shut down the fbi hoover building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the deep state. and he said, quote, i'm going to come after the people in the media. we're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly. we're putting you all on notice. this is the man who wants to head up the fbi.

and i'm quoting exactly what he said. he's even published an enemies list of 60 people whom he calls government gangsters. it's in writing. the playbook is there. the list of all 60 names is spelled out in detail. who is included on this list of people that would be his enemies, these so-called government gangsters? well, members of both political parties. mr. patel has identified. including former trump administration officials like defense secretary esper. then there's bob mueller. bob mull certificate an extraordinary man -- bob mueller is an extraordinary man, a patriot, a republican, who has been called on repeatedly to serve this country and has done so willingly. he enlisted in the marine corps out of college when one of his dear friends was killed in vietnam. he decided he had to seafronts had to fight -- had to serve and

had to fight, too. he received the bronze star and the purple heart. even after he was injured and received the purple heart, he returned to battle. he is an extraordinary person. i came to know him a few days after 9/11 when i reached out to see if there was anything i could do to help the fbi and its new leader, mr. mueller. we struck up a friendship and a relationship over the years. i respected him so much. what does mr. kash patel think of bob mueller, this man who served our country in so many different ways? he calls him an utter swamp creature. and then there's paul rye on, former -- paul ryan, former congressman and former speaker of the house. i call him a causual friend and someone i like. we didn't have a lot in common when it came to politics, but i thought he served our country well. what does kash patel assist s

say -- say in writing about him? total failure and a coward. paul ryan, total failure and a coward. then there's general mark milley. he served our country in so many different capacities, led our troops in battle, and distinguished himself timed appeared time again. what does kash patel say about general mark milley, who served in president trump's leadership? he calls him the kraken of the swamp. the kraken of the swamp. does this sound like the resume of a person who should lead the federal bureau of investigation, the world's preeminent criminal investigation agency? and i asked him a practical question as well. there are 30,000 people in law enforcement in the fbi. what do you think is the morale of that group after president trump's pardons the other night of the people who were involved in the january 6 violence?

well, mr. patel went on to tell me that he didn't in any way approve of violence against law enforcement officers. i asked him, will you say that publicly, that you don't think they should have pardoned if they were guilty of violence against police officers? he said he would have to take it up the chain of command. let me say for a moment, we should reflect on these pardons and the people who received them. i want to make sure that we put these details in the record without any question of their veracity. some of the people convicted of violence on january 6 here in the u.s. capitol building who received full, complete, and unconditional pardons from president trump the day he was sworn in. david dempsey, convicted of repeatedly assaulting police officers with pepper spray, a metal crutch and wooden poles.

david dempsey injured and assaulted police officers, end of quote, federal prosecutors charged. metropolitan police department detective nuyan testified that after dempsey pepper sprayed him, he was knocked down and, quote, i thought, you know, that's where i was going to guy. in my head i'm thinking about my family before anything else. dempsey was sentenced to 20 years in prison, received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from president trump monday night. julian kater, pleaded guilty to pepper spraying brian sicknick in the face. later that night, sicknick collapsed and was rushed to the hospital. he died the following day. according to d.c. medical examiner, sicknick's death was due to quote, natural causes, two strokes. but, all that transpired played a role in his condition.

sicknick's mother gladys spoke at the hearing. loyalty to a deranged autocratic ideal killed my son. i hope you are haunted by your crimes behind bars, she said to julian. whatever jail time you receive is not enough in my eyes. i was sentenced to six years in prison. and he received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon monday night. christian matthew manly pleaded guilty to assaulting police with two cans of bear spray and threeing empty cans at officers. he then threw a metal rod at officers. the judge told manly that there has to be an understanding that participating, taking up arms against law enforcement, taking up arms to basically overthrow the government is is going to be met with severe punishment. manley was sentenced to more than four years in prison.

he received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from donald trump monday night. another was convicted of using a police riot shield to crush metropolitan police officers daniel hodges, leaving him trapped and bleeding. if i was there much longer being assaulted in such a way, i knew it was very likely i wouldn't be able to maintain consciousness. your actions on january 6 were some of the most egregious crimes that were committed that day, federal judge trevor mcfadden told the defendant before sentencing him to seven years in prison. mr. mcgawhey received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon. ryan nichols pleaded guilty to pepper straying police officers question, this is not a peaceful protest, he yelled, according to prosecutors. if you have a weapon, you need to get your weapon.

later that night, nichols recorded a video calling for a second american revolution, stating, quote, if you want to know where ryan nichols stands, ryan nichols stands for violence. nichols was sentenced to more than five years in prison and received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from the president monday night. christopher quailen, convicted in trial of, quote, viciously assaulting police officers for ho hours, according to federal prosecutors. quote, on at least a dozen occasions, quailen stood face to face with officers as he screamed at them, pushed with outstretched arms, punched, swatted and slapped them, pushed bike racks into officers and choked one to the ground. he was sentenced to 12 years in prison, received a full, unconditional and complete pardon from donald trump on monday night. daniel rodriguez, pleaded guilty to using a stun gun and plunging

it multiple times into police officer michael fanone's neck. during those moments, i remember thinking there was a very good chance that i would be torn apart or shot to death with my own weapon, fanone testified to congress. rodriguez was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison. daniel rodriguez received a full, complete and unconditional pardon from donald trump. peter schwarz, convicted of stealing pepper spray from police officers, drinlting the canisters to -- distributing the canisters to other rioters and spraying law enforcement, according to prosecutors. court documents from the justice department described him as, quote, a welder by trade, and a felon who racked up numerous convictions for drugs, weapons and violence over the last three decades. the day after the riot, he allegedly posted on facebook, what happened yesterday was the owning of a war, he's referring to january 6. i was there, and whether people

acknowledge it or not, we are now at war. schwarz was sentenced to more than 14 years in prison. he received a full, unconditional and complete pardon by the president on monday night. these are the instances that i wanted to highlight. for those who suggest these are casual tourists to the capitol, they should read the details of the attacks these individuals made op police officers -- on police officers who stood to guard us, the vice president, and visitors to the capitol that day. they risked their lives for us, and the pardons from the white house are impossible to explain under those circumstances. i raised those with kash patel. i said you want to be the head of the largest federal law enforcement agency, the federal bureau of investigation. what do you think those pardons are doing to the morale of police officers across the country? he said he did not condone violence against police officers. i want to make sure i make that clear for the record. i said will you say anything

publicly about that? he said i have to take it up the chain of command before i would say anything publicly. in 1976, congress passed a law limiting the fbi director to a single term of ten years, intending to ins late this position from political influence. president trump has repeatedly tried to bend the fbi director to his political jaenldz. he fired his -- his political agenda. he fired his first director, jim comey, forced out the second, jim way, when they refused to do his bidding. now he has nominated a proven loyalist in kash patel. in 2019, patel reportedly told president trump he wanted to expand his portfolio to ensure white house personnel were, quote, completely loyal to the administration. loyalty of police officers on a political basis is not the basis for sound judgment when it comes to law enforcement. we find loyal police officers in

countries with autocratic rulers throughout our history. we don't want that in the ups. mr. -- in the united states. mr. patel's political grievances make him a favorite of the maga world, but they have not prepared him to work night and day to keep america safe from violent crime, drug trafficking, terrorism and other threats. mr. patel's endless list of political grievances and well-documented threats of retribution are disqualifying, and they're spelled out in graphic detail in his own book, which i read. the fbi is a critical agency in keeping america safe. mr. patel is not the person for this life and death assignment. mr. president, i yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

might of our restated this but i would like to know the percentage of americans that trump pardoning these 1500 violent criminals who were seen barking and grunting the whole summer about crime

being high in violent crime in jail oakland fbi statistics is lower. he goes ahead and let's 1500 top killers and going to our capital defecating and wipe it on the walls. trenton all right, , michael. >> guest: the pardons are not a good thing. americans believe you're breaking the rules, you are gaming the system weatherbee the chamber six, or biden's pardons. once again to a distrustful america that doesn't believe the class is credibility. it reinforces that. >> host: talk to roy in georgia, republican. >> caller: how you doing? i question is this. when you take a poll you need

accurate information. and that it has been informed by this information for the last four years. a documentary was about -- [inaudible] c-span said once misinformation. but you look at the video you see them pulling down barriers encouraging people to go into the capital. use police officers urging people to go into the capital. peaceful people. then you see on the top of the building you see police officers shooting rubber bullets into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators, throwing grenades into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators and the whole reason they were there is because mike pence led people to believe that he is going to challenge the election in pennsylvania, arizona where they

change the voting rules, change for the election. what the people are there. like trump said, encourage your representatives to do the right thing. that's why they were there. and the riot was incited by the capitol police and other authorities. >> host: got your point. >> guest: we live in different worlds. we live in them blue world and filters the way we -- democrats see it in a negative light. january 6. seat is some sort of credible reaction, what happened, probably the truth some and middle but ultimate as americans we sit in a very different way. >> host: william, democrat, good morning. >> caller: good morning, good morning. tremont go right ahead. >> caller: yes. i was kind of concern. i heard the children speak about the public being influenced by the media.

that is how we of forming a negative opinion of present electro. that's not true. this guy has said and done things that was totally against the norm. these people, we saw what happened at the capital. everybody in america could see what happened. you could call the blue, red, purple, green. these people went there with the intent on disrupting the peaceful transfer of power. that's what we saw. they were judged, tried and convicted by a jury of their peers. this guy spoke about retribution, so for years he complained about -- the first thing he did was release convicted criminals back into society. he is a convicted criminal who hasn't been the sentence because

of his wealth so we all can see what's going on, my friend. and the media has nothing to do with influencing most of our opinions. i sent our american because why does white and black, green, blue, no matter what, wrong is wrong and right is right. thank you. >> host: we've got a post on x that says your polling appears restructured around trump narratives. did you do any polling about the federal government saving union pension? howell upholding a reducing the part d out-of-pocket max. >> guest: three where focus on trump administration, agenda. this crop of pulses to invest but will come back and look at the broader agenda as things unfold. >> host: .

>> none of this is normal. taking away lower prescription costs for vulnerable americans is not normal. pandering, pardon me, insurrectionists who assaulted police officers in this capital is not normal. we're going to combat this by showcasing that are progressive movement is all about a vision rooted indecency, justice, equality and peace for all. thank you. >> and now i handed over to our incredible wit, chuy garcia.

>> thank you, representative omar and good afternoon to all. after the inauguration speech we stand together united as progresses against trump's hateful and xenophobic agenda that preys on hard-working people. the effective executive orders issued yesterday by trump and his regime is personal to me. i am an immigrant who represented districts with many emigrants, one of every three people is foreign-born. and they they've come from, central, south america, italy, poland, ireland, germany, haiti, china among others. and in illinois to out of every seven u.s. citizen children have an immigrant parent. these are hard-working mix status families that deserve to stay together.

instead, trump is abusing the power by trying to take away birthright citizenship. this is blatantly unconstitutional, evident by actions taken now by 22 attorneys general in cities across the country. simply put, it's un-american to attempt to invalidate out immigrant contributions and histories. but let me be clear to him emigrants make america great and immigrants help keep america, america's economy moving. as progressives prl not let them take away this fundamental right. and on his quest to invalidate emigrants and humanize us, trump is also suspended refugee resettlement, a program that has existed since the 1980s offering a lifeline to refugees in the most dire conditions. and thus if the were not enough,

trump wants to completely dismantle the right to seek asylum by reinstating the remain in mexico policy. this deterrent policy is inhumane, ineffective and places people in grave harm. and under the guise of public safety he intends to stop cartels by categorizing them as terrorists. this vilification of immigrants and in particular mexicans will lead us down a dangerous path, one that creates even more harm and jeopardizes our national security from preying on victims of extortion to open the door to military interventions in mexico. we must understand the serious implications of declaring cartels as terrorist organizations. let's set the record straight. if trump really wants to address cartel violence then he must address the fact that 70% of weapons used by the cartels are

coming from the u.s. and while we are fact checking, let's debunk the myth that immigrants are criminals. immigrants are actually 60% less likely to be incarcerated, and 37% less to commit crimes. we stand here today calling on trump to bring real solutions, not propaganda, to stoke fear and chaos come disguised as policies. we will not be silenced. we will not be afraid. we will defend our diverse immigrant communities and reaffirm that the more you try to bury us, the stronger that we will grow back. thank you. >> next i would like to introduce representative mark poe can from wisconsin. >> thank you, she week. we. the progressive caucus is ready to be the resistance in this congress and hold the

republicans accountable for what they promised the american people in november. i'm could talk specifically around costs of goods in in e country as well as lgbtqia+ community. on day one trump promised is going to lower cost for americans, and he didn't. in fact, some of the actions he did will actually increase costs for americans. republicans we're in artificially fourth week of the united states. we still missing the bill is going to lower cost for americans. here's what is happening. if the president does terrorists on all goods coming and he's going to increase costs for americans. that there's useful time to e terrace when you're having cheap steel, putting terrace on the, protects workers in america. but blanket terrace do just opposite.ab tart for the united states congress. after nearly a -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. britt: i ask unanimous

consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. britt: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this week marks a new start for the united states congress. after a yearlong battle over the laken riley act, this week we decided to put the security of the american people first. take the next step towards ending an era of open border policies, and we passed the bill. it is impossible to overstate just how great an achievement it is that we came together to send the laken riley act to the president's desk. for decades it has been almost impossible for our government to agree on solutions for the problems at our border and within our country. the laken riley act represents perhaps the most significant immigration enforcement bill to reach the president's desk since 1996. it is significant first step to

protect american families and to honor laken riley's life and legacy. it ensures that no family will have to endure the heartbreak that laken's family has had to endure. with our republican majorities in both the house and the senate, congress is back to working for the american people once again. the american people made their voices heard on november 5, mr. president, and they told this city that they would no longer tolerate a government that ignored our border crisis. they would no longer put up with open borders, unsafe streets, and soft-on-crime policies. congress listened, and we have delivered, but we're not finished yet. monday, inauguration day, marked the start of a new american golden age.

with president trump back in office and with our majorities ready to work with him, we are headed towards creating a safer, more secure, incredible country, and the laken riley act is no doubt a step in that direction. now is the time to turn the page from the last four years, to think about what we can do together to turn the will of the american people into action. to do the things a government is meant to do -- provide security for its people, ensure its streets are safe, and enforce the rule of law. it is also a time of remembrance, mr. president. it is a time to think about the light laken riley shone on all of those around her.

the example she set for how to live one's faith and make a positive impact in the world. i am so proud that we came together in this body to honor her and the profound impact she happened on everyone that knew her. to allyson and john phillips, laken's mother and stepfather, thank you for the courage that you have shown in advocating for this bill and for laken's legacy. we are all eternally amazed by your grace and strength in the face of tragedy. you, like laken, are so incredibly inspiring.

and as you so humbly said about the passage of this bill, all the glory to god. i'd again like to thank representative mike collins, who has spearheaded it to house passage not once, but twice. and i look forward to its third and final passage today in the house. i'd also like to thank leader thune, who in his very first month as leader took a difficult issue and moved it gracefully through the united states s senate. and a big thank you to the rest of my colleagues here in this body and the ones in the house for coming together, for putting partisan differences aside to find common ground to actually achieve a result.

and for showing the american people that they can trust their elected representatives to listen, to understand, and to do the right thing. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

[inaudible] [inaudible question] >> the progressive caucus is united in having an immigration system that works for people that inhumane, that is legal, and is orderly. and republicans in this building in the city for decades have undermined that goal every single day. so we are united in that nation. the bills you just described don't do anything to make people safer or to fix our immigration system. so our goal as the progressive caucus is to recognize many of the republican bills are intended to divide and put frontline democratic members in a difficult place. the way i see the progressive caucus and progressive movement in this country can help is by telling the truth as whip garcia

just mentioned are emigrants not only contribute, they're much less likely to commit crimes in somebody like someone born here to tell the truth that these bills in fact, don't protect victims of violence vary practicably to the deportation and punishment of victims of violence. i also recognize and the progressive caucus recognize so many members of our -- so many members of her caucus are required to vote. insist on a o debate on the nomination of john ratcliffe to be the director of the cia. plain and simple, i think that we should take some time -- one day -- to consider one of the most important, sensitive national security posts in this new administration. i do not think it makes sense to ram through mr. ratcliffe's nomination with only 120 minutes of debate, as was the suggestion last night. many people here have raised

serious concerns about his qualification. for instance, during his short tenure as director of national intelligence, mr. ratcliffe showed a very troubling propensity to play politics with sensitive intelligence. most notoriously, just one month before the 2020 election, on the day of the debate between donald trump and joe biden, mr. ratcliffe chose to declassify a cherry-picked cia memo from four years earlier that outlined russian claims that hillary clinton had approved a plan to tie trump to russia's hack of the dnc so that trump could use that in the debate. these were unverified russian intelligence claims, and mr. ratcliffe's decision went against explicit warnings by cia personnel that its release would put in jeopardy cia sources,

methods, and personnel. but he did it anyway on the day of the debate, a month before the election, because its release would help donald trump's reelection campaign. now, it's true during this day of debate that we are having before we vote likely tomorrow, senators may not be coming to the floor to give l lengthy speeches on mr. ratcliffe's nomination, but this debate time, this day gives all of my colleagues the time to carefully review the record and consider whether mr. ratcliffe is qualified. now maybe members of the senate intelligence committee have had the time to do a full study, but the full senate has not. so it's not too much to ask, given the very real concerns about this nominee's politicization of intelligence, for us to take a day. not a week, not two weeks. a day for senators to take the

time to consider the record. but i want to make a broader point. i hear republicans claiming that my decision to ask for one day of debate on a controversial nominee to lead the cia somehow compromises our national security. so let me say this -- spare me. two days ago president donald trump pardoned 1500 rioters, including the most violent rioters, who stormed this building four years ago, brutally beat law enforcement over the head with poles, tried to crush the heads of capitol police officers, walked around here with zip ties looking to do god knows what to any democratic congressmen or senators they found. they assembled a gallows and a noose outside the capitol to

chants of hang mike pence. colleagues were here when a police officer rushed through that door. all claimed law and order is a priority and we have to rush through nominees, and yet they stand by a president who just threw law and order out the window. but pardoning not some of the rioters, but all of them. political violence in this country just became mainstream. it is now a fact of life in america. if you commit an act of horrific violence in the name of the president of the united states, that president will make sure that you get away with it. that is fundamentally un-american, and it makes this country less safe. let me guarantee you, a one-day delay, a one-day debate on the

confirmation of cia director does no damage to our nation's security, compared to the decision to pardon every single january 6 rioter charged and convicted of crimes and let out of jail some of the most violent rioters. p and just to hammer home the point, if you don't believe me, let me explain to you who donald trump let out of jail yesterday. this is a david dempsey. he gave an interview in front of the gallows that had been built with a -- noose, because the obamas and the clintontons need to hang. at the capitol, he climbed to the front of the mob and fan

attacking law enforcement officers who were trying to protect us. he used his hands, feet, crutches, broken pieces of furniture and anything else he could find as a weapon to attack police officers. he then pepper sprayed a detective. the spray burned the detect i've lungs, throat, eyes, he feared he might lose consciousness and be overwhelmed by the mob. moments later, because dempsey wasn't done, he hit sergeant jason masteny with a metal crutch, with so much force that it cracked his gas mask causing the sergeant to collapse.

dempsey wasn't done. he was thorough, he was vicious, he kept going, he stomped on officers' heads, he hit them repeatedly with metal and wooden polls. at one point he actually attacked another rioter who was trying to stop him. he was sentenced by a jury of his peers to significant jail time for his litany of brutal attacks as anyone in this country would. he walked out of jail last night in the middle of his sentence because donald trump pardoned him. that's d.j. rodriguez. he didn't make any bones about what he was coming to the capitol he was going to do. the night before the

insurrection, he posted on the internet there will be blood. welcome to the revolution. for weeks he and his violent maga group proposed what they were going, told them where to buy bear spray and told them to ware goggles with breath holes. he was prepping for war. he began rather innocently, just spraying a fire extinguisher at a line of officers. when that didn't work, he found a long wooden poll to attack the officers. he wasn't done. 37 minutes of repeated frantic attempts to breach the capitol, he got to the mouth of the tunnel in the lower west terrace, he grabbed an officer by the neck, dragged him into

the mob, he takes a taser and tazs the officer in the head, the officer screams, rodriguez isn't done, because he wants this guy dead, he strikes him in the neck, the officer yells out and he is unconscious, and another officer has to drag his body away from the mob. the officer suffered a hearta tack, of. his law enforcement -- heart attack. his law enforcement career is over. later that day rodriguez went to the gallows and posted no democrats unfortunately, after being convicted of beating a police officer by a jury of his peers, d.j. rodriguez was pardoned by donald trump. this is thomas webster. he traveled to d.c. ready for battle with a bulletproof vest,

carried a large metal poll with him, he led the charge against the police line. he spent eight minutes he'lloing his way through the crowd and then repeatedly attacked police officers. he slammed it so hard the metal pole broke in half and then charged at a police officer, he dragged him and pinned him to the ground as webster tried to rip off the officer's gas mask, the officer was gasping for breath, as he gasp for air, webster held him down on the ground and other rioters kicked him repeatedly. after that webster was so fired up he posted a live video. he pleaded send more patriots, we need more help. he was convicted of all six

counts of his indictment, including assaulting a police officer like anybody would be in this country if they did what thomas webster did. he walked out of the jail in the middle of his sentence monday night, ond by donald trump -- pardoned by donald trump. here's the message, if you beat up a police officer in this country, you're going to jail for a long time, with one exception. you don't go to jail if you beat the hell out of a police officer in the service of donald trump. if you're engaged in violence to further donald trump's political a rear, you face -- career, you face no consequences. there are still a lot of radical dangerous people in this world and they know if they carry out violence in the name of donald trump, if they beat up police officers, if they attack democratic officials and they're doing it to support donald trump, they are likely immune.

that puts this nation's security in jeopardy. that puts our lives in jeopardy. and i'm just going to say it, it puts democrats' lives in jeopardy in particular. remember, d.j. rodriguez went to the gallows and said no democrats here unfortunately. where is the broad righteous indignation from my republican colleagues about that. yes, a few of my republican colleagues have criticized the pardons. i'm thankful to them. but it's a minority. it is a small handful. most senate republicans are silent. the wholesale endorsement of political violence is a grave national security threat to this nation. having a one-day debate on the nomination of a cia director is

not. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. quorum call:

>> thank you so much for joining us. i'm grateful to be joined today by representative janel bynum and representative dr. kelly morrison. this week marks 52 years since roe v. wade enshrined women's reproduction freedom into law. these new members understand what it meant for women and how the dobbs decision is putting women at risk every day across this country. the subject of reproductive freedom was absent from monday's inaugural address as well as the bizarre rambling speech that followed. also absent from donald trump speech was any mention of specific policies that he will do to bring down the cost of groceries, , housing, child care and medicine. none of the executive orders will do anything meaningful to make life more affordable to working families. what we got was a roomful of the richest people on earth plotting

the prospect of more tax cuts for the more corporate consolidation that leta fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. my local costco was added eggs this week and we ended up paying $14 for 18 eggs. that is a much bigger bigger problem for working people than the name of the gulf of mexico. house democrats are ready to work with anyone to bring down the cost of living but so far republicans have failed to show us that they're interested in doing anything that helps working families. their focus has been on the millionaire class that help them win elections. vice chair cheney do. >> thank thank you, chair a. what you think brad sherman and judy chu for helping in southern california, both policies fire as well as the easton fire. i opportunity to out to both of

those and the devastation is significant. this is why we need to get disaster relief to the disaster victims in california and not condition a bit we've never done that before. we should not be leveraging the pain and suffering of disaster victims to try to jam through political priorities and i want to note last month congress passed american relief act. it was to help disaster victims in florida and oklahoma and south carolina that democrats say hey, we want to condition a because a red states? no, we did not. because at the end of the day where all americans. we are all god's children and it is simply a moral, not christian and un-american to force disaster victims not get a because of particular policy priorities that republicans may have. i also want to correct the record on some things the speaker has said. they are simply incorrect. he said on national tv the with

the lack of water in southern california to fight the fires in this reservoir was off-line because of a fish. that is just incorrect. the reservoir was off-line because it was undergoing repairs. there's an investigation as to why is that when there was a fire that could be coming but nothing do with fish. it was off-line for repairs. he also said we condition eight in the past. he mention hurricane katrina we did not do that. we did not say hey, before we give money to louisiana victims we want to louisiana to do more in climate change. democrats didn't ask for that. no one asked for that and that should not happen now. i just want congress to pass relief as soon as possible and not condition aid. and now it is my honor to introduce the amazing representative janel bynum, a fantastic state legislative in oregon and she's a fantastic member of congress.

>> thank you. vice chair, chair aguilar. 52 years ago with roe v. wade our country established a fundamental freedom for women to make their own health care decisions. and as a result more women had access to critical care and better health outcomes. since then we have seen anti-choice extremists role that right back and they've taken steps to ban access to reproductive care entirely. and it is my belief this is a devastating impact on women across the country,, disproportionately affecting women of color, women with low income and women in rural communities. now, this we cast republicans are having as though votl that continues to undermine women's access to healthcare. for me that's unacceptable and it is frankly not what i was hindered to work on. so i'll be voting no. the evidence is clear.

in states with less access to care maternal mortality is higher, infant deaths are higher and racial inequities are greater. these restrictions also make it harder for expecting mothers to receive the care they need in pregnancies and complications. so that is what i will fight for all women have access to reproductive care, and to be able to make those decisions for themselves. i believe women shouldn't have to pay thousands of dollars to travel across state lines or risk prosecution to access basic healthcare. for me it's nonsense that my daughters, i have two of them, that they will have less rights than i i did at their age. it's nonsense that they had to decide where to live and go to school based on where they will have rights. it's nonsense my daughters are less safe because of government

interference in their healthcare. it's time that house republicans put aside this foolishness and start focusing on real issues like eliminating maternal mortality and increasing rural access to health care, like lowering costs and creating good jobs. and like working across the aisle to deliver real results for real people. thank you. and now i will head over to brett kelly morrison of minnesota. >> thank you, representative. good morning, everyone. i'm kelly morrison and represent minnesota's third district. for more than 20 years i've had the privilege of caring for patients as an ob/gyn. now i'm proud and humbled to be the first and only pro-choice ob/gyn in congress. two and half years ago the supreme court overturned 50 years of precedent and issued the dobbs decision overturning roe v. wade and for the first time in our country's history taking away our right.

today as we recognize what would have been the 52nd anniversary of roe v. wade, we acknowledge the harsh reality that our country is facing. a maternal health crisis was unfolding across the united states before roe was overturned but the decision has only served to accelerate that crisis. today women have less rights to health care than their mothers and grandmothers did. 44% of women women and mof of black women of reproductive age lives under abortion bans. over a third of counties in the united states are maternity care deserts. and we're facing a shortage of ob/gyns that is only expected to get worse. these are serious and dangerous threats to women, children and families. voters across the country have shown that they want to preserve a woman's right to access the healthcare that she needs. voters in red, purple and blue

states from missouri and montana to arizona and colorado to new york and maryland voted for reproductive freedom in this past election on state ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments. and i want every woman to know, we see you, we hear you. house democrats will do everything we can to prevent this republican congress and this administration from going against the will of the people, and further eroding your rights. unfortunately later this week republicans will resume their efforts to restrict access to maternal health care, pushing through a bill designed to confuse, frighten and misinform people and criminalize medical providers. a cruel bill that singles out patients who are facing what of the worst days of their lives. in this moment we should be doing everything we can to support women and their doctors, not attack them. so on this anniversary of roe

v. wade we mourn what has been lost, and we redouble our efforts to restore your rights. we will never back down. we will always fight for your right to reproductive freedom. thank you and and i will tut back to the chairman. >> questions? >> on immigration. [inaudible question] >> book, our job is to give members information that they need and to support them in the decisions they make to represent their constituents. members will vote their districts. members have to balance as i talked about before their love for this country with the job

they have to do for their constituents. we expect them to do both in the votes that they make. we had said very clearly on topic of immigration that the democratic caucus believes in a safe and secure border here we believe in order at the border and affixed to work broken immigration system. we also believe in ensuring the public safety of our communities. we talked extensively about bipartisan bills that senate republicans killed at the request of donald trump that would have done that, what if it meaningful change to our border system and are immigration system. at the request of donald trump they didn't take that up. we will work with anyone including republicans on fixing these issues. what we will not fall for is their heightened rhetoric and we will ensure the safety of our

communities. michael. [inaudible question] [inaudible question] >> thank you for the question. we live those out each and every day. this is a most diverse caucus ever assembled in the history of

congress, from every corner of our country, and the background. that's who the democratic caucus is. so we will carry forward with those values because that's who we are. in the committee work we do, and the decisions we make him in the policy we advance we live those values. it's unfortunate that a lot of the decisions including this one that trumpeted on day one don't do anything to address real issues that americans are facing. none of these affect lowering the prices of groceries that donald trump said he would do on day one. they reduce our ability to hear different ideas and perspectives when we make decisions. that's the goal of what we should be doing. that will continue to be the north star of what house democrats advocate and advanced moving forward. joe, then cassie.

[inaudible question] >> look, i think what we support our local cities and local states making decisions that if you are in the best interest and best safety interests of their communities. many states have taken positions on immigration in order to protect their communities, and one of the first steps donald trump does is allow raids in churches, workplaces, community centers, funeral homes. those are the decisions that donald trump and his administration are making. so we understand that people are scared. we understand that people are frightened because donald trump with the support of house republicans have now said this is within bounds. and so what we expect our local leaders and local law enforcement to live by decisions, to live by the federal rules, state and local laws that guide this.

some of them have taken a different position on that. so we respect the rule of law. we hope republicans do as well. cassie. [inaudible question] >> look, i look forward to a robust debate in the judiciary committee. i will yield to the vice chair momentarily, that has discussions about what the limits of presidential pardon authority should be.

i support that robust discussion and i would live by the law of the land. as i mentioned in this room and i mentioned publicly, i didn't advocate for a pardon. i didn't feel it was necessary. i felt we did our job in a bipartisan way to tell the truth of what happened on january 6th. we did so with the speech and debate clause as a protection to the work that we do. but i understand what president biden made this decision. it's not lost on me that donald trump doesn't care what a single piece of paper says. he will do what he wants to do. that means retribution against embers of the committee will do it whether it's through a bill or other means, a simple piece of paper does not protect anybody from donald trump and his administration. we knew that going in. we are going to carry out the work that is ahead of us but we are also going to continue to talk about the promises that trump made that affect everyday

americans, the cost and the burdens that the face, and he's doing nothing. all of this january 6th pardons, putting public safety in danger, you know, that's what is so tough. and let's give you an example of the type of people who donald trump pardoned. a guy need albuquerque copperhead punched an officer in the chest and other officers with bright shields. he was one who yelled i got one, when you put officer fanone in a choke hold. when some writers try t to prott the officer, this guy attacked him again. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. shat you might think -- mr. schatz: you might think that the person nominated to lead our nation's top health department,

an agency with a budget of over $2 trillion and responsible for running everything from medicare to vaccine trials, you might think that that person would at least be interested in, if not experienced in, curing diseases and promoting public health, that they'd be someone who follows science and works to build the public's trust in it. robert f. kennedy jr. is none of those things. for the first time ever, we might have a health secretary who has actively fueled disease outbreaks. he has literally made a career out of lying about the safety of basic vaccines, and it is not an exaggeration to say lives will be lost if he is confirmed. he has cost lives pretending to be a public health expert before, and he will do it again

at scale if he becomes the next health secretary. this is not just some random dude with his buddies kicking around weird ideas just for the hell of it. he's a kennedy with an enorous fortune, parachuting into countries to tell lies. and stop people from taking life saving vaccines. in 2019, he flew to samoa to discourage people from taking the measles vaccine, deepening a hesitancy that was already building. and it did work. vaccination rates were eligible 1-year-olds, 1-yard, fell -- 1-year-olds, fell below 33%. just five months later, samoa found itself in the middle of a measles outbreak. 5,000 people got the measles.

83 people died. 79 of them kids. 83 kids died because rfk jr. decided to leave the east coast of the continental united states and fly clear across the pacific to samoa to tell people not to take the measles vaccine. this is the nominee for the secretary of health and human services. in addition to spreading baseless lies about vaccines, he has also regularly spouted all kinds of deranged ideas, including -- this is a direct quote -- covid was, quote, targeted to attack caucasians and black people. the people who are most the most immune are jews and

chinese. he said that anti-depressants are to blame for mass shootings and that chemicals in our water are turning our kids gay. i don't know why this guy is going to get a single vote. this isn't just somebody who has like a different view than me on mandatory covid vaccinations, there is room for people to disagree about the conduct of the government, state, federal, county as it relates to the covid vaccine and response, people in all of them, every state, everybody was trying their best. there are a lot of lessons to be learned including a close call about whether mandatory vaccinations as it was on the downslope even worked. but we're not talking about that, we're talking about

measles, mumps, r polio. he wants to revoke approvals for the polio and hep-b vaccine. there's a reason we haven't had to think about these awful, painful diseases in a long, long time and it is because we vaccinated our way out of outbreaks. he's also vowed to fire hundreds of federal health researchers and scientists and stop all research into vaccinate xien development because we're going to, quote, give infectious diseases a break for about eight years. we're going to give infect just diseases a break for eight years.

this is as dangerous a decision as the united states senate could possibly take. you would not put him in charge of a local clinic let alone the country's entire health system. and, look, i get it. i come from hawaii. a lot of my constituents hear his critique of our food system and agree. our food system is broken and people are getting sick because of it. we have subsidized the wrong things for so long that you can find an unhealthy meal faster and cheaper than a healthy one. ultra processed foods are everywhere and healthy, hearty meals are harder to come by and that has to change. but we don't have to bring measles and mumps back in order to fix our food system. we don't have to bring back the horrors of polio in the name of

cleansing our diet. and there are a lot of people in the senate, including my dear friend senator cory booker who works hard to solve this problem with the seriousness and thoughtfulness that it deserves, to rain in factory farmers, to make healthy food more readily available and affordable. we have to do all of that. but we don't have to purchase with this idea that our food system is broken, the idea that the only way we can fix our food system is if we bring polio back, if we bring mumps back. the medical profession at its best is about helping people and i think about doctors like my dad, dr. irv schatz, aboard the ship s.s. hope, providing free medical care to people across latin america.

some like -- so many like him put their lives and careers on hold to help those less fortunate, delivering babies, treating and preventing diseases. it is hard and unglamorous and unselfish work. it is god's work. and so it takes a special kind of person to do the exact opposite, to do what this man did, which is fly around the planet to cause disease. to fly around the planet to cause disease. so, yes, this is a question of character and competence, but it's also a question of life and death. and who we want in charge making decisions when lives are on the line. and it is our job here in the senate to make damn sure that we protect the public health. i could not urge more strongly a

no vote on this unqualified nominee. i yield the floor. mr. schatz: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. quorum call:

>> before we get started where our distinguished guests, this is being recorded for my sunday show. is so i would appreciate it if people would not show either

very loud are signs of approval or disapproval -- [laughter] would just make it easier if we don't have any, any, you know, noise from the audience. if but great, great pleasure to be able to do it, and so i hope you'll make it simple. let's get started. joining me now, of course, is a man who needs no introduction. probably the most famous, visible face of iran over the last three decades that people have encountered. deputy foreign minister, ambassador to the u.n., now-vice president. it's a measure to have you on. >> good to be with you -- it's a pleasure to have you on. >> good to be with you. >> let me begin by telling you what it looks like to me right now in terms of iran's position

in the region. i think one could make an argument that iran has never been in a weaker position. you made a huge bet on assad in syria with, enormous amount of money, arms, militias. assad is gone. hezbollah, a key ally in lebanon, has been decapitated, by my count, three times over. decimated in terms of its force. you have relations with a hamas. hamas leadership has been destroyed. its tunnel infrastructure has been destroyed. the whole idea of the axis of resistance, this -- these militia groups, these substate the actors that were going to push back against israel, against, you know, the gulf arabs, perhaps american interests, it all seems to be much, much weaker than it was before. if i'm sure you're going to to

disagree, so tell me why. >> well, first of all, met me make two points -- let me make two points, because we don't have much time. first point, many 1982, if you can remember, sharon invaded lebanon. pushed all the way into beirut. because in '78 he pushed all the way on to river in order to prevent the palestinians from fighting into israel. and then in '82 he went all the way the beirut in order to basically decimate the palestinian resistance. if you remember, he sent arafat to exile, to due anymore. s -- tunis. so what happened? from 198 1 to 1987, islam. ic jihad was born in '81,

hezbollah was born in '82, and hamas was born between '85 and '87. so i wouldn't suggest anybody if to start rejoicing over destroying hamas, hezbollah or the palestinian resistance or to cutting iran's arms. because the resistance will stay as long as the occupation stays. as long as repression if stays. resistance to israel, to rely occupation, to appar if tide, to genocide, existed before the iranian revolution. it came to being reinforced exactly at the time that israel and sharon believed that they had wiped out the cerise sans -- resistance. i think right now as you look at gaza, hamas is still there.

it -- israel, netanyahu did not achieve his goal of destroying hamas. hamas is still there. israel had to come to a ceasefire -- temporary, i hope it will be permanent for the sake of 50,000 people who were massacred, general side by israel. is so that there won't be another 50,000. but resistance is not dead. i can tell you that the wishes for the resistance to go away has been based on a misrepresentation, a framing by israel that this is not an israeli-palestinian issue, but an israeli-iranian issue. that's number one. number two, go back to 1981-'82 and move all the way to 2023, 2024. give me a single sentence -- instance when this resistance

operated on iranian behalf. they always worked for the, their own cause. even at our expense. they never carried our orders. we didn't know about october 7th. actually, we were supposed to have a meeting9 with the americans on jcpoa renewal on october 9th which was undermined and destroyed by this operation. >> but then it makes the case that this has been a very unwise investment for iran to be funding all these militias which are not even doing iran's interest. >> well, let's not talk about funding because a hot of people are funding a lot of things, and they're not successful. but let's focus on the fact that we have supported people's rights. now, israeli actions are a matter of jurisdiction of the international court of justice

in the case of genocide, a matter of criminal jurisdiction of the international criminal court in the terms of netanyahu and the minister of defense, so -- and they cannot come to davos. the president can come to davos because he's a nobody in israel, to resip are procandidate what he said yesterday. otherwise he would have had to go to the hague instead of davos. this is the reality on the ground. people will continue to resist. now, why am i making this statement? because if you want to resolve the problem of palestine, you should not look at iran. you should look at the palestinian issue. as long as the palestinian issue is there, the struggle will be there, the resistance will be the there, and there will be support from the international community. including from allies of the united states. >> i take your point. but if i may with respect, you haven't answered my question

which is about iran's position. you've lost a key ally in assad, you've lost -- or at least you have a much weaker ally in hezbollah. your air defenses have been destroyed. >> [inaudible] >> we have reports -- you tell me if it's not true. we have reports of generals in iran talking about the fact that they've paid a very heavy price for the support of assad. is it not true that you are in a much weaker position? >> but let me make, again, a couple of points. we fought iraq when we didn't have any air defense. then we didn't have any weapons. when the united states was providing iraq with avacs and the french were providing iraq with missiles and fighters, when germany was providing iraq with chemical weapons, when britain was fighting iraq -- funding iraq with jeeps and tanks. when russia, soviet union at that time, was providing iraq

with migs and missiles, china at that time was providing iraq with till more missiles. we didn't have anything. we stood against iraq for eight years, and we did not give up an inch of our territory. so, first of all, the story about destroying our air defense is a story. and there is a reason behind this -- >> you're saying it didn't happen? >> no. we suffered, but it didn't mean that we lost our air defense. and secondly, we have fought against a very equipped army, equipped by everybody, and nobody was giving us any weapons for eight years, and we didn't lose an inch of our territory. and that's something that didn't happen in iran for 220 or years. for the previous 220 years, we had lost every war in which we engaged. this is the the first government in iran that has not lost any territory in the past two and a half if centuries. so we're not talking about weak

government. but i answered your question by saying that find me a single instance when these groups which are, i think, erroneously called iranian proxies operated on our behalf. if they did not operate on our behalf, what does, what do they do to to our strength? now, you can tell me that we worked on their behalf diplomatically and that gave us strength, but we never tried to cash our investment in the region. you now tell me that a -- that this was a foolish investment. i believe that you and i belong to the a school of thought in social science which because not believe in only material power. we, both of us, believe in ideational power. the fact that iran can, in fact,

move people in the streets in many parts of the world gives us power with or without hezbollah -- >> but let me ask you about a -- >> and we still, we still possess that power. we can still move people. inspire people. as we did in the beginning of the revolution. now, it may not be as good as it was because we have our own failures domestically, and we need to to work on them. now let me tell you what i wrote in "foreign affairs," and you've read it. now, for us, is the time to move forward. we have been looking at our surrounding as a threat because of our history. now we have proven time and again that we will not be an easy food to swallow because we -- i mean, we used to be. the brits, the russians took

over iran, imposed on us a, i mean, a famine after the second world war. nobody thinks of iran as such an easy place to carry out their -- >> so let's -- >> we can move forward. >> so let's talk about -- >> move forward based on opportunity rather than based on threats. >> so let's talk about that. let me start by asking, u.s. intelligence says iran is weak, sometimes they -- weeks, sometimes days away from the breakout capacity to build a nuclear weapon. is that true and will you? >> but had we wanted to build a nuclear weapon, we could have done it long time ago. but a program to build nuclear weapons is not going to be like our program. you build nuclear weapons in hidden laboratories that are not subject to international

inspection. by the way, people who are worried about our nuclear program like the israelis, they say we are days away from the, from a nuclear weapon. so why didn't they welcome jcp if oa? jcpoa in the worst analysis would have kept iran away from nuclear weapons for at least 15 years. so people who are saying that iran -- i mean, netanyahu has been saying from 1994, '96 that iran will have a nuclear weapon in is six months. now we're about, what, 30 years later? and we still are a couple of days away from nuclear weapons. this is what we call in our jargon securitization, not security. iran is not a security threat. some people want to frame iran as a security threat. iran, islamophobia are tools to

carry out programs like the genocide in gaza always saying that we're doing this against iran. but you're doing it against children in gaza. >> let me ask you about the "foreign affairs" article you wrote. you talked about how under trump there may be an opportunity for a deal with iran. i was surprised by that because trump is, after all, the person who pulled out of the iran nuclear deal, the jcpoa. why do you think the guy who pulled out and reimposed sanctions on iran and said i want maximum pressure of iran, why is there an opportunity? >> well, there's always hope that people will choose rationality. but in order to be more serious, let me give you a chronology. john bolton went to paris in february of 2017 --

>> at this point he's trump's national security adviser? >> no. february -- i mean, he where an article in, i think, late 2016 giving a blueprint for trump to get out of jcpoa. in february of 2017, he went to paris, spoke to the, this gathering of mek. i think his tax return shows that he received $40,000 for it. they tell me that he lied on his tax sheet, so -- >> this is a group that advocates -- >> the removal of iranian government on the terrorist list are of the united states for some time. now, he said in that speech that we will celebrate next time this year in tehran. he was appointed national security adviser in april. pompeo was confirmed as secretary of state on april 26th. he went to israel on april 28th

and asked netanyahu to put out that show about the documents that they had uncovered from iran. trump pulled out of jcp if oa on may 8th. you look at this sequence of events, they -- and i have reason from what i hear, what i heard from leaders of other countries that they had convinced trump of two things. one, iran was crumbling. and a sudden withdrawal from jcp if oa would be the last nail on iran's coffin. second, that with this document -- forged documents that netanyahu is showing -- there will be an international support from the united states the israel. extremely wrong assumptions of trump's advisers, not trump himself. now, i hope time he kick bolton

the out, he kick hook out, he kicked pompeo out because pompeo was seeking an appointment. hook was there until yesterday. he withdrew the secret service support if john bolton on a bogus charge that iran was trying to kill him which has been bogus from the very beginning. so i hope that this time around a trump two will be are more serious -- will be more serious, more focused, more realistic to know that his withdrawal, that the a withdrawal that was imposed on him -- and he has said it, that he did it for israel. and he has said now that he won't do anything for any if other country. he said that on his

inauguration. after he withdrew from jcpoa, iran has gained much more nuclear capability based on your breakout calculations. i don't do breakout calculations because we don't want to break out. but based on american breakout calculations we were a year away from a nuclear weapon when bolton wrote that whatever, executive order, to get trump out, memorandum to the get trump out. and today even the americans say we are a few days away. so in terms of being able to dissuade iran, it has failed. now, it has imposed heavy economic costs on the iranian people. of course, the iranian government is suffering, but the iranian people. 9 and the most vulnerable groups in iran are suffering the most. >> there are people in who talk about a new deal, a new iran

nuclear deal, but one that would also include a pledge by iran not to continue supporting proxies or groups -- >> we never had proxies. >> all right. not supporting groups like hamas, hezbollah, etc. would you, would iran consider such a deal? >> you see, the united states was always insinsing -- insisting that we should have a regional team. we have a regional team. we have good relations with sabia, we have good relations with the united arab emirates. i have proposed in an article i recently wrote in "economist" after my "foreign affairs" article that we should have a new arrangement in this region. i call it -- [speaking in native tongue] dialogue association, nwada. the title in "economist" was

amity instead of enmity. let's do that. so we're there. and you say our arms are corrupt. so why do they worry about that? if iran doesn't have any strength in the region, if iran's arms -- >> no. but a pledge not to help them rebuild would be, would you consider that? >> that's -- the problem is that's the wrong address. the address for the resistance in the region is in tel aviv. it is israeli occupation, genocide, violation of palestinian rights. the address is not in tehran. the united states and israel for the next 50 years can push iran. that will not resolve the palestinian issue. they want the resolve the palestinian issue. the only solution, and i think everybody who has spoke spoken here in davos 2025 probably with the exception of the gentleman

you interviewed yesterday have insisted that the only solution is a viable palestinian state. unless that solution is reached, there'll be more resistance, there'll be more groups with or without iran's help. iran has always supported struggle of people for their human rights, for the right to -- and we'll continue to support that. but that's not the cause. there has to be a struggle before you can support it. if your support does not create the struggle. there is a strug struggle. there is a resistance caused by the fact that there is an occupation, aggression, violation of human rights. >> let me ask you about something going on in iran with regard to human rights. i was in sabia a -- saudi arabia a few times in the past year, and saudi women came to me and

said -- they were very proud that now in saudi arabia women have far more rights than in iran. this president, the new president, said he was going to make it possible for women to wear whatever they wanted. they did not have the wear the scarfs. the morality police would be prevented from what i regard as the harassment of women. has, this doesn't seem to have happened yet. >> well -- >> will it? >> well, you see, i'm proud to have had a role in the formation of iranian cabinet, and we have four women in our cabinet. at the cabinet level. >> can they attend the cabinet meetings with their hair uncovered? >> well, they choose not the because -- >> is that a choice they -- >> -- they believe in the law of the country. now, if you to go through the streets of tehran, you see that there are women who are not

covering their hair. it's against the law, but the government has decided not to put women under pressure. and this was the a promise that that the president made, and the promise is being observed. he did not implement the law with the consent of leadership. i don't mean the leader, the leadership of the country, the head of parliament, the head of judiciary and others, martial security council. national security council. so we're moving in the right direction. we have percent first time our ethnic minorities are governors -- for the first time. we have the minority if member of the cabinet. so these are things that that i'm sure the president is proud of. and as the person who was responsible for the for mission of cabinet -- for the formation of the cabinet, i'm very proud.

it's not -- it's a step in the right correction. >> there are hard-liners in iran who don't like you. >> so? >> in fact, you are currently -- i don't understand the complete are specifics, but they have taken you the court, or they are they have filed cases in court to have you dismissed from your current job. >> yeah. >> is this going to succeed? basically, the argument is your children have american citizenship -- >> my children were born in the u.s -- >> so they're birthright citizens. [laughter] >> when i was student. >> will these, will these efforts succeed and, more importantly, doesn't it show, doesn't it reveal what the president of israel said which is that the hard-liners who are often seen as controlling core security policy don't trust people like you? if that they're going to make policy and, you know, what you say at places like davos doesn't matter, because they're the guys

actually running things? >> well, actually they're not because i'm here. [laughter] have they been running the show, i would be, you know, or according to -- in the even free to the walk in the streets, not the streets of davos, but not even the streets of tehran. but it shows that iran is not a uni-voice, single voice society. if we have many voices, many views, and we cannot shut them down. now, in other places at one time they shut down the voices of progress. at another time they shut down the voices of tradition. we don't. voices of progress, voices of, i mean, i don't with like these labels. but voices that liked more open

policies are are very active. voices that are against us are also active. they're losing the elections, they win in the elections. last election we lost. this election we won, but it was a very close competition. and, i mean, first time in my life that i've done anything domestic was during this campaign, and i had to go to town after town campaigning for the president, and i know, i mean, i sensed with all my being that this is, this was a tough race. a real race. with a real choice. it would have been much different under the competitor,

under his rival or whatever in the election. if today instead you had him, you might have had a major war going on in the region. so there is plurality in iran, there are differences of views in iran. i respect these different views. i don't accept people who are, who are running smear campaigns against me to be shut up, shut down or to be quieted by the government. because if you do it to them, tomorrow they'll do it to us. and they have more power to do it. so i think it's good that they are taking me to court. not taking me, taking the government to court the try to dismiss me, because they believe

my appointment is a violation of the law. that's their interpretation. we have a different interpretation, and if the case goes through the court, i mean, if the court decides that it has jurisdiction the hear it, we will present, the government will present its argument. if the court decides that i should go, i'll go. i mean, it won't be the end of the world. i'll be teaching again. i've cone it -- i mean, this is my third, what is it, can coming back from the dead. >> reincarnation -- >> reincarnation. [laughter] i was sent back home after i was iran's ambassador to the u.n. i went home and stayed in the university for six years. then i was sort of reincarnated as foreign minister. and hen after -- then after my term as foreign minister ended i went to the university and had three wonderful years writing two books, and now i'm back. i can go back to university. [laughter] or have ea retirement -- a

retirement. it's fine. >> many vice president, pleasure to have you on. >> good to see you.

mr. ricketts: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ricketts: mr. president, the pro-life movement is about love, compassion, dignity, and respect. nebraska is a pro-life state, and nebraska has been a leader in the pro-life movement. in 2010, nebraska was the first state to pass a law with regard to pain-capable fetuses.

and effectively made it so you had a 20-week prohibition on abortion. protecting those babies after 20 weeks because they could feel pain. last year nebraska again showed the nation what we could do in the pro-life movement. we were the first state to pass a pro-life ballot initiative, and while doing that, we were able to prevent the pro-abortion lobby from passing a really heinous pro-abortion ballot initiative. the pro-abortion forces' ballot initiative would have essentially enshrined in our constitution not only the right to abortion but would have allowed abortion up until essentially the moment of birth.

it was incredibly radical. i'm very proud of our state. the people of nebraska took our current law, kept that on the ballot, and defeated the pro-abortion's very radical initiative. we have the opportunity here in the senate to be able to continue to uphold the dignity of unborn children. there was a couple of bills that i want to talk about. they both have the word abortion in them, but they're really not about abortion. they're about that love and compassion, that dignity and respect. the first is the born-alive abortion survivors protection a act. so in 2002, congress passed bipartisan legislation that said that children who survive an

abortion are to be treated as people under the law. now, to me that sounds a little crazy that when he to do that. but we actually passed that. it seemed common sense that if you're born, you're a person. you're protected under our laws here in the united states. sadly, that's not the case. in that 2002 law, it didn't say that the child had to receive care. and so what we've seen in it the abortion industry is that when there's a botched abortion, that baby oftentimes will just be born alive but then left to die of exposure. it's absolutely barbaric. absolutely heinous. and that's what the born-alive abortion survivors protection act does. it requires medical treatment to be given to those babies. so if a baby girl is born in a

botched abortion attempt, that baby girl gets the medical attention it needs so that she can survive and grow up. now, you may say, well, this sounds ridiculous. why would that happen? well, as i said, it does happen in the abortion industry. melissa oden's mother was pressured into trying to have an abortion in a hospital in sioux city, iowa. melissa was born alive, and thank goodness there was a nurse there who then took her to the nicu, so she could get the medical attention, so that she could survive and grow up to be the woman she is today. she was -- melissa was later adopted and hasibility ared to our country -- and has contributed to our country. that's part of what we in the

pro-life movement need to do is make sure we're defending the rights of these babies. we have another opportunity as well -- and again the name of the bill has abortion in, but it's really not about abortion. it's about protecting the dignity of unborn children. in this case, it's unborn children who are killed in that abortion. just a few years ago the remains of over 2,000 aborted babies were discovered in a home in indiana many. -- in indiana. and many americans were shocked to find out that children who are aborted are often just disposed of. they're treated like -- their remains are treated like medical waste. that's just absolutely fundamentally wrong. these babies deserve the dignity that every other person has.

and so in a few days i'm going to introduce the dignity for aborted children act. what my bill will do is require the abortion industry to treat with dignity and respect the remains of these aborted chimp. -- aborted children. that they will get the same dignity and respect as any human being who dies. finally, i want to recognize we've got the march for life coming up on friday. i want to say thank you to all of the marchers. who are going to be here to be able to demonstrate our movement's commitment to love, compassion, dignity, and respect. their advocacy plays a critical role in making sure that we help

save the lives of all these unborn babies. when we talk about the most vulnerable, who could be more vulnerable than a baby that hasn't been born yet, that we can't hear that little girl or little boy's voice yet? these marchers will be here to be that voice for those little babies. so thank you for the work that you're doing, to be able to continue to get our message out about love and compassion, dignity and respect. we need to remind all of our -- to remind all that these little babies deserve the same protections we all have as citizens of the united states. it's about extending basic human

rights to some of the most vulnerable among us. and i appreciate the work that all these pro-life advocates will be doing to be able to help carry our message out this weekend. working together we can defend life and empower women. with that, mr. president, i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: 52 years ago today, roe v. wade was decided by the united states supreme court. approximately one year before that i was a member of the iowa legislature, and that legislature attempted to repeal iowa's law of decades old, and

that vote in the house of representatives was 44-44. so, obviously, our bill was not -- or that bill was not adopted, and our ban on abortion continued for a year, until roe v. wade. i was one of those 44 that voted to retain the law that had been on the books for a long period of time. well, a lot of history since then. we're still fighting this issue. so this bill before the united states senate now is a very important bill to express what life in the womb is all about. dr. willard kates, the director of abortion surveillance at the centers for disease control and

prevention, in 1981, referred to the survival of a baby after an attempted abortion as, quote-unquote, the dreaded complication. now, i happen to call that dreaded complication a miracle. while it may be a troubling truth for some people to hear that, there are babies who survive attempted abortions. in 2024, the "american journal of obstetrics and gynecology" analyzed almost 14,000 late-term abortions and found over 11% resulted in live births. however, because we lack reliable federal and state abortions data, we don't know the number of babies who survive an attempted abortion and are born alive each year in the united states. when an abortion results in the

live birth of a child, that child should be entitled to quality health care under the law. tragically, that isn't always the case. during my time in congress, i've heard a number of stories from abortion survivors regarding their health struggles and the lack of care they received following failed abortions. melissa olden, for example, was born alive in 1977 and left to die in a bucket of formaldehyde in a utility closet before being saved by two nurses. she's an advocate for child -- children who come into this world, the same way she did. her message for moms considering abortion is this, and i quote,

there is hope for you and your child, even after an attempted abortion. you aren't alone, end of quote. while children born alive are already recognized as persons under the law, there is not a federal law on the books to penalize abortionists who actively kill or passively deny care to babies who survive abortions. these precious babies deserve justice. that's why i've joined my colleagues in introducing the legislation that we entitled born-alive abortion survivors act. this legislation requires any child born alive following an attempted abortion receive the same level of care as any other newborn who's born alive at the

same stage of development. it doesn't and should not matter if a child is born in a hospital, a maternity ward, or in an abortion clinic. in either case, this is a baby, and that reality ought to convict each of us in our hearts and move us to compassion and to action. our bill would bring justice for babies who survive abortions and are born into this world. under our current legal system, human lives viewed as unwanted are treated as dispensable. no matter what each of us may think about abortion, we must speak and vote with unity to protect children outside of the w womb. in congress my colleagues and i have reached across the aisle to protect children in many other

contexts, and i ask my colleagues to do the same here. i yield. mrs. hyde-smith: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mrs. hyde-smith: this is an incredibly special week for pro-life americans. we have welcomed back a life-affirming administration with the second inauguration of president donald trump. both chambers of congress are united in our pursuit of commonsense legislation to protect the most vulnerable americans among us with a vote on the born-alive abortion survivors act. and this friday we will join thousands of pro-life americans

who faithfully participate in the 52nd annual march for life in our nation's capital. the national march for life always reminds us of why we continue to fight for stronger protections of our unborn children and for their mothers. but thankfully, the march also serves as a bright reminder of the progress we've made as a movement. now, thanks to efforts led by my fellow mississippians and the governor's office, attorney general's office, and state legislature, we live in the dobbs era. the entire process that brought us to this historical overturning of roe v. wade almost three years ago began with the introduction of a bill in the mississippi state legislature called the gestational age act. my dear friend representative

becky currie is responsible for introducing this legislation, which turned out to be a catalyst for such great change in our nation. i would like to read into the record a resolution honoring her in this role in history that she plays. today, i am introducing a senate resolution honoring the mississippi gestational age act, whereas on january 15, 2018, mississippi state representative becky currie, of brook haven, mississippi, introduced the gestational age act to protect unborn children from elective abortions after 15 weeks gestation. whereas on march 19, 2018, the gestational age act was passed

by the mississippi state legis legislature, approved by mississippi governor phil bryant, and enacted into law. whe whereas, in may 2021, the united states supreme court agreed to review dobbs v. jackson's women's health, a challenge to the constitutionality of the gestational age act, where the question before the court was whether all previability politicses on elective abortions are unconstitutional. and whereas, on june 24, 2022, the united states supreme court issued a historical decision in dobbs v. jackson's women's health, holding that the constitution does not confer a right to abortion, roe and

causey must be overruled and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives. now, therefore be it resolved that the senate expresses profound gratitude to mississippi state representative becky currie for introducing the catalyst that ultimately brought about the historical victory of overturning roe v. wade and planned parenthood v. casey. and honors life-affirming states across the country that have enacted laws aimed to value and protect the inherent dignity of every mother and unborn child. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor.

joo: :

mr. cornyn: the organizers in

the colloquy recognize the importance of protecting the lives of the unborn. to bring us together today to make a statement about the importance of standing up for the right to life. i look forward to joining my constituents back in texas on saturday later this week at the texas rally for life where i will be honored to speak. it's no mistake that the declaration of independence recognizes the importance of the right to life. life, liberty are among the unalienable rights that have been guaranteed by our constitution, but more importantly, by our creator. now three years have passed since the supreme court struck down roe v. wade which was made law, drawing an arbitrary line when abortions would be available or when they would not be available. and excluding any kind of

participation from the american people across this great land of ours of 330 million-plus people about what they thought. well, this decision returned the authority where it should have been in the first place until the supreme court ruled in roe v. wade, back to the states. because now the elected officials in the various states are going to be accountable to their constituents as to where that line is drawn. all the states and, thus, all the american people through their elected representatives and their state legislators have an opportunity to weigh in. and i know that this can be a controversial topic, fraught with emotion and strong feelings. but it's important to point out that notwithstanding where you think the line ought to be drawn

when an abortion should be available in america, it is the democratic party that is extreme and out of touch with the american people on this issue. our democratic colleagues have made clear that they support abortion on demand. any time, anywhere, anyplace, funded by the taxpayers even, up until the moment of birth, and in some instances even after birth. this week we will vote on the born-alive abortion survivors protection act which would guarantee certain basic medical care to children who are born as a result of an unsuccessful abortion. in other words, if they are born alive, are they left to die or are they given the basic medical care that any infant would be

given? my democratic colleagues are on record for saying they think medical care is a basic human right. i heard the senator from vermont this morning in the budget hearing talking about a fundamental right to health care. well, we're now -- we're about to see whether they will vote to deny basic medical care to infants who survive abortion. if there is a basic right to health care in this country, will it be afforded to the most vulnerable of our citizens, children born alive as a result of an unsuccessful abortion, or not? it's been said before that by many great minds that civilization should be measured by the way we treat our most vulnerable members. it's hard for me to imagine anyone more vulnerable than an

infant who's been born, who isn't wanted by his or her parents. to deny protection to these helpless newborns amounts to infanticide, and it is a tragedy that this legal in our country. if america is to be truly great, we should without question be willing to at least provide basic medical care to these innocent children. i would hope our democratic colleagues would examine their conscience p and realize that there are more important things than politics in this world. in the end, we all have though live with our own conscious, and i would -- own conscience and i would hope they would join us in voting for this legislation to protect the right to life for these, our most vulnerable citizens.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following interns be granted floor privileges until may 30, is it 2025 -- be henson pied and marilyn berk.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, for the past 45 minutes or so my colleagues have come to this floor to be able to talk about a bill that is coming soon that we'll actually vote on the bottom of this hour, this hour. it's a bill we talked about for several years, and it's been debated some. it's about what happens if a child survives a botched abortion. i'm going to talk about it a little bit. i've got some other colleagues that are going to step in in a moment and i want to talk some more about this because this seems to be an incredibly misunderstood issue. we most often talk about a botched medical procedure, that if there is a botched medical procedure someone dies. this is literally the opposite. that there was a botched medical procedure and someone lives.

the whole debate is that botched medical procedure that was supposed to take the life of a child ends up actually delivering that child, and now you have a living, breathing child crying on the table fully viable. the question is, what do we do now? yesterday my democratic colleagues spent an hour on the floor saying that child should die. i disagree. in all of our conversation about abortion -- and we have various opinions in this room and, quite frankly, across the country, we have various opinions about when is a child a child. some people believe a child is a child when they have unique dna. there is a difference in the mom, difference in the dad, conception occurred, cell with

division, how science defines life. some people believe that is a child. some people say it is not a child until there is a heartbeat. some people say it is not a child until there is a developed nervous system. some people say there is not a child until there is a standard where a child can survive outside the womb, about 21 weeks of gestation. some people say i want to go back toment row standard. i have yet to have a colleague come to me and say i'm okay with abortion after delivery. that's what we're talking about in this. it's an incredibly small group that we're discussing here. but if we're talking about a common ground issue, why wouldn't this be a common ground issue? earlier this week we found a common ground issue on the issue that's very contentious in this body about immigration. we have had a wide variety of opinions about how we do

enforcement for immigration but we found an area to say if a person crossed the border, committed multiple crimes in the united states, they should be detained. we found bipartisan agreement on that. we don't agree on everything, but we at least agreed on that one. that's the first bill like that that we passed in decades, that's actually passed. it's going to be signed by the president. we're making law on that issue where we found simple xhoun ground on an a small niche issue related to immigration. this is a small niche issue on a very contentious issue about abortion. what do we do when a child is actually delivered instead of destroyed in the womb, that is a viable child? some of my democrat colleagues have said this never happens. i would love to introduce you to a friend of mine named melissa ohden. melissa ohden, when her mom was 19 years old, was compelled by her family to have an abortion. she had an abortion -- her mom

did -- delivered that child. the child was delivered and then literally the baby was set aside into the medical waste of that procedure at the hospital. the nurse then a few minutes later, as she's cleaning up after the procedure, noticed the medical waste was crying and was breathing. and so the nurse literally scooped up this chimed and took the -- child and took the child from that room to the emergency room where she survived. folks early on said she would be blind or she would have major heart conditions, she would have everything else. i wish you could meet melissa. she's amazing. she's fully healthy. in fact, it was years later that she learned her adopted mom had adopted her because her birth

mom literally didn't know she still existed. her birth mom was never told that actually that abortion, quote-unquote, didn't work. that child survived. they've since reconnected, melissa and her birth mom, and her birth mom with deep regret, thinking about this beautiful child in front of her, that that life was almost destroyed, in fact was planned to be destroyed. this is not just an academic issue.survived. this is real. again, it's rare, but the question is, what do we do in those rare situations? how do we track this? how do we engage on it? i would ask any american, if there is a child laying on the table in an operating room

crying, what do we do then? i don't know many americans who would say kill it. here's what happens. in a botched abortion in america right now, when a child is actually delivered rather than destroyed in the womb, when literally there was a medical mistake that didn't take the life of the child but instead delivered that child into life, when that occurs, the current practice is everyone kind of backs away and allows the child to die on the child by exposure because it is against american law in every single state to take the life of a child. but if everybody just steps back and watches the child die, that's okay. my democratic colleagues came to the floor yesterday and said this is already illegal. why are we discussing this?

this is illegal. you can't have infanticide in america. i would say that is correct. what is allowed is a tiny little loophole that if an abortion was botched, everyone can just back away and watch the child die. they do not have to give that child medical care. that's quite a loophole. and it's painful for me to even have to have this conversation in a nation like ours. of all the things we could talk about right now, why do we even have to discuss what to do with a child on a table in an operating room crying? why is this even a conversation? so we're bringing a bill to the floor today to be able to fix this. this is a bill we've talked about multiple times in in body, but it should be the absolute,

easiest common ground piece to face. which of us standing in that operating room would look at a crying child and would say ignore it? if we wouldn't say it there, we shouldn't say that here. so i'll be back in a few moments, mr. president. i have other colleagues that want to be able to speak to this issue, but i have some facts and myth that i want to do side by side with some of my democratic colleagues who came to be able to share their perspective on this and i want to lay some things side by side to say what this bill actually does, not what the myth is and what it's actually being told about. in the meantime, i would encourage my colleagues in this body to look up my friend melissa ohden, you can look her

up online and you can see her beautiful picture and she is not just the only one, she is one of many. many are not able to step out and be speak knowing that their life was intended to be taken and today they're still smiling and talking about the value of every single life. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: the senior senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: mr. president, the bill we're scuffing today should be -- discussing today should be really straightforward. a child who survives a failed abortion attempt should receive lifesaving medical care. we're talking about not an abstraction, we're talking about a living, breathing person, a little girl, a little boy, who comes into the world after a failed abortion, and they shouldn't just be like put to the side and allowed to die.

they deserve the care that they need to survive. imagine if there was a -- if it was a week later and they were going home from the hospital and there was a car wreck, you would rush them to the hospital and do everything to help that child survive. once that child is born, it should be straightforward. we should be helping the child survive. and there is no difference in the value and dignity of a child of a person as to whether or not they were originally wanted or not. once they are born, they have that natural right, which we all have, that is discussed in our declaration of independence, a rate to life, to liberty. i'm a physician, and i was trained tyke the best care of a patient regardless of the circumstances that brought them before me. it may have been someone that society didn't particularly care

for, it didn't matter, that's my patient. i'm going to do everything i possibly can to help that patient survive and to thrive. that should be the ethic, and we should enshrine it into law. mr. president, i'm a little struck. my democratic colleagues offer a variety of excuses to justify opposing this bill. this is kind of like an inconvenient truth, botched abortions happen. now, my democratic colleagues refuse to acknowledge that infanticide, withholding care to a baby who was born alive is horrific and wrong. but we do know that failed abortions occur. the senate help committee, health, education, labor and pensions, heard powerful testimony last year from melissa ohden. melissa survived an abortion, and would have been left to die if not for a courageous

neonature -- neonatal nurse took care of the baby. innocent children should not have to hope that there is an nic-u nurse like melissa to do everything possible to save their life. this is a vote to support basic human decency. every child deserves to have a chance to live. and i urge my colleagues -- if you believe -- look at the declaration of independence, we are endowed with the natural right of life and liberty. reflect on that and support this bill. with that, i yield.

mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that after i speak, senator murray speak, and then the senator from oklahoma. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: okay. thank you. so, first, i want to thank senator murray, a great champion of women's health, for adding her eloquence and expertise to the debate when it comes to the issue of women's right and health and choice. thank you for that. now, today's vote on the senate republicans' so-called born alive bill makes one thing very clear. under president trump it will be a golden age, but for the extreme anti-choice movement. the bill is a very definition of

pernicious. it attacks women's health care using false narratives and outright fearmongering and it adds more legal risk for doctors on something that's already illegal. so much of the hard-right anti-choice agenda is pushed by frankly people who have little to no understanding of what women go through when they're pregnant. this is one of the most heartbreaking moments that a woman could ever encounter, the agonizing choice of having to end care when serious and rare complications arise in pregnancy. and at that moment of agony, this bill cruelly substitutes the judgment of qualified medical professionals and the wishes of many of families and allows the ultra right ideology to dictate what they do. women should be supported and

trusted when faced with serious pregnancy complications. this is when male politicians should step up and support women, not use them as political footballs, as this bill so heartlessly does. and if anything, this bill is a metaphor for what's to come, an emboldened extremist anti-choice resurgence, further to the right than most people are, even most republicans are. remember when republicans said this issue would be let to -- left to the states, both president trump and republican colleagues said, don't worry, it will be left to the states. that's not what this bill does. that's what we're going to see over and over again, promises made during the campaign are broken. this one, two days after president trump is inaugurated as president, it is no longer left to the state and anything promised made to women will be left to them and their doctors, that is it out the window.

we will see that repeated over and over again. not left to the states, imposed by some politicians here in washington on women across america and not respecting the rights of women, their doctors be and their families. here's my message to the republicans and their colleagues, instead of attacking health care, today would be a great day to lower the cost of groceries, prescription drugs or helping americans buy a home. it would also be a great day for senate republicans to trust women and leave their health care choices up to them but they're not doing that. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: earlier this week, we host a friend and champion for reproductive rights, is a -- cecile richards, she changed the conversation around women's health and abortion, and i know if she were here she would say

the fight continues and that is clear given what republicans are choosing to focus on today. of all the bills that we could be vote on, lowering health care, expanding the cost of health care, expanding child care, helping our families, it's an absolute disgrace that republicans are spending their very first week in power attacking women, criminalizing doctors and lying about abortion. i'm not going to let anyone perpetuate disgusting lies about people who have abortions and the providers who care for them. this is not how abortion works, republicans know it. all babies are already protected under the law regardless of the circumstance of their birth. doctors already have a legal obligation to provide appropriate medical care, and we already know this sham bill from republicans is not going anywhere. we've been here before. the last time we voted down this bill, i actually spoke about

something republicans refused to acknowledge in this debate, the struggles -- the struggles of a pregnant woman who has received tragic news that her baby had a fatal medical condition and would in the be able to survive and who were able to make the choice that is right for their family. but now here we are, already hearing stories from women who are denied that choice now by extreme republican abortion bans. can can you marriage -- can you imagine what it is like to go months pregnant with a baby that 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 is like to be that woman and fight back tears as you try to decide to nod politely or explain actually that your world is falling apart? i can't imagine that, but it happens. mr. president, all the while, you know you have to go through

against your will because some politician decided they knew better than you and your family and your doctor. now, republicans have a bill today to take that issue nationwide. that's what we are voting on. that is their top priority now that trump is in office. shame on them. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer:the senator from oklahoma.

mr. lankford: in just a few moments this body will vote on a bill that actually doesn't limit abortion at all. it doesn't slow down one abortion and it doesn't stop one woman from choosing to have an abortion, it doesn't have a nationwide ban on abortion. in fact, this is a bill about what happens after an abortion. what's unique about this bill is it's asking a pretty simple question that seems like it would be a common ground issue for us. if there is in this case a medical mistake that didn't take a life, they would normally think about a mistake that would take a life but in this case if there was a medical mistake that actually protected a life, what happens? many people know me well enough to know i would love to protect

more children in america. this bill asks the simple question, if an abortion is botched and the child is delivered instead of destroyed in the womb and the child is alive and viable on the table, what happens next? current medical practice is everyone in the room just backs away and you allow the child to die on the table. i don't think that's what most americans would want. i think most americans would say, hey, i've got boundaries on the issue of abortion and definitely fully born is a boundary. now, it's been interesting. i've listened to the debate yesterday and today from my democratic colleagues, many of them friends. we have a real disagreement on this. this is not extreme as i've heard it described, an extreme

right-wing proposal about abortion. i just don't think if i pulled a hundred people off the street and said, hey, if a child is alive and screaming on the table after birth, what do you think we should do? i bet a hundred out of a hundred of them would say we should probably give them medical care. i just don't think that's extreme or out of the main thought in america. i think it's just how americans are. we're a compassionate people that when we see a baby and look in their face, we don't say ignore them. we say let's provide some care. i've heard some of my colleagues say that we should respect the rights of women in this. by the way, i think one of those women should be take little girl that's born. she is lying on the table right there crying, i think she should get some compassion and respect as well. because the decision is being made at this point about what to

do. and it's not a theory. several of my colleagues yesterday have used terms during this debate like this is myth-based fearmongering. that was my favorite one. reaction are talking about stories that do not happen was also expressed by another one of my colleagues. this one was just a little more blunt. one of my colleagues just came to the floor and said reaction are lying. -- and said republicans are lying. well, here's what really happened. this doesn't happen very often at all. thankfully this is rare but the cdc does some tracking and there's quite frankly only eight states in america that actually keep track of this, that if there is a botched abortion, the child is actually delivered fully alive. there are only eight states that do it. most states don't. this is interesting. we tried to track which states keep track of this and have some kind of instruction on what to do on health care on it. a few states do. many states don't. in fact, some states like

minnesota literally voted recently. we used to track reporting but we don't even want to know anymore if it occurs. don't tell us if it occurs. of the few states, just eight, that actually track this, over a several-year period, there were 277 cases like this where a child was actually delivered and was alive after a botched abortion. now, again, that's not many but we know from eight states in that short time period that that's occurring. so again i go back to the basic question. what do we want to do about that? do we want to just ignore that? or do we have a thought about what should happen to that child? some of my colleagues have said this only occurs if there's a pregnancy complication and the child was already going to die or there was a fetal -- a fatal medical condition that was actually occurring.

well, actually, that's not true in this bill. this bill is about a viable child that was delivered late term that's now on the table alive. i've also heard that this is going to have this massive overreach for doctors, take they're going to be oppressed and they're going to be afraid to practice on this. actually, the bill is pretty clear on this. this still gives the doctor able to use his or her professional judgment on the care that would normally be provided to a child that's born. that's it. the doctor may look at it and say this child is not going to make it. that's still a professional judgment that's there. or they may have a professional judgment that the child will make it. and as i've mentioned on this floor before, there are adults walking around today that survived an abortion like melissa ohden and other folks i know personally. so this is not something that just never occurs. so it doesn't limit abortion.

it doesn't restrict doctors. it actually does happen contrary to what some of my colleagues have said that this never happens. it actually does happen on this. i've had colleagues that have said infanticide is already illegal. this is unnecessary. that's another part of it. let's move on. this is unnecessary. except we've also established the issue that yes, taking the life of that child on the table, literally once that child is on the table crying, they can't reach in and take the life of that child. that's kermit gozknell, that's horrific stuff. allowing them to die, that's still protected. so that's not there. one of my colleagues came to this floor and made this statement at the center of this debate is whether we believe in the premise from the declaration of independence that all are created equal, that freedom belongs to everyone, and that women deserve to be treated as equal citizens. i actually couldn't agree more

with my colleague. because that same declaration of independence right next to that statement about everyone being created equal also includes a simple little comment that says life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. and our question on this particular bill is, when that child is born and she's crying on the table, does she have the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or not? that's all this bill does. this bill should be a simple process. to say this is not who we are as americans. as americans we respect the opportunity for life for that child. that's fully deliver ed. and then we determine what we're going to do. just because a baby can't defend

her herself doesn't mean she's disposable. it means she's vulnerable. and it means we as a nation should determine what we're going to do with the life of the most vulnerable. mr. president, i encourage a yes vote on this. this should be a bipartisan conversation where we speak from this body for those who cannot speak for themselves. i yield the floor. 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 motion to proceed to calendar number 4, s. 6, a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the

motion to proceed to senate 6 bill to amend the title 18, united states code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion shall be brought to a close. the yeahs and nay -- yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn.

mr. blumenthal. >> good morning, everybody. welcome. so we're going to have a hearing with mr. vought, right? russell vought like voting, right? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to get a quick introduction. you can say anything you want. we're going to five-minute questioning, the hard, challenging, don't make a complete aspect of yourself and let's get through this thing. [laughing] so with that said, your no stranger to this job. mr. vought had this job, he was deputy director. he was omb director president

trump's first term. he was born in mount vernon, new york, and attended wheaton college, graduating in idea, completed his j. d. from georgetown university. he worked on capitol hill, legislative senate, assistant for senator phil gramm and chuck hagel. big delta there. from 2004-2008 he worked as executive thousand eight he worked as executive director for the republican study committee. 2009, 2010 policy director of the housing, houseam republican conference here again he was omb director under the first trump term, deputy and became omb director so you've done it once and you want to do it again. we are glad on our side you're willing to do it again. senator merkley. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. congratulations on your new

role. look forward to working with you. and welcome to the committee, senator cornyn, senator ricketts and new to the scene and new to the committee senator moreno, welcome. , welcome. this congress the senate budget committee is going to be deeply engaged in the policies that emerge because reconciliation is going to play a central role and reconciliation begins right here in this room. we will consider trump's budget request and i must say my deepest concern about the reconciliation bills is that they're going to be trade working americans. working americans who president trump appeal to in this campaign, working americans who listened to the strategies that he laid out, that he proposed.

but certainly the actual plan is and to help working people. the actual plan is to help the wealthy get wealthier with massive tax giveaways. with working families paying the bill. now, how are these massive giveaways to the wealthiest families going to be paid for? well, by slashing services to working families and a struggling families are trying to get on their feet so they can thrive and get to the middle class. this is this is a great b. and today we will consider president-elect's nomination of russell vought to lead the office of management and the budget, which is really the place where this campaign is coordinated. and will hear very different ideas about how to take our country forward.

from my friends across the aisle and from mr. vought, we will hear that we need to continue to give tax giveaways, massive tax giveaways to the wealthiest americans. and we will hear about how nonpartisan expertise that makes our country run smoothly should be replaced by those with blind political loyalty. and you will hear how programs that assisted for the environment or for unions, organizing working people for public health should instead be replaced by programs to serve big corporations and the mega millionaires. our site of the op-eds different vision vision. we stand up for working families, that the wealthy need to pay their fair share of our taxes,k. that the government should serve everyone, not just the privileged and the powerful. from my side of the aisle if you're about how did expand

medicare ability to negotiate the price of 15 expect drugs, those drugs were laid out by president biden. i'll submit this for the record, mr. chairman. and those drugs include for example, the weight-loss drugs that currently currently serve 2.3 million people. the first drugs that were negotiated cut the price some third to two-thirds or more including 79% on one drug, and americans are simply outraged that we spend more on r&d to develop these drugs than any other nation. that is, our taxpayer dollars, do we get the highest price, the highest price among the developing countries instead of the best which we deserve. this vision as laid out is a

great betrayal of america's working families. and will continue to debate that i'm sure in the course of the hearings that are ahead. and i have no doubt, mr. vought, that you have the intellectual expertise and the experience, you are omb director before, you know all the ins and outs. it's really a question of whether we're going to accomplish something that provides a foundation for american families to thrive or simply to increase the wealth disparities that make this a government by and for the powerful instead of, by, and for the people. the "washington post" reported that officials as result of your last tenure underscored the tensions that come with having deeply ideological operative thrust into position with complicated off a nonpartisan challenges. this turned out to be spot on.

you were responsible for the fiscal year 2021 budget issued by the trump administration. and it had close to a trillion dollar cut healthcare for struggling americans. it had $300 billion in cuts to social safety programs, things like nutrition assistance and earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. $170 billion cut in increasing the cost of college loans for those who -- on the first my family to go to college. call it should be affordable for a glcm not making making it so expenses only rich families can have the kids go to college. we propel he disagree use without programs like the community developed block grants which are used for housing all around this country. meanwhile you propose over a trillion dollars in tax giveaways with over two-thirds going to the top 10%. that is very, very troubling.

and, mr. vought, at the center of the strategy of impounding -- we had this conversation they can sinful here in congress. we passed the budget act because congress said when we say this and i really should be this program, it isn't up to the president to spend less but you told me in your office you are quite comfortable assuming that the law doesn't matter and that you just treat the money for program as a ceiling, and the ceiling rather than a required amount. well, the courts have found otherwise to the fact you're willing to say this exactly what you plan to do again, should trouble every single member of the senate. and when you are at the center of the empowerment of the funds for ukraine the resulted in the impeachment of president trump and his former service, you

blame the staff subordinate that troubles me, too. that something are so involved in when he goes awry you say it wasn't me. i gave the responsibility to somebody else who works for me. that is not leadership. and certainly your views are deep held. deeply held, you continue to advocate for them in your think tank, the senate for renewing america. so we saw that. there's other things that trouble many of us pick the fact that you were for the abolition of abortion rights and oblique and exceptions, not exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother. and it's troubling that you continue to produce but in the big lie that the 2020 election was rigged. this may be essential for your loyalty test to the president,

but it's a willingness to manipulate and deceive americans that certainly bothers me dry think we need a director who respects the rule of law. not the rule of one man. it is kind of by facts, not partisan ideology. it serves working families, not mega millionaires and billionaires. so i am disturbed that you are eager to leave the betrayal of america's working families. mr. chairman, i turn it back to you. >> we will put you in the undecided column. i disagree with what he said. that's why we have the hearing more importantly the american people apparently disagree because we want. i don't know what your views on abortion are. president trump said it was rigged, he won. i don't particularly agree with that, but you know, bottom line is i think you're qualified for

the job i know why he picked you. i think all of us are going to vote for you and none of them will vote for you. but you do need to explain the best you can how you see the job, why you do the things you do, whether or not you portraying the country try to get the country on a more sustainable track. and again we just had an election, when you when you get to pick people. i'm glad he picked you. so would you stand up and let me swear you in. raise your right hand. do you solve is where the testimony you get before this budget committee is a truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so have you got? >> i do. >> thank you. the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member, members of the esteemed committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. let me begin by thanking my girls, who are now returning to the scene of congressional confirmation hearings as veterans. their . their love and support and enthusiasm for reserving again is a major reason why i feel

that going back to omb is a right endeavor at the right moment. the young my enthusiasm for being at president trump side. it is a profound otter to be nominated a second time by president trump to serve as directed office of management and budget. the president has promised the american people the federal government that works for all americans not the interests of bureaucrats and entrenched establishment. making and fulfilling that vital promised during my previous time at omb as both a deputy director and director was among the most rewarding career experiences of my career. throughout that time i've been driven by commitments to taxpayers and their families. going up as a set of electrician and a a schoolteacher i saw firsthand the sacrifices my parents made to balance their budget and save for the future. they are reminder of the burden government spending can place on everyday americans.

my parents and countless others like them have always been the measure by which i evaluate policies and spending decisions. today nearly 80% of of americans do not feel confident that their children will lead that are lives than they have. nearly double the 40% of americans who said the same two decades ago. when i look at the government waste in our national debt, i know i fear for my daughters future. almost half of our fellow citizens expect their standard of living to be worse than that of their parents. a critical part of understanding the president's election i i r to get back to fulfilling the promise of the federal government that works as hard as people like my parents. omb's nation goes beyond crafting the president's budget. it encompasses the management of the federal government reforming regulation and policy across agencies to ensure efficient and effective application of the american peoples will as expressed by the last election.

estrone or agency process delivers the best results for all americans and i believe omb's collaborative ethos is key to achieving those outcomes. the civil servants at omb are among the most resourceful and innovative individuals i have ever worked with. it has been my privilege to work alongside them, and of the corridor leading and supporting them as director once again as we labor together to make government work. we have to use taxpayer dollars wisely because inflation driven by irresponsible spending, taxes americans twice. the average american household has lost roughly $2000 of purchasing power since january 2021. the forgotten that the women of this country, those who work hard every day in cities and towns across america, deserve a government that empowers them to achieve their dreams. while office of management and budget may not be household

term, the agencies work profound impacts their lives. if confirmed, i will continue to serve with their best interest at heart striving to ensure every decision can trivets and more prosperous all americans. thank you for considering my nomination. i look forward to answering your questions and the opportunity to discuss apple and he can continue to deliver on that vital mission. >> thank you very much, and to your family, welcome. so to start with, what would happen to the economy if the 2017 tax cuts that were passed through reconciliation by the republicans expiring go away, what we have? >> i think americans would have major tax increase on their hands that would lead to a lot less innovation, a lot less productive, productivity and we would have a worsening economy that i would not want to predict how bad it would be. >> so the treasury secretary nominee said it would be catastrophic. do you agree?

>> yes, sir. >> so that's one of the things we want to do on our side. is a like $4.53 in new taxes if all this goes way? >> that's the static cost, yes, sir. >> we do wanted to go away. i guess they do. on regulation, do you have a say about regulations, government regulation. >> was omb runs office of information and regulatory affairs. it's going to be charged to set up, we set up the present deregulatory agenda. if confirmed the would be a major aspect of the job. >> when it comes to energy production will you pledge or try to make it easier for america to soundly and safely extract the natural resources that we all so don't have to buy oil and gas from people who hate our guts? >> yes, senator. >> okay. delete that would make us safer if we are energy that? >> i do believe it's vital from

a security standpoint and from the standpoint of america's pocketbooks to rely on cheap american energy and not just squander that. >> is a part of the goal to make sure we in the ai space we dominate? >> yes, it is. >> will you have a role and out how to create a regulatory environment that allows us to compete with china? >> we will. as part of the policy process articulate to the federal agencies the guidance the president would like with regard to the artificial intelligence. >> when it comes to spending is it your goal to reduce federal spending where you can responsibly? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe there is room in our budget to eliminate programs that would most americans wouldn't feel the effective? >> i do do. there's plenty of areas in the federal government to be able to begin to tackle spending and debt. >> you promise me you do the best you can to reduce federal spending and responsible way? >> yes, senator. >> good. when it comes to the present

executive board about extending -- denotes i got it works? doesn't stop money going israel? >> know, senator. it is a 90 day review of the programs are in place, and it is to ensure that all of those programs are consistent with the presence viewpoint of which of course a to israel continues to be one of them. >> what's most important function of the federal government in your view? >> i believe it's to keep the american people safe and secure so they can enjoy the liberties and to protect the rights. >> are usually with the amount of money we spend gdp wise on defense? >> i am aware. i think we are like 3%. >> it's going down, do you realize that's only four times in american history we've had that small amount of money spent on our defense? will you be open-minded to make sure we can defend this nation

by creating a bigger navy? >> absolutely. it's a priority of the present, a priority of only the first come to make sure we establish maritime supremacy in his country and will be if confirmed. >> what is the size -- and how much money that stated foreign operations subcommittee spends on the state department informed assistant? >> off the top of my head i don't know what allocation is. >> $59 billion. that's why entire state department, all embassies, everybody. and the aid we provide to distressed places in the world. what percentage of the federal budget is that, do you know? >> i believe if you did a small percentage it would be a small percentage. >> it is 1%. having said that, trying to save money. let's not waste money but i believe, i'm a pretty hawkish guy, if you don't get involved in the world and you don't have programs in africa where china

is trying to buy the whole continent, we are making mistakes. it's 1% of the budget. if you eliminate all you will not balance the budget. i think soft power is a critical component of defending america and our values. i look forward to working with you to make that count better but the concept of soft power means a lot to me and that this come from a pretty hawkish guy. with that, senator merkley. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and on day one, president trump issued an executive order that requires agencies to pause the disbursement of funds that were authorized inflation reduction act and infrastructure investment and jobs act. there is a legal mechanism for changing pass laws called a rescission. and it is illegal. ..

the clerk: mr. murphy, no. >> they may put forward rescission, but again, the language of the eo says required by law, and it's meant to do a programmatic delay the figure out what are the best ways -- >> okay. very good. thank you. i'll just note that you are not willing to say that you will use rescissions, the legal method rather hand the illegal method. that is a big concern for all of

us here because the constitution laid out the vision, the congress makes the law. not the president. so the fact that you continue to advocate for this impoundment strategy, that is completely in violation of our constitution, and i'm deeply disturbed that you will not renounce that today. so let's turn to work requirements. you've been a big advocate of work requirements. you encouraged states to adopt waivers that would allow them to do that for medicaid. one state tried it, arkansas. it produced no increase in the hours worked, no increase in employment. it failed. why did it fail? because the the way that people are able to to work is when they're healthy. they can't access health care because you want the cut it off, they're really trapped in poverty. and trapping people in poverty is really, well, in the helpful. now that your idea failed so

miserably, are you going to advocate for it again? >> you know are, senator, one of the major legislations that our side is has been very proud of sincemr the 1990s was the impact of well or fare reform in the 1990s. it led to caseload reductions, people getting off of welfare, going back into the work force, and we think think the that that type of thinking should be applied to other federal programs. and it's plaintiffed not only medicaid -- informed not only medicaid, but other programs to be able to encourage people to get back into the work force, increase work force participation -- >> and you believe cutting off health care encourages people to work when they need to get better health in order the work? it doesn't make any sense. >> again -- >> it's a failed experiment you're still an advocate of that failed approach that traps people in poverty and is quite disturbing. now, according to the treasury department analysis produced

this month, the trump tax giveaways would give an average tax cut of $314,000 to the richest americans, the top 1%, and $6 annually to the average member of the bottom 10. a cup of coffee for these trying to get the on hair feet in the course of a year and $300,000 in additional income for the richest americans. isn't this kind of ass backwards? >> senator, the present tax cuts provide a tax cut for all americans. it had a sizable increase in the child tax credit. it had expansion of the standard deduction. it was something that benefited all americans and as a result, led to a strong economy that we hope to replicate again by having an extension of those important tax cuts. >> you're very comfortable in a cup of coffee per year for the bottom 10% while you give $300,000 to the richest americans according to the treasury department? >> there are people at the higher end who are in charge of

small businesses that are taking gate risk to innovate and hire additional people that are not in their tax bracket. and if that's part of the way -- and that's part of the way that you structure economic growth. >> my final question because i'm running out of time, at your think tank in 2023, you proposed $3.6 trillion in tax giveaways, primarily going to the richest americans. and to make the numbers work, you assumed that your giveaway would produce the magic it's rusk. your probably familiar with it the magic asterisk. it's saying, don't worry, with happy, the economy will improve because we give away money to the richest americans, and more revenue if will come in. it's failed every single time it's been put forward. not a single analysis has confirmed it. not from any serious analysis from cbo, the congressional budget office, not from the joint committee on taxation, and yet are you still a believer in the magic it's a risk? >> senator, i'm a believer in

dynamic growth, for sure, that when you cut taxes, it actually has a dynamic impact on the economy. and we see that with revenues continuing to go up after all of the tax cuts we've seen in history, 1920s, 1960s, 1980s. both of the bush tax cuts including -- and then the trump tax cuts. we've seen a dynamic e impact on the economy. >> your facts are wrong, but we'll continue the discussion, i'm sure. >> during the first term before covid, wasn't african-american and hispanic household incomes at their highest? >> yes, senator. thank you. senator grassily. >> i've got a -- grassley. i've got a figure in front of me of $610 billion of improper payments in health care. i would bet a lot of this information comes from whistleblowers. so my question to you is about whistle blowing. do you have any if role in protecting whistleblower,

encouraging whistleblowers, maybe changing the culture in a lot of agencies the that treat whistleblowers like skunks at a picnic? would you tell me about if there's anything you can do to help this process of whistle blowing that that helps us explain not just the waves of money, but also -- the waves of money, but also improper government action? >> senator, thanks for the question. i think whistleblowers play an enormous role in helping us weed out waste, fraud and abuse. as a senate staffer and hill staffer, i've benefited greatly from reading inspector general reports in which they were a part of. from my standpoint at om if b, my view is omb should be ad a slow candidate for whistleblowers -- advocate in every possible way and the make sure that that we value and as a result the agency heads value the work that they do. and is we'll always a be looking for opportunities along those

lines. >> would like your view of how you can play a role in making the recent supreme court decision overturning the chevron doctrine, the lope arer case, how that can -- loper case, how that can help you stop our government from being overregulated bureaucrats, overreaching, using a statute that may a maybe can be liberally interpreted and all that? >> thank you, senator. it is one of those aspects of the regulatory process in terms of deregulating, in terms of making sure that agencies are sticking to the law, that we want to make sure, if confirmed, we get properly set up. that would be part of the review process not unlike cost benefit analysis and making sure agencies are not coming up with new interpretations of what the

statute should say. we want to stick to the statute. >> so you will be watching tata regulatory process the -- to make sure that lope arer -- loper is followed? >> yes, senator. >> okay. another thing. thatter irritates -- that irritates me about, by the way, these problems i'm talking about aren't just democrat republican. they're republican and democrat problems that a we've got to deal with. so another one would be not answering our letters. now, i don't know whether i've got a lot of letters to your department or not that haven't been answered, but i can give you the justice department as an example. when pam bondi was in my if office, i gave her a stack of 158 letters that the justice department just in the last four years haven't answered. and it was to somewhat the same under obama and trump in priest if -- in previous -- we've got a

constitutional responsibility to make sure that the executive branch faithfully executes our laws. so we want to make sure that these letters are answered. so on september 15th, 2023, i sent president biden's omb director a letter asking a simple question, where is the implementation guidance for the end open government data act, as just one example. at that point om if b was five years late in issuing the guidance. the guidance was intended to make government information more open and available. in the final days of the biden administration, they released the guidance but they never directly responded to my if request. -- to my if request. if confirmed, will you commit the ensuring omb provides timely and complete responses to congressional oversight? >> yes, senator. i think it's very important. it's one of the things that i asked my team the know, to let

me know immediately, the day of, when senators and congressmen are writing and sending us letters. i want to be immediately aware and, quite frankly -- and i've said this to all of you in our individual meetings -- i want to know before it gets time to have to send a letter of which that's an important part of the process. >> should you be confirmed, you will face daunting task of reining in the bloated federal government. besides crafting a responsible budget, what actions can you take as omb director to begin right-sizing the federal government? >> well, we're going to go, if confirmed, senator, right into the process of finishing the fiscal year '25, helping the president come to a view on how that should proceed. we'll be in the process of various discussions with regard to reconciliation of which are

very important. and then there's just the normal management of different agencies for waste, fraud and abuse beyond setting up a presidential budget of which we want to get started and get caught up based on just the normal process of an incoming administration. >> thank you. >> if i were you, i'd answer senator grassley's letter, if he ever sent one, and i'd be pro-whistleblower. senator murray. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. vought, i appreciated the opportunity to meet with you last week, but i continue to have very serious concerns regarding your nomination starting with your position and record on impoundment. i do not believe what happened in the case of withholding security assistance to ukraine in 2019 while you were acting omb director was an accident or a misunderstanding. and i fear it is the actually a harbinger of what is to to come these nicks four years. in fact -- next four years.

in fact, on his first day in office, we saw the president order, among other things, what appears to be an illegal deferral of inflation reduction action a, bipartisan infrastructure law and foreign assistance funds, as senator americaly referred to. and -- senator merkley refer to and that you will follow the advice of the incoming omb counsel, someone when has called the impound ifment control act a stupid law and recently tweeted at you to, impound, baby, impound is a bit rich. look, as i said to you at our meeting, members of congress on both sides must know a deal is a deal. a deal is a deal when we reach a bipartisan agreement on major legislation are. agreements cannot happen and congress cannot function without that level of trust. and impound, baby, impound is not the answer i am looking for. so i wanted to ask you today, will you, if confirmed, ask

director -- as director faithfully follow the law? the impoundment control act, yes or no. >> senator, we will faithfully uphold the law. the president ran on the notion if that the impoundment control act is unconstitutional. i agree with that. i would in response the both questions say that what the president has unveiled already are not impoundments, they are programmatic delays -- >> has the impawnedment law ever said to be the unconstitutional by a court of law? >> not to my knowledge -- >> no, it has not. so it is the law of the land. i don't care what the president said when he was running. it is the law of the land. so will you follow that law if you are confirmed to this office? >> senator, the president and his team is going to go through a review with their lawyers, if confirmed, including the department of justice to explore the parameters of the law with regard to the impoundment control act. he hasn't developed a strategy that he's announced as it

pertains to to how we would approach it. there are piece ifs of legislation that have been proposed by members of this committee -- >> we propose legislation all the time. if the rule of the law in a state is that it's 15 mile-an-hour speed limit, you can't just say, well, i think that's irresponsible, and i'm going to challenge it so, therefore, i don't have to follow it. the impoundment law is the law. will you follow it or not? you can say that we're going to look at it and might challenge it in court, but it is the law today. will you with follow that law as director. >> senator, the reason why the president if ran on this is that 200 years of precedents -- >> you're telling me why you don't agree with the law, but the law is the law. will you follow the law? and what he found in the first term is that we had agencies that would push out spending -- >> mr. chairman, i'm going to take my time back for a minute and just tell all of us, we work all the time on appropriations where i am ranking member to come the an agreement. senator graham, you and i work

on agreements, and we decide, yeah, okay, we'll both vote for this, we have an agreement. how can we ever have an agreement in the future if a president, whoever he or her may be in the future, has say over that saying, never mind, i'm not going to pay for this part of it? we have to have agreements. it is the law of the land. and i have to say that the your answer to this should be disconcerting to every is single member on this committee. i have a minute left, and i want to ask you9 another important question to me because as director of the powerful office of management and if budget, your job will not be merely to execute the president's agenda, it is also to advise the president on policy issues you've made clear. so i want to ask about women's health policy. you were lead author of the anti-abortion project 2025. you were also caught just three months ago saying when it comes to the abortion you, quote, want to get to abolition. now, everyone should understand that abortion, abolition --

abortion abolition means zero abortions. under any if circumstance whatsoever. so you have said that you don't believe in exceptions for rape, nor for incest or life of the mother. is that your position? >> senator, my views are not important. i'm here on behalf of the president as his nominee to restore fiscal accountability -- >> i'm asking you a question under oath, sir, because you want to be director of an office that will advise the president, and we have a right to know your views. will you answer the question? >> i will, senator, because it's consistent with the views that the president ran on repeatedly. he made -- >> [inaudible] three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. p mr. kaine: mr. president, let me begin by asking unanimous consent that jermain jackson and

tracy fasilino be granteds floor privileges for the assignment of my office. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: i rise to discuss the nomination of pete hegseth to be our nation's secretary of defense. let me make two preliminary comments. first, my philosophy about voting on nominees is to give deference to the president who has been elected, who has a mandate that carries with it a mandate to assemble a leadership team in executive positions. so i always begin with any president, democrat or republican, with a beginning standpoint. they should be able to assemble a team unless there are significant challenges with the nominee. second, i do want to say that as part of the work that i've done in examining this nominee, i did review his military record, and i express my respect for the military record.

pete hegseth's service in the military, my review of those records suggest he served in a very honorable way and i want to acknowledge that. yet, i rise to oppose the nomination and urge my colleagues to oppose it or at least take the time to really understand the gravity of behavioral challenges demonstrated by mr. hegseth during his career. i have multiple problems with this nominee for this position, and this position, secretary of defense, is the position that i view and many virginians view, as the most important cabinet post. let me review the reasons for my opposition. first, mr. hegseth's record, erratic, unprofessional, and troubling behavior. mr. hegseth p was married it twice before he is married to his current wife, his third wife. and in the first two marriages,

there were allegations in both of serious and multiple infidelities. i asked him at the hearing when he appeared before us whether he took an oath of fidelity to his spouses. of course he did. in the same way that a secretary of defense will take an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states. but the evidence that was before us, the public record that was before us is very, very troubling. in mr. hegseth's first marriage there were public reports that he was unfaithful to his wife at least five different times with multiple other people. he never rebutted that. and because he wouldn't meet with members of the committee on the democratic side, we didn't get a chance to talk about that in a closed setting, which would have been most important. in his second marriage, he was married, and while married fathered a child by a woman who

would become his third wife in august of 2017. so he was still married to wife number two and cheated on her with a woman who would bear his child and become wife number three. but in a very shocking way to me, within two months after the birth of this child, he was at a republican political event at a hotel in monterey, california, and cheated on both his second wife and the mother of this newborn in an incident that led to a sexual assault criminal investigation. this behavior -- look, people are people. people make mistakes. but a first marriage breaking up over serial infidelity and then a second marriage also bedeviled by serial infidelity is something that has to call up questions about an individual's

judgment. mr. hegseth has been the leader of two nonprofit organizations that are veteran service organizations. in one of the organizations, concerned veterans for america, during the time he was the ceo, an employee of the organization wrote a scathing report about mr. hegseth creating a toxic work culture in this environment, where impairment by alcohol was not only exhibited by him but tolerated by others and there was a toxic work environment for women employees. committee members have had access to a report that was not done because he was nominated to be secretary of defense. this was a report done by employees and given to the leaders of this organization at the time, now nearly ten years ago, with about 35 names of employees and individuals in the organization with knowledge of the facts and recitation of

event after event after event where people were treated unfairly. women were made to feel they were second class in the organization, and alcohol abuse was common in workplace events. i referenced a sexual assault claim in monterey. i will call it an undisclosed sexual assault claim because mr. hegseth never told the trump transition team about this event when he was being considered and vetted to be secretary of defense. again, he's married to wife two. he's now fathered a child by a woman being unfaithful in that wedding. and within two months after fathering a child, he goes to an event in monterey, california, gets a woman at the he event into his hotel room, has sex with her. she claims she was drugged and raped and filed a criminal complaint about it with local law enforcement within days after the event.

he admits the event. he says it was consensual, not a sexual assault rape, consensual, but he acknowledges that it occurred. what then happened? the survivor went to local law enforcement, filed a sexual assault claim. the claim was investigated over a period of time. the prosecutor ultimately decided not to pursue criminal charges against mr. hegseth, but there was a civil claim as well that later led to a settle mmen with the victim. payment of cash to the victim, and the intrens into a non -- entrance into a nondisclosure agreement with the victim. none of this was disclosed to the trump team as they were examining him to be secretary of defense. he didn't disclose the event. he didn't disclose the criminal

sexual assault claim. he didn't disclose the fact of an investigation. he didn't disclose the civil claim. he didn't disclose the settlement. he didn't disclose the cash payment. he didn't disclose the nondisclosure agreement. he hid all of it from the trump transition team. when i asked him why, he didn't really have an answer and i told him i know the reason why. you were worried that if you told them about this they would not nominate you to be secretary of defense. the relationship between a secretary of defense and a president is a very important relationship that demands complete candor. there's always some challenge. there's always something at the pentagon that might be going wrong. mr. hegseth demonstrated at a very critical moment that he would not let the president-elect know about this fact because he wanted to advance himself and he worried that if he was candid, it would cause problems for him. i don't want a secretary of defense who is unwilling to be candid with the commander in

chief. and he's already demonstrated grave reason to doubt whether he will be candid by refusing to disclose the reality of this sexual assault allegation in monterey. an affidavit was filed yesterday by one danielle hegseth, the form sister in law of the nominee, revealing publicly facts suggesting spousal abuse in mr. hegseth's second marriage. i don't know danielle hegseth. i haven't talked to her. i was not a -- aware of that allegation but it didn't surprise anyone on the committee who reviewed the record. why not? because there are already facts in the record raising this very question. i asked mr. hegseth about it at the armed services committee. during his second divorce his own mother wrote him a letter

saying essentially, you are a serial abuser of women, including your own two wives, and you need to look in the mirror, get some help and figure this out. his mother even used the phrase, neither x nor y, the names of the first two wives, deserve the treatment they have received at your hand. all of the committee members had access to that before the hearing. all of them. your mother writes you a letter saying you're a serial abuser of women that needs to look in the mirror and get helping and saying that the two wives that you have abused do not deserve the treatment they have received at your hand. and so the allegation from danielle hegseth yesterday reporting her observations of mr. hegseth's behavior, and in

particular, abuse of her sister-in-law, have to be given some credence by this committee. and we have to avoid a rush that we may regret. i found it very unusual that when i asked mr. hegseth at the hearing, a sexual assault would be disqualifying to be secretary of defense, he would not agree with me. spousal abuse would be disqualifying to be a secretary of defense. he would not agree with me. being impaired by alcohol while on the job would be disqualifying to be secretary of defense. he would not agree with me. these are not hard questions. they are clearly disqualifying behaviors, and the fact that he would not agree that they were disqualifying behaviors suggested to me as i was watching that testimony that they evinced a little bit of a guilty conscience. why would i want to agree if i

have concerns about my own behavior? what has been mr. hegseth's response to allegations of infidelity demonstrating poor judgment, creation of a toxic work culture, alcohol impairment while at work, this undisclosed sexual assault claim, the allegations of spousal abuse? what has his response been? his response has been twofold. complete denial. complete denial with the exception of acknowledging that, yes, he did cheat on his wife and the mother of a newborn child in monterey, california, in september 2017. ep has denied -- he has denied everything else even though the record is replete with specific instances at specific times with specific individuals attesting to these behaviors. his other defense is to claim that all of this, all of it is

an anonymous smear, an anonymous smear. let me tell my colleagues this is anything but anonymous. when your own mother writes you a letter saying you are a serial abuser of women, including your two wives, and they don't deserve the treatment they have received at your hand, that is not anonymous. the report of the whistleblower at the concerned veterans of america organization a decade ago, anything but anonymous. the report listed incidents naming 36 named individuals who had been either participating in victimized by, witnessing or awearing the incidents described in the document. this is not anonymous, danielle hegseth's public affidavit is not anonymous. the one thing that i will

acknowledge that is in the anonymous space is this, the number of individuals who have come forward and shared with me and other members of the committee their own first-hand knowledge of similar events but said you can't use my name because i'm so afraid. i'm afraid of what mr. hegseth would do, i'm afraid of what the president might do. i had someone say to me when i said you needn't be afraid say that's easy for you to say. that's easy for you to say. if the building the u.s. capitol where you work can be attacked by people when it is well fortified and secure, what chance would i have if i publicly criticized this nominee. yes, there are some speaking to us who are asking for anonymity, and that, if they asked for it,

they should be provided it. but there are many who have spoken either directly via affidavit or in records that are available to all committee members and all senators who are anything but anonymous. and i would urge my colleagues and not just the armed services committee members to go and read the documents available to you before you cast your vote, set your feet in stone about a nominee, you should see these documents. i want to go back to one point that i made that i think is telling and that is mr. hegseth's refusal to disclose these facts of the -- to the trump transition team. it's one thing not to disclose them to the committee, it's one thing to refuse to meet with members of the committee, i will get to that in a second. when the president-elect who is going to be commander in chief is vetting you for the most

important cabinet position in the united states, and you know you have been charged with a sexual assault that led to a criminal investigation, a civil settlement, a cash payment, a nondisclosure agreement, and you chose not to disclose it to the president, that in and of itself should be disqualifying. the lack of respect that shows to the president-elect in my view should be disqualifying. let me conclude with a couple of other points. the main point is the pattern of behavior which should make anyone wary to vote for mr. hegseth for secretary of defense. a couple of other points i want to mention. mr. hegseth, i think, sort of set a very unfortunate precedent. i have been on the armed services committee, i sit side by side with senator king on that committee since we came to the senate in 2013. i have participated in confirmation hearings for about

five secretary of defenses. mr. hegseth is the only one who refused to meet with the committee. he met with the republican committee members, but all of us were trying to set meetings with him, as has been our norm, so that we could talk to him about these issues and ask him questions privately in our office. some of these matters are, frankly, better for private discussion than public discussion, but he stiffed armed every one of us except jack reed. now, in some ways maybe it's not a surprise. this is an individual who's written books and articles where he said democrats are evil, democrats are the adversary, but if you're nominated to be second of -- secretary of defense at the pentagon, it's a nonpolitical position, and if you begin the job saying i needn't even sit down and pay the respective meeting with

democratic senators, what about democrats that serve in the military or independents or libertarians or people who don't share mr. hegseth's party affiliation? what does it say to the men and women who work for our military when he wouldn't even pay the respect paid by every predecessor that they would meet with senators of both parties before the hearing? i was very disturbed the other day when we had a committee hearing to forward mr. hegseth's nomination and the republican majority asked for a waiver to forward it faster than rules allowed and that waiver can be granted if the committee voted to do so. and one of my colleagues, senator warren said to my colleagues, saying you asked us to waive normal rules. we don't want to waive normal rules to speed this along, he wouldn't even meet with us. i thought that was a compelling argument. if mr. hegseth who has no

respect for the democrats in this party, but i would expect my senate colleagues to have respect for us. some on the other side have been there the entire i have been here, i didn't think they would tolerate a nominee stiff-arming me. if there was a nominee refusing to meet with members of the republican committee, i would raise heck about that in the committee and block the nominee until he met with members of the committee. i know senator king would do the same thing. democrats would do the same thing, we would not tolerate a nominee stiff-arming one side of the day dais. i was shocked my republican colleagues demonstrated they will just fine with that. i -- i -- this is my favorite committee in the senate. we work very cooperatively in a

bipartisan way and that my republican colleagues are perfectly fine with us being disrespected because we happen to be democrats who are citizens elected us to serve in the united states senate is very, very shocking to me. one other point that i want to bring up. i've revealed much material that is in the record and that other senators can view for themselves, but i have to say in looking at the investigation record, which was exiled -- come piled -- compiled heartlandingly by the -- largely by the fbi, it was very, very weak. the fbi went out to do an investigation of mr. hegseth. the report was made available to the chair and ranking member. not to the members, we haven't seen the report. we have been able to ask questions to the chair and ranking member about it. the allegations i walk through, which are largely public record, the fbi didn't even interview the wives even after a mother's letter had said that you are a

serial abuser of women including your two wives, the fbi did not even go out and interview the wives. why not? i mean, it was an investigation or was it like a box checking exercise? a lot of us when we heard it sort of raised hell about it. when you do an investigation, talk to the nominees who -- talk to those who know him the best. after the fact the fbi went out and did a very cursory discussion with one of the wives. again, i have not seen that material. i have not been allowed to see it. that in itself should shock my colleagues and the public, but i have confirmed in speaking about it with the ranking and chair, the interview with the wife was very cursory covered one set of topics but left many of the questions i raised here completely unanswered and

unaddressed. a nominee to be secretary of defense is going to have enormous power over the physical safety of americans and peace, war, and diplomacy in the world. aren't we, as senators, exercising our advise and consent role entitled to a background investigation that is meaningful, searching and comprehensive? are we to be given some half work product and say, that's great, let's just rush to confirm somebody? we shouldn't be confirming a person on an insufficient background check if they didn't have all of these acknowledged problems that are part of the public record, but when they are part of the public record, when the fbi -- fbi finds out that, wow, you didn't tell the transition team about the sexual assault claim, the investigation should be thorough, not mediocre

and cursory. and so, mr. president, i will conclude and just say this may not be the last time i appear on the floor to speak on this nomination, but for now my request of my colleagues is a simple one. why rush? why rush? why would we rush to put through a nomination for a position of this importance that has so much baggage and so much evidence of glaring character and judgmenterors? -- judgment errors? do we want to have egg on our face? do we want to rush and have this blow up later? do we want to rush and have other witnesses come out as danielle hegseth did yesterday? is that what the senate's advise and consent process mandated by the constitution for a very

important reason has come to -- cursory investigation that doesn't get to the underlying facts even when they're sitting right out there before us and wore going to rush to confirm someone? for what reason? and so, mr. president, as i sit down, i will just conclude with that question. why rush this? let's take the time and when we cast a vote on equipments -- on the nomination that we cast our vote with wfdz who -- with confidence who will be the next secretary of defense. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. quorum call:

>> good afternoon. i am chair of the progressive caucus and represent the heart of texas. thank you so much for coming. on his first day in office, donald trump showed the american people exactly who his administration is serving, the richest handful of people on the planet. at inauguration sitting right behind the president and in front of his own cabinet were three men if whose combined wealth is more than the wealth of the entire bottom half of this country binded.

combined. trump could have had in that front row a firefighter from california, a stool -- schoolteacher from uvalde, a world war ii veteran. instead trump isn't putting the good of americans first, he's putting bezos, musk, zuckerberg and billionaires with armies of lobbyists first. the progressive caucus and the democratic caucus will respond every single day by putting actual working people, not ultra-rich elites, first. the progressive caucus has a clear plan. while donald trump is giving corrupt ceos a tax break, we will be on the picket lines with american workers. progressives will stand up for struggling and vulnerable if americans as trump villainizes them and as he attempts to distract from his own corruption and his own abuse of office for his billionaire buddies. progressives and americans

across speak about tiktok which we all know we have had a lot of attention about tiktok, a lot of debate, a lot of discussion, a lot of action by the supreme court. but now i think people are getting clouded on the path forward. i want to be clear that last year the u.s. congress passed a law requiring bytedance to sell tiktok. the law requires that that sale to shut down all government back doors by the chinese or attempts by them to influence the alling rhythms -- algorithms that could affect the military. the influence over tiktok's content recommendation algorithm. it requires the data sharing with the chinese government must end. i was glad to see the u.s. court of appeals for the u.s. district of columbia unanimously upheld that law. why? because we asked them whether

congress had the ability to act in this national interest and to pass this law and they upheld it. congress and the courts acted for a reason, to address real national security threats to our country and to the american people. when president trump issued his 2020 executive order, he recognized that tiktok collected vast amounts of data on u.s. citizens. a house resolution, resolution 1051 introduced by the house select committee on china and congressman gallagher and christa murthy sets out the threat and citing from the u.s. government and from u.s. government officials. it points out in 2020 the department of commerce found out that china is building a database of personal information to understand who to target for

espionage and that's particularly of concern for us when it is about u.s. military personnel, where they might be, what they might be doing. it also found that bytedance had very close ties to the chinese goment. in december 2022, the director of the federal bureau of investigation chris wray stated that tiktok's data repository on americans were in the hands of the chinese government. so director wray testified that china could use tiktok for the influence and operations to control software that could compromise americans' personal devices. commander of u.s. cybersecurity command and the director of national security agency testified that one-third of adult population receives their news from tiktok and one-sixth of american children use it every day. and he added that tiktok, quote, provides a national platform for information operations and for surveillance, end quote.

further information, the director of the cia william burns indicated that bytedance can use the private data of american tiktok users to shape tiktok content to suit the interests of the chinese government. now, this was most important as it related to a 2023 rutgers university report founded that tiktok amplifies and demotes content based on the interest of the chinese government. no surprise if you can have an influence, you demote or promote whatever you want to promote. the rutgers report found oh, surprisingly the issues of hong kong and tiananmen square didn't quite have the same level of umph on tiktok as it did on instagram meaning that somehow those posts about those subjects were somehow not as voluminous. it found foreign policies disfavored by china and russia also had fewer hash tags on

tiktoks, issues such as a pro-ukraine stance or pro-israel stance. in fact, in one instance there were 8,000 times mortinmen square hashtags on instagram than on hickenlooper tock. so if this was all supposed to be about just generous posting by individuals and posting content, why would one platform have even with the volume of different platforms have 8,000 times more hashtags? well, i'm sure the chinese government doesn't like to talk about tiananmen square. i'm pretty sure they don't like to talk about the uighurs, genocide, or other issues. there were 750 times more pro-ukraine hashtags on instagram than on tiktok. so deputy national security advisor also pointed out that bytedance has used tiktok to

surveil u.s. journalists, to identify and retaliate against potential sources. now, this is a concern to us in the united states. we wouldn't let the chinese government own abc or nbc. why are we allowing them to influence a source of information about news, particularly when they are retaliating against journalists? studies from cornell university and the university of vermont found that tiktok promotes a toxic diet culture among teens and young adults, including pro anorexia content. i can't think of anything more disgusting. identifying teens which you can see in the rutgers report, that if the teen is identified at all concerned about these issues, the next thing they do is get a massive amount of data thrown on to them about anorexia, which again is just promoting younger people's less faith in themselves and their body image.

both the u.s. house and the u.s. senate received classified briefings on this national security threat. and what we should do moving forward. as prominent leaders on both sides of the aisle have called out this threat, quote, we need to do something to move forward. one colleague, senator cotton, has been quite clear. the senate intelligence committee said on the floor last week, quote, tiktok harvests a vast trove of user data including name, e-mail, addresses, phone number, credit card, facial features, voice prints, key strokes, photos, videos, and viewing habits, and this -- this data can make users susceptible to manipulation, even blackmail but also years from now when users have become influential persons in the military, the intelligence community, business or media and other walks of life, end quote. so i agree with senator cotton. this is an issue where this kind of collection of information on

u.s. citizens drives opportunities for people to ma fip late, particularly -- manipulate, particularly in the area of the military. so senators and members of congress want to work with president trump as he tries to end what is a chinese overinfluence on such an important national security threat. the good news is the technology is advancing and particularly advancing very rapidly right now. we're starting to see technology that is finally giving us the ability to take some of this control back with algorithms ourselves as individuals, as u.s. citizens. maybe you've heard the buzz around agenic a.i. here's what it means in plain language. we now can control the algorithms that billionaires or foreign governments have been using to control us. agenic a.i. let's us turn the tables on them. we can jou use a.i. to take in massive amounts of information

from the internet from all sources and then apply filters that we want to see, that we choose for ourselves so that we only get the information we want to see and not what somebody else wants to do with our information. so i hope the president as he's considering these issues will look at the software solution. i don't know that a joint venture with the chinese is going to rectify this issue about the algorithms. they can't continue to own and influence this process. but u.s. innovation and u.s. ownership can drive us forward, can drive a better experience for our young people. believe me, this is an issue about young people. our youngest citizens of america shouldn't be the source of information targeted at them, to undermine them, basically to create insecurities in them, and to promote ideas that we do not believe in the united states. so i hope that the president and i hope our colleagues here will

encourage us to resolve this issue. we've given every tool possible. now it's time to get this into the hands of u.s. innovators and move forward. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

>> good afternoon. i am chair of the progressive caucus and represent the heart of texas. thank you so much for coming. on his first day in office, donald trump showed the american people exactly who his administration is serving, the richest handful of people on the planet. at inauguration sitting right behind the president and in front if of his own cabinet were three men whose combined wealth is more than the wealth of the entire bottom half of this country combined. trump could have had in that front row a firefighter from california, a schoolteacher from you value day, a world war ii veteran -- you valuety. -- uvalde. instead trump isn't putting the good of americans first, he's putting bezos, musk, zuckerberg

and billionaires with armies of lobbyists first. the progressive caucus and the democratic caucus will respond every single day by putting actual working people, not ultra-rich elites, first. the progressive caucus has a clear plan. while donald trump is giving corrupt ceos a tax break, we will be on the picket lines with american workers. progressives will stand up for struggling and vulnerable americans as trump villainizes them and as he attempts to distract from his own corruption and his own abuse of office for his billionaire buddies. progressives and americans across this country will hold trump accountable for pardoning violent extremists who are convicted of say -- assaulting police officers. we will hold him accountable for. >> shredding our constitution and attempting to take birthright citizenship away from people including away from families, immigrant families who are here fully complying with

the law. and when people ask us, i've heard all the time why would trump do such crazy things like shredding the constitution, undoing birthright citizenship, putting billionaires in the front row of his inauguration in why because he do this? there's only ever two answers. he's either doing it for himself or he's doing for -- doing it for his billionaire donors. everything he's going to do is for one of those two reasons. and progressives are ready to lead, our entire caucus, and our country to show folks what government can really be about. that it can be about you, and it doesn't just have to be about musk and bezos and people who can afford lobbyists and people who are in it just for themselves and their own political power. i'm so proud to be standing up here with leaders in the progressive caucus who have been here for a long time and who are new. you'll hear from several of them on the issues of the day. and we plan and intend on not giving trump a free pass.

we're going to have these press conferences, and we're going to call out his actions that betray his own voters and betray the americans every single day. first up, were -- we have with our incredible deputy chair, i'll hand to to mar. >> thank you, chair cesar -- ilhan omar. donald trump president for 48 hours and has rolled back the clock on so much of our progress. from from ending birthright citizenship, a constitutional right guaranteed by the 14th amendment, to stopping refugee reset settlements to -- immigrants are being persecuted, targeted and treated like criminals. donald trump also rolled back crucial climate initiatives. he withdrew us from the paris climate accord, vowed to unleash oil and gas drilling and

declared an energy emergency that ends restrictions on fossil fuel production directly, escalating the climate crisis. the vision donald trump and his administration have is one of the vision of hate and reversal of progress. as members of the progressive caucus, we will continue to provide an alternative vision, one centered on transformative change, justice and movement building. we will keep fighting for a future that the american people deserve and give a clear-eyed alternative to mega-extremism. maga extremism. i know many of our constituents are tiered. they are tired of feeling like the game is rigged and they don't have people fighting on their behalf. let me be clear, we as the progressive caucus are in your corner, and we will fight every single can day the make sure

life is better for you. we will fight every day against the corruption being unleash ared by donald trump and members of his administration. we will fight for a livable future, humane and just immigration policies, universe aral health care and a future where you aren't just getting by, but you are thriving. together we will fight back against donald trump's hateful agenda. because as much as the presidency is tried to be normalized, what we are witnessing is anything but. none of this is normal. taking away lower prescription costs for vulnerable americans is not normal. pandering -- pardoning insurrectionists who assaulted police officers in this capitol is not normal.

we are going to combat this by showcasing that our progressive movement is all about a vision rooted in decency, justice, equality and peace for all. thank you. and now i hand it over to our incredible whip, chewy garcia. >> thank you, representative omar, and good afternoon to to all. after the inauguration speech, we stand together united as progressives against trump's hateful and xenophobic agenda that a preys -- that preys on hard working people. the impact of the executive orders issued yesterday by trump and his regime is personal to me. i am an immigrant who represents a district with many immigrants, one of every three people is foreign born, and they've come

from from mexico, central/south america, italy, poland, ireland, germany, haiti, china among others. .. if

a lifeline to refugees and the trump wants to complete dismantle the right to seek asylum reinstating the remain in mexico policy. this is inhumane, and effective in places people in great harm to the guys of public safety he will stop cartels categorizing terrorists. this will lead us down a dangerous path that creates more

harm and jeopardizes national security from victims of extortion to military intervention in mexico. we must understand the serious implications as terrorist organizations. if trump really wants to address this, he must address the fact that 70% they are coming from the u.s. immigrants are 50% less likely to be incarcerated and 37% to commit crime. we stand here today calling on trump to bring real solutions, not propaganda to instill fear and chaos discusses policy. we will not be silent, we will defend diverse immigrant

communities and reaffirm the more you try to various, the stronger we grow back. i'd like to introduce mark. >> the progressive caucus congress and holds republicans accountable for what they will hold and november. day one donald trump promised lower cost for americans of the action increase for americans. republicans are in the fourth week of the 119 congress and still have not seen a bill for americans. here is what is happening. if the president does, it will

increase costs for americans. the useful time they have deals going to the united states. they will do the opposite in the tariffs will drive grocery prices even higher. investing in infrastructure bill in the inflation reduction act will have ramifications and 400,000 good families supporting wages. and nothing, crickets. rent and mortgages during this time. an affordable healthcare for everyone. lower the cost we talked about, groceries and gas, housing and drive down costs and other areas

as well. this will be tough. martin luther king junior day. and it will attack certain people and the community, those are initiatives we are going to fight and we want people to know we respect everyone and equality for everyone. with that, the great state of pennsylvania. >> hello, everybody.

he worked hard, play by the rules should and bolts are angry, working hard. housing controversies, and a stranglehold on the economy and there's probably consolidation driving up costs. we are in the third week of republican majority and they've done nothing to bring them costs and they are not going to. they care about one thing. she to our job, places all over the country understand.

to make life less of a ripoff, we need great great the corporate struggle and republicans, there could be an asteroid coming for planet earth tax giveaways to billionaires and that's the only thing they have. i come from a place people love, they are patriotic defending this building, they were brutally attacked from my neck of the woods, salty officers sitting on the thrones of them and aiding and abetting smashing windows and more. now they have a part of. opposite of public safety and law and order.

people are disgusted by his. i am disgusted by it. it won't distract us from our work. restore the american dream and bring down costs and defend our. we will find ground but they are going to hurt our people. make no about it. thank you and with that, send it over to the gentle lady from california. >> thank you for yielding to me and thank you for your leadership. i want to start by thanking the firefighters and first responders from across the country working nonstop to put out the fires in socal. our hearts go out to those who lost their lives and livelihoods as result of these wildfires.

homes, businesses and immunities. it looks like a war zone. what we saw and what we are from constituents has made it clear are community needs a weekly and now. natural disasters to nondiscrimination between red and blue, they impact everyone the same is not fair keep anybody waiting for a. i hope speaker johnson and house republicans do not just score political points. we all need to come together to deliver federal aid should so they can rebuild their lives in the willow questions.

q-uppercase-letter numbers will have to do some breakouts undermined that every single day that we are united.

do anything to make people safer. so our goal is to recognize republic and bills are divide america legal the way they can help is immigrants in this country are much less likely to commit crime then somebody born here. they could lead to the deportation and punishment and so many of our members are having to vote and they are flooded with lies. all of our members can unite to surround our goals but

republican bills really don't help. >> extremely high priority, the two. >> i think there's no question are fundamental progressive progress, i'm from arizona where they are being enshrined in our constitution donald trump was elected as president and it

shows americans, despite their political party preference they should have access to reproductive rights in healthcare and all is a continued push to take away the freedoms and move us closer to the abortion ban. i know they are deeply concerned about this issue. [inaudible]

>> it's incredibly alarming. we tried to create space for everyone. miss information and disinformation on notice has been an individual higher because of diversity many of these are positioned in which the person is responsible for diversifying retention for creating a space welcoming for everyone and it is unfortunate because they are suspended with pay, we are paying people not to work. tax dollars not doing work at this moment is the opposite of efficiency when they talk about creating a more efficient workplace, that is what they do

positions, they are trying to create an environment where the more sufficient people for the job are hired so we do everything we can and put out the correct information. how that will impact the work. >> good afternoon. i serve on the committee and

subcommittee ranking member so to address this, we are going to fight back on the anti- environmentalists. she outlined is in it emergency. the highest level not only in the history on the planet right now in final circle issued executive order of the climate record and address this role in american america, it's about

millionaires for their campaign donations, it is important to remember donald trump is literally invited with the logical actively solicited a billing dollars in exchange from the pairs accords as well as storing the energy initiative and donald trump delivered on day one. our job is to fight back the make sure we protect our land in the fundamentals that have made it possible and make sure we are protecting the planet. we are going to make sure on the climate agenda, there's a lot of interest in engaging to protect

our international agreement and they would like the international standards. we will continue to push back against any and all. we are going to continue to use what we have to make the american people and everyone that comes aboutnot my

understanding is to know the statements in and the attorney general to look at a dividing country. i came here, it is one of the best programs out there. i have constituents waiting to be reunited with family. they risked their lives and put

their families in danger with our country's war. to abandon them, it really does go against what we say we stand for and essentially what we would want and you have to think about, refugees are one of the most harm immigrants in the world, often times people who work in war, there's a reason they have that special status so i do hope you consider and allow thousands have gone through the vetting process and their

relocation. >> with that, thank. >> please ask questions, we still have another half an hour. one thing that brings all of us together is that donald trump is trying to flood the news with everything he can't and of course they will defend our people but trump doesn't want to be held accountable for the egregious actions he took it the last couple days and make sure american people are reminded for people who are convicted or resulted in remind the american

people of the actions he just took and target more immigrants with no criminal convictions battle and raise prices for education for american people. repealing actions and he's trying to jack up barbara and fled the news with all of these actions and we will hold him accountable. we will continue to go on offense and we will not let him get away with this. thank you all very much.

the better old but people are smiling, and a good mood. it's quite refreshing and adding it's because they know it's a new day in america. monday was a celebration for most americans. however, not everyone is happy which is disappointing. yesterday the national prayer service, the bishop was extreme in her views, extremely out of

line and out of touch. what she did was uncalled for. perhaps we should pray for her. why should anyone opposed to president trump the data? the american people expect us to deliver. the negativity days are over. that's why president trump and house republicans have already darted our promises. to secure the border and unleash american energy and drain the swamp. promises made, promises kept. together, we will make america great again. day one, he signed 40 executive orders. house republicans will continue

to deliver more. president trump even taking on further questions from all. more available in his first. it is one back. his back. it's of our agenda. now he's more popular than ever. my message is it's not too late to join us restoring america prosperity will give them

another opportunity to do just that. an opportunity to fix and prevent future tragedy. we will give them opportunity to advocate for board alive bailey's. instead of voting against women dictated last week but i will share, america is watching america is excited and happy. they know best days are ahead and now i will turn it over justice. >> good morning everyone. colorado's third congressional district. thank you for inviting me today and thank you for your leadership on this act. this is a critical piece of legislation.

eleven national forests and six are in my district. the act of the 1960s multiple requires national forests to be managed in and for decades federal bureaucrats brought responsible timber management to a halt and effectively turned national parks. catastrophic wildfires and set the stage for disasters the cycle seen in california. this will change that. it lets the forest service do its job increase resiliency and wildfires our communities and i'm proud to support. this bill is common sense and is necessary. we will pass in the house and work with the senate should and get it to president trump's desk.

thank you and i'm going to turn it over. >> conference chair, promises made and promises cap. president trump's triumphant return on the. in one day president trump did more for the american people than joe biden did in four years and some would even argue more than what he did in 50 years. in the the scam to facilitate the worst border invasion our country has ever seen. she and one thing is clear, the golden age of america is an

president trump. nothing to reverse everything done by the biden-harris administration. 77 million americans in the mandate to put america first. ready to work with the greatest president of my lifetime and get the job done. failure is not an option. a historic opportunity in front of us. >> thank you. it is morning in america again. monday was a special day where america celebrated the inauguration of donald trump coming back as president of the united states and you already

see the sharp focus residential. we got to meet with the president in the white house yesterday to talk about the agenda and fight for american people struggling for years with the biden-harris agenda. there is action being taken. actual legislation. the lake and riley act and the contrast. chuck schumer made it clear is no desire to stand up for women assault about people here

illegally with john thune, the house majority but we got to have a willing partner you don't have more lake and riley's and four murders of innocent people because of an open border. president trump is already taken action. we are working now to address the problems secure america's order and produce more american energy and reduced costs at the pump. in louisiana we got 10 inches of snow in new orleans, pretty surreal but there's a new sense of optimism. he will to the swing states and

things specifically talked about the wonder, will they follow through? now we are following through on promises made. opus on the way, help is here for the families screaming and crying out for washington to answer and that help can start delivering results. an exciting and busy time with budget reconciliation when the american people gave us the

mandate expect us to do the work for them. we are going to deliver. >> america's decline is over. we are all excited to be part of this. the process walking down the

hallway as president social media and it was a historic moment in the vice president work in. only in america can begin in lies to be vice president with that title. everybody does the excitement. the atmosphere in washington has changed. anxious anticipation excitement

and what came out in the senate republican in the house and the president is wasting no time. he ended catch and release, shut them the ridiculous ebp one cap and restoring american energy dominance restored the federal government eliminated ei initiative and ended the gender ideology madness and officials signed the letter about. president trump% more in the last 48 hours and joe biden and four years and this is the beginning. we mentioned the reason this is

so important is because of what's happening in california. mismanaged virtually every aspect and 117 million gallons outside pacific palisades and they did not manage the forces they were supposed to any let forest debris pile of an all of this was known now people are paying a heavy price with the california governor without you and this is what he will be echoing over and over.

the child is born alive and is crying struggling to breathe, should the doctor try to keep the child alive should they deny medical care and that the child die? who can answer the? 210 democrats voted against the then we will pose that question again and see if they will do the right thing. basic human dignity and then we will have to ask why they don't

they deserve to be protected. you seem each line on my shoes. >> there's london, not just inside the house but it went very well. really deep principles here. we are deeply concerned and worried about national debt we're worried about deficits and we have the opportunity reconciliation we can do efficiently and effectively and

a lot of anticipation of what's in the bill and make the best possible way to 20 is in his office and we encourage every member. they want people to come to washington d.c. and come to the table. it is healthy and it's worked very well will stay tuned.

>> everybody can describe this, this is decision. peaceful protests, a weaponization of the justice department and the prosecution of the january 6, a terrible time and the president has made his decision all of that. the president has made a decision and there are better days ahead of us.

>> reset and i don't think it authority desperate times call for desperate measures. we look through legislation address. it is probable and dealing with executives and so on the american people should.

illegal aliens and are dangerous to american citizens' it's common sense going to make those decisions will do our part. no law it was talking what president biden did on the way out more than a decade of nonviolent -- penalty anything like that was anticipated. joe biden himself said they are unconscionable and now they are cheering along.

it probably proves points the biden crime family. i think that is appropriate. for years so you will see all this. to work in tandem what he's doing is extorting the legislative agenda.

they will have that on his desk and the first of many bills look for that.

this marks 52 years. these new members understand what it meant for women in the decision putting women at risk every day across this country. the subject of reproductive they's inaugural address in the preserve rambling speech that followed and absent from all terms is any mention of the specific policy that he will do

to bring down the cost of groceries and childcare. none of the executive orders are anything meaningful to make life more affordable. we was a roomful of the richest people the earth was more tax cuts for them and more corporate consolidation that lead to fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. we ended up paying $14 for 18 and it's a much bigger problem is. house democrats are ready to work any and so far publicans have failed to show us they are interested in anything that helps. the focus has been on the billionaire class that help

them. >> the devastating fires in socal, the palisades and that the entire. the disaster relief in california and the number deliver for the united states of america and the little priorities. congress passed the american relief act and south carolina and the red states mr. thune: i ask unanimous

consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, it didn't take long. democrats have already begun stalling president trump's nominees, and it doesn't seem to matter who it is. right now the senator from connecticut is holding up a vote on john ratcliffe who is nominated for director of the central intelligence agency. the intelligence committee favorably reported mr. ratcliffe's nomination on a bipartisan vote, 14-3. in a joint statement with chairman cotton, the democrat vice chair of the intelligence committee said this and i quote, our world is far too dangerous for any delay in having a senate-confirmed leader in charge of the cia. we urge expeditious consideration of this important nomination. end quote.

now, mr. president, that, again, is from the democrat vice chair of the senate intelligence committee urging, and i quote again, expeditious consideration of this important nomination, end quote. now, mr. president, this is the director of the cia, the central intelligence agency, a key national security position. mr. ratcliffe is a qualified nominee. he was director of national intelligence in the first trump administration, the quarterback for all 18 elements of the intelligence community. in the house of representatives, he served on the intelligence committee and he was chairman of the cybersecurity subcommittee on the homeland security committee. he's been vetted by the intelligence committee and he'll likely receive bipartisan

support on the floor as he did in the committee. mr. president, the senator from connecticut wants to unnecessarily delay this vote. he says senators need time for a full, real debate. where are they? why are we not debating? nothing's been stopping any of our democratic colleagues from coming down to the floor to debate and make any concerns that they have known to the senate and to the american people. at least one senator has already taken advantage of that opportunity. the senator from connecticut also says that senators need more time to review the nominee's record. well, mr. president, mr. ratcliffe's nomination was announced two months ago.

is that long enough? his hearing was a week ago. there's been plenty of time to review his record. it's time to vote. this is just an unnecessary delay that makes this country less safe. mr. president, democrats and republicans agree that this is an important job. we agree that mr. ratcliffe is qual qualified, but a hand full of -- handful of democrats want to play politics with this nominee. and i have to say i honestly don't know what that accomplishes for them, but i do know this. it makes this country less safe. mr. president, it's time to vote.

mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 5. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is granted. mr. thune: mr. president, i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of the treasury, scott be sent to be secretary of the treasury. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of scott besent, to be secretary of the treasury. signed by 17 senators as follows. the presiding officer: i ask that 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: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on thursday, january 23, 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 be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. 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:

♪♪ democracy unfiltered funded by these television companies and more. ♪♪ ♪♪ will. >> bucket broadband suppos c-span as a public service along with these other public television providers in you a front row seat to democracy. ♪♪