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 we're going to rush to confirm someone? for what reason? and so, mr. president, as i sit down, i'll just conclude with that question. why rush this? let's take the time and when we cast a vote on confirmation, cast it with the confidence that we have complete information about the man who has been nominated to be our secretary of defense. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. >> democracy, it's not just an

idea, it's a process, process by leaders elected to the highest offices and guard its guiding principles, it's where decisions are made and charted. democracy in real-time, this is your government at work. this is c-span giving you your democracy unfiltered. >> the senate's gavelling in to consider a couple of president trump's cabinet nominees, including john ratcliffe to be cia director. live coverage. senate here on c-span2. ... the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

divine master, you are our stronghold and the pioneer of our future. teach us to work with greater faithfulness. may pleasing you become our primary focus, as you place a song in our hearts for each burden on our shoulders. guide our lawmakers today. lead them to your fortress of love, patience, and kindness. lord, remind them that any success alien to your way is worse than failure and that any failure in your spirit is better than gold.

and, lord, please be with our faithful pages as they prepare for tomorrow's graduation. in all of their tomorrows, do for them more than they can ask or imagine. we pray in your wonderful name. amen. the president pro tempore: would you please join me as we recite the pledge. 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: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: today marks five years since the robertson family of iowa city, iowa, has been matched with their adoptive child way over in china. sadly, this is not a celebratory anniversary of that date, as the rob inson family, along with 300

american families, have yet to be unified with their adoptive children, many with unique medical needs. you see, in august of 2024, china very abruptly ended its intercountry adoption program without even clarifying what that would mean for the families already matched with their child. the chinese embassy cited that cross-border adoption has fulfilled its mission for the country, as now many more chinese families have stronger will and capacity to adopt the orphans in china. well, that's good news for those orphans. the country has made a

commitment to american families that's not being kept. china still hasn't given a straight answer on whether these matched cases will be completed. i've been told families from other countries have been invited to travel to complete their adoptions but not americans, and why not americans? it's been five years since families like the robinsons have prepared their homes to welcome these adoptive children. five years of a developed familiar relationship. i hope that president trump and the incoming administration see that these matched adoption cases be completed and president trump talks about wanting to meet with xi, have more friendly

relationships with president xi. hopefully this is an environment that can bring the robinson and their child together. china made a commitment, and i think -- and everybody thinks -- china ought to admit its commission, and china ought to do that for no reason other than they want the respect of the world, and they seem to be working to get that respect. and when people question that respect, they get very uptight about it. now, mr. president, on another issue, i want to talk about a 30-year anniversary of a piece of legislation that i've been involved with. a lot has happened during the first week of the second trump administration. within just three days in the

white house, president trump has put a pedal to the metal, delivering on the mandate voters expected when they went to the polls on november 5. now, thinking of history, it brings to mind a message that the voters delivered 30 years ago. some of my colleagues will remember what's called a contract with america. and that was a platform, if you remember, engineered by former speaker of the house newt gingrich that led to what was called the republican revolution of 1994. in fact, it was so much of a resolution that i remember in president clinton's state of the union message he said -- and

opened his statement with this few words. the era of big government is over. that's how much the gingrich contract rattled washington, d.c. so the american people expressed that they were fed up with government knows best and a washington mindset that applied rules for thee but not for me. sounds familiar, doesn't it? 30 years later, with the trump mandate. so i come to the senate floor today to talk about one particular issue that still comes up at my county meetings. for years iowans have asked me a

quote something like this -- why doesn't congress have to follow the same laws as we have to follow? that used to be true until we passed the congressional accountability act. in fact, that law became law, law of the land, 30 years ago today. prior to 1995, congress was exempt from about a dozen workplace laws that applied to the private sector but not to us in the congress. i want to revisit how it came about. in 1994, the american people delivered a landslide victory to republicans. we gained majority control of e u.s. house of representatives and the u.s. senate. it was an epic victory

considering that democrats have run the house of representatives for all but four years going way back to 1931. the best approach to good leadership is to keep an ear to the ground and a finger to the pulse of the american people. much like our 45th and 47th president has done since 2015. throughout my public service, that's how this u.s. senator has worked to represent iowans, by listening, by keeping in touch, and by going home every chance i get. i hold myself accountable to the people. this year i'll start my 45th consecutive year holding meetings with iowans, meeting q

& a meetings in each of iowa's 99 counties. now for a basis for keeping in touch and keeping government responsible, let's look at federalist 57. in that "federalist paper," james madison wrote about the vital need for what he called, quote-unquote, community of interest between the people and their leaders. further quoting, without which every government degenerates into tyranny. in had the 21st century, you could call that having skin in the game. so back to this 30th anniversary of the congressional accountability act -- during the period of congress

not having -- having exemption from some workplace rules, iowa small businesses and main street civic leaders hit the nail on the head. they said to me and other members of congress, what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. so some of us rolled up our sleeves and got to work. i teamed up with former senator joe lieberman of connecticut here in the senate. like many legislator efforts, it took years to build a bipartisan coalition to have these laws applied to the congress of the united states. the 1994 electoral victory was the boost that we needed to get across the finish line. on january 4, i reintroduced the

congressional accountability act. my good friend and former senate majority leader, bob dole, summed up the reason for this legislation better than anybody else, and i quote senator dole -- many of our citizens have begun to view the senate and house of representatives not as the people's body but as an imperial congress, as an institution that considers itself above the law and without accountability. end of quote. so that double standard had to end. we had to restore confidence with the american people, and that's why i championed the congressional accountability act, to inject common sense into lawmaking. this federal law would provide that lawmakers walk in the shoes of our constituents, abiding by

the same workplace rights and worker protection laws, including civil rights, age discrimination, disability, overtime pay, occupational safety, and health laws. one of my opponents during those years of trying to get this legislation passed was senator stevens of alaska. and i remember as this bill passed the united states senate and i was victorious, he came up to me and poked his finger in my chest and says, i hope you're the first senator to get sued because of this legislation. well, i haven't been sued, and i don't think anybody has been sued. the first bill that we sent to the president's desk in the 104th congress was the congressional accountability

act. president clinton signed it. as i mentioned earlier, 30 years ago today on january 23, 1995. since then i've led reforms to expand whistleblower protections to employees in the legislative and executive branches and in 2018 president trump signeded into law reforms to laws reporting and resolution process for workplace harassment claims. although the ink has long dried on the congressional accountability act, we all need to be fighting every day to keep a reality check here in washington, d.c. i'm going to finish with this ironic statement -- even though this legislation was passed 30 years ago, and even though i've heard about its need

for a long time before that, i still, as i say ironically, hear at my town meetings some constituents say to me, why don't you have to live under the same laws that we live under? then i have an opportunity to tell them about the congressional accountability act. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withdraw his request? mr. grassley: yes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with the senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes therein for up to ten minutes

because he made all too clear as omb director directt draw blood, he will cut programs families rely on to the bone comstat, the families that are . and while the paperwork to cut people off from their healthcare. thousands of public servants forced out of roles serving the american people. all while he works with trump to dole out more tax breaks to billionaires and the biggest corporations. the vision is all out there in public statements and project 2025. he has been secretive or subtle. he wants to ignore the law. he wants to ignore the will of congress. he wants to ignore the needs of our constituents, and we should not give him that opportunity. i'll be making very clear to everyone of my colleagues especially my fellow appropriators we need to maintain congress' power of the purse under most basic checks and balances. we need to ensure our

communities republican and democratic are protected. we need to reject this nomination. >> every member here from ranking member of our budget committee, new ranking member and every member here is on the budget committee and want to call them all. i hope you watch the hearings yesterday which is one here did a great job. ranking member merkley. >> thank you very much, leader schumer and chair murray. absolutely laid out the challenges and it was so confirmed in the budget hearing yesterday. let's understand this. the position of director of the office of management and budget doesn't get the same attention as secretary of defense nominate or intelligence nominee or health nominee but that individual is the chief engineer of the trump trend.

yes, there's a car dedicated to defense and one for sector but chief engineers head of ob. a different way to think about is that they are both the person who plans the flights in and out of all the airports and did make sure the planes don't hit each other. they are absolutely critical to driving the agenda. that is why this nominate mr. vought is a most dangerous nominee put forward by trump. he has a three-part plan. the first part of the plan is to cut the programs for families across the country. healthcare, housing, education, programs for children. that's the first part of the plan. the second part of the plan is to borrow a massive amount, multiple trillions, and run up the deficit. the third part of the plan is to take the money saved by cutting programs for families and the

money borrowed from the treasury to give tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. now, that plan has been re-emphasize three times. first of all he served in this very role as chief engineer director of omb at the end of the last drop administration and he puts forward the last budget for president trump and that exactly those three elements. and then he proceeded to run a think tank or he created his own little think tank and that think tank put forward the same three points. and then he became the chief architect of project 2025 which again emphasize three points. borrow massively, run up the deficit, cut programs or workers and give tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. and in the process he has shown complete disregard for the law. there's this fancy term, income. well, let's explain it this way. that congress decides how much can be stability program but mr.

vought is very frank saying i believe that's just the ceiling. i believe the president gets to decide how much is spent on each program. we had this argument back in 1974 when we had the budget and impoundment control act. we had this argument in 1996 when we had a single line veto budget line veto and it was struck down by the supreme court. this law is not in question but today he says he will continue to violate the law when he is in this position. and, in fact, it was a comet he helped direct on-screen that

the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. . mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call -- we're not? okay. thank you. mr. president, i think we all remember the situation just a few short months ago in the leadup to the election. democrat senators and senate candidates were declaring they would eliminate the filibuster or carvouts that render it meaningless. the democrat leader said the days of the filibuster were numbered, telling the crowd at the democrat national convention his party would be changing the route -- the rules to pass the democrats' federal takeover of elections. the filibuster, it seemed, was on its way out. fast forward to yesterday, mr. president. yesterday, it seems, there was a sudden change of heart, because yesterday every senate democrat,

the democrat leader, new democrat senators, long-serving democrat senators who expressed their desire to get rid of the filibuster, joined together and filibustered a bill. that's right, every democrat senator participated in a filibuster of yesterday's legislation. now, mr. president, i will leave aside the disturbing fact that democrats chose to unite to block a bill to protect living, breathing, newborn children born alived after an attempted abortion, but a lot of talk -- what i want to talk about today is democrats' apparent belief there should be one rule for democrats and another rule for everyone else. back in 2017, during president trump's first term, when republicans controlled the senate, 32 senate democrats, many of whom i might add are still serving today, joined a letter to senate leadership asking for preservation of the legislative filibuster. then democrats took power. and all of a sudden, democrats

started to finds the legislative filibuster a major inconvenience. they wanted to pass highly partisan legislation, like their federal takeover of elections, and they discovered the filibuster was getting in the way. now, republicans are in power again, and it seems democrats are back to supporting the filibuster. the only thing i can gather from that, mr. president, is that democrats think they should be free to pass any legislation they choose when they're in power, but the republicans should not. that the rules should apply when they serve the aims of the democrat party, and that the rules should be abolished whenever they interfere with democrats' far-left agenda. in short, that one party, the democrat party, should be making the decisions in this country. that's not a very democratic attitude, mr. president. it also betrays an elitism, a disdain for half the electorate that perhaps had something to do

with democrats' electoral defeat in november. now, mr. president, there's no doubt that the filibuster can sometimes be frustrating. i'm frustrated that we couldn't pass legislation yesterday to uphold basic human decency by requiring babies born alive after attempted abortion receive appropriate medical care. but the filibuster serves a crucial purpose. the founders intended the senate to be a counterbalance to the house. it was signed to be a more stable, thoughtful, more deli deliberative legislative body to check ill-considered or intemperate legislation or tyranny by the majority. and as time has gone on, the legislative filibuster is the senate rule that has had perhaps the greatest impact in preserving the founders' vision of the senate. the filibuster acts as a check on imprudent or ill-considered legislation. it forces discussion and

compromise. and critically, it ensures that americans whose party is not in power also have a voice in congress. preserving the filibuster is crucial to preserving the senate's checks and balances role in our system of government. now, mr. president, i expect the democrats will continue to display a renewed enthusiasm for the filibuster during this congress, and while i may strongly disagree with their choice of when to use it i will continue to defend their right to do so. keeping the senate the senate and ensuring it continues to fill the role and vision for -- envisioned for it by the founders is more important than temporary political gain. and i hope that when the day comes that democrats retake the senate, their time in the minority will have reminded them of the crucial role the filibuster plays and that they

will carry their newfound enthusiasm for the filibuster with them when they again find themselves in our shoes. mr. president, -- i'll be filing cloture on former congressman sean duffy's nomination to be secretary of transportation here shortly. yesterday, the commerce committee favorably reported congressman duffy's nomination in a 28-0 vote. in other words, unanimously. i hope we will be able to move this nominee quickly, as we did with secretary rubio, who was

also unanimously reported out of committee. congressman duffy is highly qualified for this position. he served five terms in the u.s. house of representatives. as the cochair of the great lakes task force, he played a role in advancing a number of transportation and infrastructure projects, and at his hearing last week he demonstrated his knowledge of the issues that will be his responsibility in this role. our colleague, senator baldwin, said that he is, and i quote, the right person for this job. there's no reason to delay this uncontroversial and qualified nominee. the democrats want to spend their nights and weekends taking votes on uncontroversial nominees, we can do it that way. but one way or the other, these nominees will be confirmed. so, mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 6. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye.

all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of transportation, sean duffy of wisconsin to be secretary. mr. thune: mr. president, i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of sean duffy, of wisconsin, to be secretary of transp transportation. signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to.

mr. thune: mr. president, i move to proceed to calendar number 3, h.r. 23. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 3, h.r. 23, an act to impose sanctions with respect to the international criminal court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute any protected person of the united states and its allies. mr. thune: mr. president, i send a cloture motion to the desk for the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 3, h.r. 23, an act to impose sanctions with respect to the international criminal court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the united states and its allies, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask consent the l reading of the names be waived.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i yield the floor. it's not a golden age for helping the people who need food stamps. it's not a golden age for people who need insulin to be cheaper. the golden age is for a limited few, unfortunately. you could not have a worse nominee any more powerful position than mr. vought. on the subject first, yes. [inaudible question]

>> we just got a hearing yesterday. it's all coming out. project 2025 are used to say had nothing the trump presidency. it has everything to do with the trump presidency. and i hope we will get some votes from their sites. it will hurt their constituents as much as anybody. yes. [inaudible question] >> it is still the i only for instant clean energy which i wrote in large part in the ira, is the law to impound those funds would be unconstitutional, absolutely. yes. [inaudible question] >> okay.

i want to stick to the subject. but on the subject pete hegseth is a utterly unqualified picky ranks up there with vought is one of the worst nominees that could be put forth. the defense department people's lives depend on it. civilians and, of course, the men and women in the armed services. and pete hegseth has shown itself that only incapable of running a large organization, he often shows himself incapable of showing up or showing up in weight where he could get anything done. he is so out of the mainstream and so unqualified for dod that i am hopeful we'll get our republican colleagues to join us. us. the ruby a vote this afternoon. yes. [inaudible question] look, there are some nominees

like rubio the current broad support. but to have a detailed discussion i some doubts about mr. ratcliffe taken when asked him how he would react if tulsi gabbard were put in charge of coming charges him in the dni. i think it is for a day or two, for a few hours to examine these nominees who has such power thoroughly, absolutely, absolutely. our idea is to let the whole truth come out. if they try to rush them through we don't want that to happen. yes. [inaudible question] >> then i will call on tim who has been her federal expert. to take a blanket brush across and say get rid of all telework is going to hurt millions and millions of americans who depend on these people doing their jobs. there are many ways telework is very for effective.

when you say get rid of all telework image want to take a dagger to the heart of federal workers and the federal government. you want to follow up? >> there is a hearing in the house not long ago last year where the opm director appeared before the house for the last time, and he revealed results of his study. the percentage of federal workers that telework is more than a% of private-sector workers that telework. why is that? what you ought to be focusing on is being effective and a little private employers have realized telework is really effective. just like we realized telehealth can be really effective. you can access course content via tele- platforms. why would you have an across the board ruled rejecting what is a best practice down when the private sector to do it? i have my caseworkers do a lot of telework because my tax expert for example, is in virginia in appellation and she

handles all of the tax concerns raised by virginians in the part of the state. her job as ahs been telework even when she's in the office she's interacting with constituents essentially via telework. that across the board thing is just designed to make people's s lighthearted, part of this trauma strategy but the real challenge with it is it leads to less effective service of our fellow americans which is what we want our federal workers to do. >> thanks, everybody.

bart jansen joins us now, the lack of news hundred people. start on the january 6th pardons. is there anyone who has been convicted of some crime related to january sixth that hasn't had their sins pardoned or commuted by president trump? >> that's right. it's all of them. the wording of the pardon was very broad. basically pardoning anyone associated with actions on january 6 at the capital with the exception of the 14 convocations and the city might review those come back and perhaps pardon those people that. >> what is accommodation could what's the difference? >> pardon is for relief entered release on the charges and in the punishment that stems from them. commutations basically a of the sentence. there were folks maybe hundreds of people in jail and so all in

prison and all were or are in the midst of being released. >> we've heard how the january 6th investigation with the biggest justice department investigations in justice department history. either cases still pending or are all of those now wiped away? >> as sender step over those charges are also being wiped out with the pardon. there was a trial underway in d.c. on monday and tuesday. they go to trial monday. on tuesday morning the judge without comment dismissed the case and so that was a father-son team and so the case was over. they said after it actually happened on tuesday when they heard trump's the announcement late monday that they cracked open a bottle of champagne to celebrate. so the trial, on the court action is also ending. >> host: you said the judge did it without, but through than judges have been making comments

leading up to january 20, and automation of trump and the expected clemency for january 6th, people have been convicted. what have some of those judges set? >> guest: they have been going through these cases for four years. they had seen the details of the accusations and, in fact, more than a thousand people were convicted. most my pleas and other come more than a thousand by guilty pleas and another 260 or so i contested trials. the judges even appointees expressed frustration with essentially freeing, ignoring, abandoning these cases particularly with a blanket pardon because this pardon just said anybody charged from january 6th riot would be

pardoned and typically with pardons most pardons are handled by an individual case-by-case review. that doesn't appear to have happen in this case and so judges expressing frustration from the bench as their completing cases issuing sentences because many of the defendants were asking hey, he's about to take office come he said he will pardon us. can't you postpone this to see how it turns out? the justice department lawyer said that speculative. we don't know what is going to do. he did, trump did what he said he is going to do and if all been part. >> host: the police unions that supported ay the senate will hold votes on two pivotal xabt nominees. first we will vote to advance the nomination of john ratcliffe to serve as cia director. i will respectfully vote no, not because of our political difference, which of course exists, but because i'm deeply

worried that mr. ratcliffe will be unable to stand up to people like donald trump and tulsi gabbard who are known to falsify intelligence. as cia director mr. ratcliffe will have to make decisions based on fact. sometimes these facts will lead to inconvenient conclusions for his superiors and the president. it's in those cases where truth, not fiction, not ideology, must prevail. and i have my doubts that mr. ratcliffe will be able to hold firm. most troubling about mr. ratcliffe were the answers i got from him about tulsi gabbard, president trump's nominee to serve as director of national intelligence. if confirmed ms. gabbard would oversee the cia and i think she would be disruptive for american security. if there is anyone who has not been fact based as you've

listened to her statements over the years is tulsi gabbard. she seems to make things up out of thin air. no one could be worse in a position of dni than someone who doesn't believingin facts. i told mr. ratcliffe he should urge mr. trump to drop her nomination. he couldn't report to somebody like tulsi gabbard in good conscious. she is too risky. she has a history of cheering america's adversaries. if confirmed i'm worried she'll push false intelligence for political ends. those are precisely the moments mr. ratcliffe will have to hold firm, reject what she says and go to the president and speak truth to power. his answers to my questions about that were unsatisfying, so i'm voting no, because it's such an important position. now on the hegseth vote, today the senate will vote to advance one of the most unqualified, erratic nominees for a major

position we have ever seen in america. no position in the cabinet carries the weight, the responsibility of secretary of defense. the secretary of defense is in charge of keeping us safe and keeping the men and women in our armed forces and the civilians safe. you need someone who has a steady hand. you need someone who has had experience in this kind of stuff. you need someone who when he shows up to a meeting, you're sure that he knows all the facts and is going to be able to conduct himself properly. if there is any cabinet that should be uncontroversial is the secretary of defense. unfortunately mr. hegseth is neither. he's neither trusted nor free of controversy, and i will strongly vote no. i want my colleagues to think about how absurd it is that this nominee has even made it to the floor. it's a shame that that has

happened. we are being asked to trust our armed forces to a man with a history of erratic behavior. one of the kindest words that might be used to describe mr. hegseth is erratic and that's a term you don't want at dod. he has a history of drinking, domestic abuse and no experience for leading an organization of any kind. the allegations that came out yesterday are even more rumming. people say, how do we know they're true? first, the person who did it has no strike against her. but, second, it just corroborates in an even worse way of what we've known about hegseth in the past. he has a clear problem of judgment, as you've seen by his statements. it's like saying your heart

surgeon surgeon has twitchy hands, but pill he'll let him do surgery on me. no one would do that. how on earth can america trust our safety and security to a man who has turned up to events and work inebriated. what if he shows up to work during a crisis? this is dangerous. if confirmed, he would be in charge of a workforce of over 300 people. what if his erratic behavior spills over to his job at the pentagon, a high-pressure job, and when people are having this behavior, usually high-pressure jobs makes them more, not less, erratic. what mystifies me so much is that there are so much other conservative defense leaders that president trump could have nominated, people i wouldn't agree with maybe ideologically on some of the issues that

affect secretary of defense, but people who would be capable of running the department. i think -- i know there are plenty of republican senators who would instantly make a better option than mr. hegseth. is pete hegseth really the best the republicans have to offer? how low, how low has this party come in making him the nominee? i don't believe he is the best. i don't believe he is close to the best. i will be voting with complete conviction, no. it is a risky roll of the dice that americans cannot afford, especially in such an important position. another of these pantheon of nominees -- not all are awful, but too many are -- is russell vought. with his nomination to be omb director, donald trump has made

it official -- project 2025 is coming to the white house. the man who was the chief cook and bottle washer for 2025, who pushed it, who endorsed it is now in one of the most powerful and sensitive positions in the government, omb, which has a say over all government programs. golden age? it's sure not going to be a golden age for the american people if mr. vought becomes the head of omb. it's one of the most important agencies in the government. they oversee every federal agency, every town, every locality, every family is is going to be affected. you want to get your drug prices lower? vought doesn't like that. look at 2025. you want to feed hungry kids? vought doesn't like that. look at 2025. you want to preserve and expand $30 insulin. vought doesn't like that. you want to make the tax system

fairer and not have tax cuts for the wealthy but help the middle class? vought doesn't like that. he wants it to go to the wealthy. he was in my office yesterday. i asked him, what part of 2025 would with you disagree with? he couldn't point to a single one. in this panoply of awful proposals, he couldn't name a single one he didn't like. he's also a proponent of impoundment of funds. it may be unconstitutional, but it could cause real damage, as the cases would go through the courts when he sued for it. that means he can pick what he doesn't like and just end it even if congress has voted for it in a bipartisan way. so this man would be devastating to the families of america if he got into office. i hope my republican colleagues will look at his record and vote against him. nobody can claim to be pro-worker and then vote for

russell vought. on the e.o.'s in the agenda. no golden age is coming to america unless of course you're very rich, well-connected or own a drug or oil company. if thor have rossive a bull -- with the ferocity of a bulldozer donald trump has spent his first few days dismantling things permit he has halted leasing for wind energy projects in the outercontinent shelf putting at risk investments and killing good-paying jobs in my state of new york, out on long island particularly. he can just -- he thinks he can cut them off.

of course we're going to fight that and people will fight it in the courts. but president trump yesterday was out there touting a new program, a new proposal by some foreign -- a foreign investor to create more energy because we need it. but he says no clean energy, no offshore wind. is that ridiculous? it's robbing peter to pay paul. it is talking out of both sides is of your mouth. it is one hand doing one thing, the other hand doing the opposite. it is devastating and we're going to fight that proposal tooth and nail because it is so important to new york, to long island, to america. he's repealed the biden-era policies that make it easier for americans to enroll in the aca. 20 million americans pay less for health care. that's in the executive orders. get riffed it. and in his first week in office, he's killed policies that provide a year of postpar tull

care for -- postpartum moms. here it is the same story with our republicans. what i want to leave my republican clearly, who are now talking about budget and debt ceiling and all of that, with a thought -- food for thought. all this plan and agonizing about one bill or two bills is a sideshow. eventually it will be clear that they can't pass anything without democratic help. republicans have spent their entire time talking among themselves about tax breaks and radical budget cuts when they should be spending more time with democrats talking about bipartisan policies that do not prioritize the ultra wealthy. thus far at least republicans haven't even pretended to be bipartisan. instead of indulging their h

hard-right-inside log of tax cuts, republicans should put the needs of ordinary americans first. make a golden era indeed, but for the middle class and working people, not for the powerful and privileged. we look forward to them coming and working with us on these issues. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. barrasso: first i ask unanimous consent that senator durbin and i be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes each prior to the scheduled roll call vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent also that the mandatory quorum call in relation to the ratcliffe nomination be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today this senate will confirm john ratcliffe to be the director of the central intelligence agency. this is a win for our national security. frankly, this should have been done two days ago, but democrats

unnecessarily delayed this important vote. john ratcliffe is undeniably qualified for the job. he is going to lead the cia without bias and with the safety of the american people being his top priority. once the senate confirms john ratcliffe, we will move to consider the nomination of pete hegseth to be secretary of defense. america needs a strong, intimidating, and lethal military. our men and women in uniform, they want to serve in that kind of a military. they didn't join to be joining a safe space or a faculty lounge. they volunteered to serve in the united states armed forces, the greatest fighting force in human history. our nation is counting on president trump and our military to defend america and to restore peace through strength. the problem is, our servicemembers are trapped in a

broken system with misguided values. today we face the most serious, significant recruiting and morale crisis since the creation of the all-volunteer military. the military in 2023 missed its recruiting goals by almost 40,000 people. the pentagon says that they met their goals in 2024. you know how they did that? they conveniently lowered the goals from the 2023 number. easy to make a mark when you lower the bar. according to the department of defense, more than half of all young americans say they've never, ever thought of serving in our nation's military. in addition to the recruiting problem and the morale problem, we also at the pentagon today have an accountability problem. the department of defense last month failed its seventh audit in a row. we need to change course at the

pentagon. we need to get the pentagon back on track, and president trump has selected pete hegseth to do just that. as pete said at his hearing last week, we don't need more bureaucracy at the top, we need more war fighters empowered at the bottom. as a decorated combat veteran, pete brings a fresh set of eyes to the pentagon. he's competent, knowledge being and courageous. he knows the cost of war and he knows the price of weakness. he clearly loves our nation. he loves this country. he is a champion for our servicemembers and their families and he wants to continue serving the country. that's why i believe pete hegseth is the right choice to lead our military. at the senate armed services committee, pete answered hard questions with clarity and with resolve. pete was clear about our mission and his mission. it is, as he said, to make the

pentagon, he says, quote, laser-focused on lethality, meritocracy, war fighting, accountability, and readiness. ultimately, the senate armed services committee voted in favor of pete's nomination. unfortunately, that wasn't enough for the democrats. no, no. they decided to then run their desperate playbook of distract and delay so that they could try to search and sdroichlt -- search and destroy. nat senate republicans are not going to be stopped by democrats' games. perhaps no other cabinet position is more important to the safety of our nation than the secretary of defense. the american people deserve to have a secretary of defense in place and on the job. now, mr. president, on a related matter, on confirmation here -- our work on confirmation continues and it will continue

later today. senate republicans are ready to vote on more of president trump's nominees, and it is a strong roster. kristi noem is the nominee to be secretary of homeland security. she will secure our border. scott bessent is the nominee to be secretary of the treasury. he will haven'ten our economy -- he will strengthen the economy and stop the democrats' $4 trillion tax increase. sean duffey is the nominee to be secretary of transportation to the fix our nation's crumbling infrastructure. the commerce committee was unanimous in appellate court -- in support of his nomination. all of these nominees received bipartisan support in committees. the senate has an obligation to confirm them quickly. to deny a president his cabinet is wrong, especially when we're talking about the national security touchlite any delay -- national security team. any delay denies a homeland

security security secretary. it denies the country a treasury secretary at a time when painfully high prices are hurting families and hurting small businesses. it denies the country a secretary of transportation when our ports and our airlines need urgent attention. the president deserves to have his team in place, and senate republicans will overcome the roadblocks and we will confirm them. the choice for democrats is simple -- the easy way or the hard way. mr. president, we are going to get them confirmed. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democrat whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, the u.s. continues to face a host of serious challenges around the world that demand serious leaders. this is recognized by members of both political parties, where country rises above party politics. in fact, over the last three

decades alone, every single senate-confirmed secretary of defense but one has received broad bipartisan support. so i'd like to take a moment to share my reservations about the nomination of pete hegseth to serve as our next secretary of dover. from the outset, he failed to position himself with someone as a strategic plan to face the threats of our nation, to equip our war fighters with the technology of the future or support them and their families with the benefits they've earned and deserved. aid aside from serving in the naurpd for some years, mr. -- in the national guard for some years, he lacks the necessary qualifications to lead the department of defense. imagine the size of that responsibility. more than 3.5 million servicemembers and civilian employees, a budget of $900 billion a year, and hundreds of thousands of platforms and assets. he has over the years, and even during his confirmation hearing,

disparaged women serving in the military and questioned their right to adequate health care. he advocated for pardons for war criminals and questioned the rules of engagement that are designed to protect civilians from harm, and he exhibited a stunning lack of basic knowledge on the threats our country faces. this is to say nothing of the numerous troubling personal allegations against him, relating to the use of alcohol, personal misconduct, financial mismanagement, and more, all of which raises questions about his fitness and vulnerability to serve in this high position. this is an unusual situation. i would say the armed service committee and department of defense are two of the most bipartisan efforts i've seen in my time in washington. of it is customary to have both political parties in lockstep together, working for the defense of this nation as they should, but for some reason mr. hegseth has decided that he

would break with tradition and not meet with the democratic members of the armed service committee, aside from the ranking member, jack reed, of the state of rhode island. that is unfortunate. the bipartisanship should be honored, even if it's difficult and challenging. unfortunately, mr. hegseth did not agree with that position. it is for these reasons that every democrat on the senate armed services committee voted against advancing his nomination, and i will oppose him on the floor. mr. president, on a separate topic, as president trump begins his second term, i'm concerned about his immigration policy, pardons for violence insurrectionists of january 6, and the grifters seeping into the white house. in each of these areas, i'm prepared to fight with every tool at my disposal to stop abuses that harm americans. i also believe we must find areas of agreement where we can, and one of those areas could be addressing the astronomical cost of prescription drugs.

a real-life issue facing american families. thankfully, last week president biden announced 15 new drugs that medicare will now bargain for to lower prices for seniors across america. remember, those savings are only possible because of the passage of the inflation reduction act, which did not receive a single republican vote. there's more work to do, though. on average, patients in the united states of america pay four times more, four times more than people in similar countries for the exact same drugs. what's going on here? the drug is made in america and sold at four times the cost in america as is charged by the same companies overseas. why is the united states such an outlier? one reason is advertising. have you noticed any ads for drugs on television lately? if you haven't, you don't have a tv. the united states is one of only two industrialized countries in

the world that allows pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television. what is the other country that allows this? new zealand. the united states and new zealand. you know these ads i'm talking about, catchy jingles, flashy images, patients rock climbing, swimming, dancing. big pharma spends, get this now, $6 billion every year to flood the airways about the latest wonder drug. why do they spend so darn much money on drug ads? because it increases their profits. big pharma thinks if they can pummel you with enough ads, not only will you be able to spell xarelto but tell your doctor this is the blood thinner you've been waiting for. don't take my word for it. here's what the american medical association says about these ads we're inundated with every single darn day on our television, quote, direct-to-consumer advertising inflates demand for new and

expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate. so when president biden announced a list of 15 drugs that will be negotiated for discounts, i imagine most americans already recognize many of their names -- ozempic, treligy, iibranz. many drug manufacturers spend money just getting you to ask your doctor about these drugs. $22 billion was spent last year on those same drugs, heavily advertised medications. a recent headline read, i quote, robert f. kennedy wants to ban drug ads on tv. it wouldn't be easy. it discussed the first challenges that pharma would raise as a result of that. while i have strong concerns with president trump's health nominee, i'm glad this administration wants to join me to tackle these promotional ads.

we already have a credible strategy on the table. for the last seven or eight years, i've introduced bipartisan legislation to crack down on these drug ads on tv and other places. senator chuck grassley, republican of iowa, has been my partner. when you turn on the evening news, get this, one third of all commercial time is for prescription drugs. think you're seeing a lot of ads? one-third of all commercial time, prescription drugs. the average american trying to avoid it if you wish, but the average american sees nine drug ads a day. i bet it's more. it seems like more. with billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information. all of this information that is being tossed at you, most of it at a mile a minute gibberish, but they do keep in the darkness one important factor -- they never mention the cost, the price of the drug. in 2023, illinois company abbvie

spent 315 million drawers on tv ads for rinvoq. i've got an awed here -- i've got an ad here. rinvoq is an ek zema and arth arthritis drug. they don't tell you, the cost is $6100 a month. my staff just corrected me before i came to the floor, they said, you missed the latest increase. it's now up to $6400 a month, for rinvoq. hang on, i'm sure you'll see one of those ads in no time at all. senator grassley and i think it's time to end big pharma's secrecy on the cost of these drugs. if they're going to advertise the drug and rattle off gibberish, i love the one that says don't take owe t -- don't take otezla if you're allergic to otezla. that never would have dawned on

me. they tell you everything under god's green earth, except the basic honest issue -- how much does it cost? that's why today we're introducing bipartisan legislation to require price disclosures and direct-to-consumer drug ads. our plan is simple. it passed the senate in 2018. 88% of american people support this kind of disclosure. in fact, after we worked to advance this measure, donald trump, then president of the united states, said, i want to make sure his quote is accurate, from his first term in office, big announcement today, drug companies have to come clean about their prices in tv ads. president trump said, historic transparency for american patients is here. if drug companies are ashamed of those prices, lower them. well, i may disagree with the president on many things, but i certainly agree with his statement there. big pharma hates being honest with patients about the true price of their drugs.

they fear it might cut into their colossal, historic profits. with the support of president trump, senator grassley and i believe this will be the year we finally pass bipartisan legislation to bring sunshine to these ads and to actually lower health costs. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of john ratcliffe, of texas, to be director of the central intelligence agency, signed by 17 senators. 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 nomination of john ratcliffe, of texas, to be director of the central intelligence agency shall be brought to a close.

the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. curtis. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth. my administration has begun the largest the regulation campaign in history are exceeding record-setting efforts of my last term. in total, the biden administration imposed $80000 in additional regulatory costs the

average american household over the last four years. i promised to eliminate ten regulations for every regulation which will put many thousands of dollars back in the pockets of american families. to further unleash majorities in the house and senate which we took a long with the presidency reported past the largest tax cut in american history including massive tax cuts for workers and families and tax cuts for domestic producers and manufacturers working with the democrats on getting an extension of the original tax cuts by reading any paper. my message to every business is very double, a make your product in america give you the lowest taxes of any nation are not.

if you don't make the products in america, which is your prerogative, then you will have to pay a tariff which will direct hundreds of millions and trillions of dollars are especially in our economy and pay down debt. under the trump administration is no better place to create better jobs, and right here in the good old usa. americans member can see this in your wonderful room you gathered together, so many friends and americans ignored confidence soaring, in many decades, maybe not at all. a small business optimism and skyrocketed by 40 points in a single month, the highest ever,

there's never been anything like that so 100 to $200 million investment in the u.s. economy because of the election results in two days ago open a.i. announced 500 million deal investment into a.i. infrastructure and trillions into the united states. today saudi arabia investing 600 million in america. a fantastic guy to round out to 1 trillion. we've been very good to them and i will ask saudi arabia to bring down the cost of oil which i'm surprised they didn't show a lot of love.

russia ukraine were would end immediately. right now the price is high enough, they should have done it long ago and they are responsible for what's taking place and billions of lazard lost. i'll demand interest rates dropped immediately. interest rates should follow us. it is the historic victory in its light will nobody throughout the world. they say is light all over the world and they understand how great the future will be under our leaders, america is back

open for business. this week i'm taking action to stop the invasion at our southern border. they allowed to come in at levels would never seen before. ridiculous. i saw today importantly a national emergency on the border, all entry of illegal order crossers began returning trespassers back from where they came and that has already started. active duty at the border to assist in the invasion. we will not allow our territory to be violated after four long years the united states is drawing and sovereign and a beautiful nation again. a strong sovereign nation and

police report america as a free nation once again. i signed an executive order to stop all censorship and no longer our government will label the speech of our own citizens as misinformation or disinformation which are the favorite words of sensors and those who wish to stop exchange of ideas and progress. we saved in america and saved it strongly with another historic executive order and against politicians and restored equal and impartial rule of law. my administration abolished all discriminatory diversity, equity and inclusion and these are policies that are nonsense.

great supreme court decision, america will once again become a merit-based country. merit-based country enough made it official in the united states that there are only two genders. male and female. we will have no man participating in women's sports and transgender operations. as we restore common sense in america, we move quickly to bring back strength and peace and stability and i'm going to ask all nations to increase spending to 5% of gdp which is what it should have been years ago. only 2% and most nations didn't pay. i insisted they pay and they did

because the united states paid the difference which is unfair to the united states. many things have been unfair for many years for the united states. nineteen negotiated cease-fire agreement in the middle east which wouldn't have happened as i think most of the people in the room no. hostages began to return this week to their families and it's a beautiful site they started coming back on sunday and a peace settlement between russia and ukraine are hopefully underway. millions of soldiers are being killed. nobody seen anything like it since world war ii. millions of russians ukrainians,

nobody has seen anything like it. here in america we have big events coming up. 250th anniversary of america's founding. i'm so honored to be president during that period we also have the world cup is there someplace i think. we have the olympics coming up which i was instrumental in getting my first term and who would know skipping a term i would get the olympics. the stroke of luck or whatever you call it i will be president during the world cup and olympics 50th anniversary so that's a big event so we've

accomplished more in four days, we've been working days and other administrations accomplished in four years and we are just getting started. it is amazing to, it's been incredible. our nation has suffered greatly but we are going to bring it back and we get greater, bigger, stronger and better than ever before. i would have been there except i thought it would bedu quick bute will get there one day but i do appreciate, i heard the audience is fantastic. i will be taking questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr.

president for that powerful speech. next year will be even better because you will have a wall. >> thank you very much. >> you open up part interaction. the most distinguished business people in the world. let me start with somebody you know my chairman and ceo so the floor is yours. >> mr. president, i'm sure the crown prince of saudi arabia will be glad you gave this speechn, today.

you had the busiest four days in anybody can imagine and congratulations for that. my question is about some of the things i observed. a terrific world and lots of people, as usual. a lot of the europeans business people express enormous frustration and they attribute slower growth rates because of the numerous factors, especially because of regulations. he's taken a completely

different approach in this area great if you could explain the theory of what you're doing and how you're going to do it and what you expect the outcome to be, i'd appreciate that. >> thank you and congratulations. you have had an amazing career. you are very inspirational to a lot of people. i want to talk about the. i've had friends and leaders of countries in my first term and i like them a lot but they are very frustrated because of the time everything seems to take to get approved.

a quick example my beautiful private life got all these things happening. i had a simple life but when i had that simple life, i had a big project in ireland and had to get approval on something that would be even better and i got the approval from ireland and appeared weak and was a very efficient good approval and they informed me the problem is you have to get it from the you and we think that will take five to six years and they said you have to be kidding and this is before politics and i said it's not that important, i don't want to go five or six years. what happened good for the project. i said you, speeded up and they

said it's five to six years just to get an approval. i realize the first time that i was involved with the eu, i realize it's a problem and i didn't even bother applying to do it or if i did, i folded quickly. i have to be very accurate. i don't want to be criticized. i want to be very accurate. i don't think i did but if i did, i pulled it right away we just couldn't wait five or six years so a lot of people claim the problem the eu treatise badly.

it is very substantial. they don't take our cars get they send us cars by the millions. non- economic or nonmonetary, they make it difficult to bring products and to rehab hundreds of billions of dollars with the eu and nobody's happy and we are going to do something about it so they want to compete better and you can go through the approval process faster so i'm

trying to be constructive because i love zero but the process is cumbersome and treat the united states very unfairly. i got a call from major airlines he said help us, landing in europe is brutal. it's so unfair. how does it compare to china? he said it's much worse. the other thing is they took court cases with apple and supposedly want to case they want 15 or 16 going from apple

do we have for complaints that. >> will now go to one of your friends. >> mr. president the largest company in the world is quite clear our company and u.s.

invest in projects. europe and the gas price and it

is important for europe's a lot of people do have that problem so we would absolutely do that one of the things i love that massive plans siena under environmental separation in in

the next 14 or 15 they were in love like a decade construction industry a total investment of 45 to 30 billion. they couldn't get i got them in less than week. they announced it was done they couldn't believe it. the only one like a gun was me that they had nothing to do with

it. nobody called me about it, i just heard it was a problem for years. very important so the more you do remove the lower the prices. we will get rapid approval like the a.i. plan and i will be a very big thing. electric generating abilities i will get the approval and i can get it done myself. we need double the energy we currently have in the united states. a.i. to be really is vegas china

and others i will give the declarations. i think it was largely idea. it's not that they were not smart but what i wanted to do connected and they said you are kidding. as of now, i'm not kidding. we'll have to look into the grid. they wouldn't have a way to get electricity so we are going to allow them at a rapid pace and fill it with anything they want.

while gas and a pipe kids blown up or for some reason doesn't work, there are some companies in the u.s. by the plants so that something a lot of people didn't know about. might get a little different shaped but it's very strong as a backup and wouldn't cost much more you have more : anybody their own electric generating facilities. we are going to get very rapid approvals.

>> thank you so much. another co you know will bank of america. >> good afternoon congratulations. obviously a great. we came here and walked and you engage about policies and procedures. this week was eventful. a wave of orders on many matters. a clear focus on growth, prosperity and market growth, a good bond market. how do you think about is and how fast they come out and

balance with those record of stock price of american appreciation. >> bring down inflation. it will bring up jobs and a lot of companies will be looking at. there was 40% but i got it down to 21%. if you look at state and cities they are much higher. i got down to 21% and now we will bring it down 2115% if you make your product in the u.s. so just about the lowest rate of 21 is on the low side worldwide. fifteen is about as low as it gets in the lowest of the large rich powerful country by far so we are going to bring it down if you make your product and the

usa so a tremendous buzz and probably going back to the one year deduction. we did that originally and i was amazing. it builds up over a period of time and it expires but we are going to go back to the renewal and get democrats to approve it but if they didn't, i don't know how they can survive with 35% tax increase because that's what it would be i think they are and we are working with them pretty well. it's hard for political group to say in charge 45% more so i think we're in good shape we have a reduction for businesses small business. we will bring it down to 15%. if you, i hope you open your

bank because service say the things are not allowing them to do business and that included the bank of america. federal regulators mandated that. open your banks to conservatives because what you are doing is wrong. >> we look forward to sponsoring the world cup so thank you for getting back to the united states. >> thank you. >> will allow go to executive chairman, one of the big european banks. >> congratulations on that historic victory.

one of the largest. [applause] >> that's coming. [laughter] >> we are a big investment and we have 12,000 employees and one of the largest owners watched a bank vault open bank banks have a pivotal role in the economy and accelerate growth and help many customers in the united states. focus on regulation. what are your priorities?

how fast will this happen? >> are going to because i'm with quickly. it's all taken affect and will have a huge effect only economy money was being wasted and that was perpetrated and never even took of course and energy or the environment 12 years has come and gone.

i can't say publicans, for publicans from but it's a tremendous waste of money. we have the cleanest water yet the most productive economy. the most productive economy until all the, we had the most productive in our country to our. everybody from china to liberty else and with what we have learned and other things in place we can far surpass that. one thing we are demanding for

the nation and we are not going to have that. we can't do it. if you are state, we will have to but canada has been very tough over the years and it's not there we should have 250 billion-dollar deficit. we don't need them to make our cars to make a lot of. we have more than anybody so mexico, i think we are dealing with lexical pretty well. we just want to be treated fairly because it's hardly a nation in the world and the blame it on us and politicians probably mostly stupidity but

you could also say other reasons but mostly stupidity they allow other nations to take advantage of the u.s. we can't allow that to happen anymore. it's a small but when you compare the assets. we just want debt obliterated and we can do that fairly rapidly. a lot of things will happen. good things will happen for the things in the world. one thing very important out like speak with president putin to end its not from the standpoint of the economy are anything but millions of lives are being wasted. beautiful young people are being shot in the battlefield. very flat land as i said.

there's no hiding. i'm not talking economics and that's not including the people killed one of the cities are being knocked down building by building likewise in the middle east we've made a lot of progress and that will come along pretty well. >> most consequential relationships in the world, 20% of the global economy, almost half of the global gdp and xi

jinping we heard you had a good discussion under your leadership. >> he called me but i see through it. we will have a good relationship. repent having a massive deficit and biden a lot of to get out of hand. it is an unfair relationship we have deficits that are very big

i like the president xi very much and have a good relationship, very straight was covid coming in the obviously strained it for a lot of people but we always had a great relationship i would say and look forward to doing very well china and getting along with china. hopefully china can the war with russia and ukraine and a great deal of power with the situation and we will work with them and i mentioned during the phone conversation with president xi jinping, hopefully we can work together and get that stopped. we would like to see denuclearization. we were talking about our two countries in china would have come along. china would have a smaller

nuclear field but they are catching it over the next four or five years. president putin really likes the idea of cutting way back on nuclear and china liked it. nuclear and destructive capability is something we want to talk about today, it is too depressing so we want to nuclear rise and it's very possible. president putin wanted, he and i wanted to do it. we had a good conversation with china, they would have been involved and an unbelievable thing for the planet. >> a peace agreement with

ukraine and russia by then. >> you will have to russia. this is a war that should never have started. there was never even talk about it. i knew there was no way he was going to going and bad things were said. a lot of demolition sites. far more people have died reported. when you look at the city that's

become a demolition and they say one was injured, many were killed, that was my business. big powerful buildings and there were a lot of people in those buildings and they were injured so i think you'll find many more people killed in ukraine but if you look now, so many people being killed are soldiers facing each other with guns, rivals and drones, the new form of warfare, drones. you see the field, nobody wants to see it. >> thank you very much.

the underlying joining us and appreciate it. [applause] nomination. the clerk: nomination, central intelligence agency, john ratcliffe of texas to be director. map

. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: mr. president, there is no right that is more sacred to americans than the first amendment right to liberty of conscience, to liberty of worship, to liberty of free expression. these rights, mr. president, are more than words that are written on a piece of parchment. these rights salem commitments that americans make to one another, commitments that undergurd our society, that establish -- that establish the moral foundation and basis, that testify to the world that we are a society built on liberty. we are a society built on conscience. we are a society built on the right of individuals to follow the call of god on their lives, to respond to that call as they feel led and as they see fit

within of course the bounds of the law. these right, mr. president, this foundational right to the liberty of conscience, the freedom of religious worship, the freedom to follow and respond to god, this is what establishes us most fundamentally as a free nation. this is what gives us our moral character as a nation. and it is what has defined us as a nation, the largest christian nation in the world since our founding. but i have to say, mr. president, no administration in the history of this country has assaulted these rights more deliberately, more fervently, more grotesquely than the biden administration. for four long years, this administration carried out one persecution after another against people of faith. it started during the covid era with their shutdowns and lockdowns when they targeted religious communities, angelle cals, catholics and orthodox jews. it continued with their use of statutes to go after christians

and other religious believers who objected to abortion. mr. president, i want to draw attention today, i want to draw the attention of this body today, to draw the attention of the american people today to the plight of just a few americans, 20 or more americans who are in prison even now because of the persecution of the biden administration. because of their choice to violate that solemn pledge that americans make to one another, because of their choice to target the first amendment rights of law-abiding freedom loving peaceful americans. i'm talking about people like mark hauk. mark from pennsylvania, here he is with his family at mass. a man of faith, a man of family, a man of work and commitment and responsibility whose crime, whose crime, according to the last administration, was to take one of his young sons to an abortion clinic and there to

stand peacefully to pray, to sing, to engage with those who wanted to talk about the alternatives to abortion. and what did mark do when a proabortionist came and shoved his young son? mark defended his young son. the biden administration sent an fbi swat team to his door in the early morning hours. why? just to terrorize him. to terrorize these children. to send a message to religious believers and pro-lifers all over this country, don't you dare exercise your first amendment rights. don't you dare speak up in favor of life. don't you dare take a stand. they took his case all the way to trial where, i'm glad to report, he was swiftly acquitted. completely exonerated. mr. president, other americans have not been so fortunate. i think of bef lynn williams, 33 years old, from tennessee originally. she has a remarkable life story. she started a ministry that

specializes in care for the homeless and for those who are living rough on america's streets. in follows from her own incredible personal transformation. she dropped out of high school when she was just 15 years old. she had two abortions herself and was later arrested for money laundering. and then she met jesus christ, became a christian, changed her life, decided to dedicate her life to the service of others, to get dead -- dedicate her life to those like the homeless who have nowhere to turn, to those on the streets who have nowhere to go and yes to those mothers like she did at a young age struggled with an unexpected pregnancy. those mothers who felt as she did at a young age that there was no hope. so bevelin found ministries that would reach out to these young women, serve these young women. would did the biden administration do to her? because she had the temerity to exercise her first amendment rights, because she went to an

abortion clinic and there sang and prayed and worshipped, because she there told women who were coming into the clinic that there really were alternatives, that life didn't have to be this way, because she told her own personal story, she was prosecuted, prosecuted by a federal court and sentenced to 41 months in prison. and what was her supposed crime? she leaned on a doorway in a manner that hurt the hand of a staff member. let me say that again. she leaned on a doorway in a manner that hurt the hand of a staff member. for this, mr. president, this amazing african american woman was sentenced to 41 months in prison. 41 months. i think of lauren handy. she's 31 years old from alexandria, virginia. lauren was one of two individuals who in 2022

discovered a box of 115 fetal remains here in washington, d.c., 115 pieces of remains of aborted babies, a number of them late-term abortions, not permitted to happen under federal law. babies who had come to term and had been killed and whose remains had then been put into boxes and discarded like so much common trash. they came to be known as the d.c. five. lauren helped discover them. lauren also dedicated her life at even her young age to serving mothers in need, to helping those who had no hope, and what was she given in return? in august of 2023, she was prosecuted under the so-called faith act and sentenced to 57 months, the longest prison sentence under this federal statute ever.

i think of jean marshall, 77 years old, lifelong nurse from boston, massachusetts, in her 30's she began a ministry using her nursing skills of reaching out to mothers who were dealing with unexpected preg-seas -- pregnances, she stood outside of abortion clinics, talking to mothers who wanted to talk, helping them find resources and alternative medical care. she was prosecuted by this last administration for exercising her first amendment rights for nothing more, mr. president, than trying to save the lives of unborn children, for calling out, for fulfilling her duty as a nurse, for helping those in need. for doing what she had been doing for 40 long years, this administration, the biden administration took her to court, pros cued her and

sentenced her to 24 months in prison. 24 months. mr. there's jonathan darnell, from kentucky, he's he's a former u.s. officer, he's a veteran of iraqi freedom. he started out with a computer science degree and with a promising future where he could make a lot of money but he decided to serve his country and when he was finished with his service honorably, he decided to try to provide resources for those who were in need and rescue the thnt unborn and help the mothers who were in a period of crisis and need, and this, mr. president, for his service to his country, for the love, the innocent unborn and the helpless in our society, he was sentenced to 24 months in prison. there's james jastro, he's 27 years old. he was protesting peacefully

outside of a nashville clinic alongside his sister and alongside others, again, offering the women there alternatives, asking them if they could help in any way, he was given three months in prison followed by three months of house arrest and probation and then there is eva adell. she is 89 years old. she is a survivor of a concentration camp in eastern europe. her mother was kidnapped by the soviets after the second world war and she and her siblings were sent to a concentration camp in yugoslavia. they endured and the hope and faith she found during that time led her to this country and she ministered to women in crisis. it gave her a voice for the innocent, for the voiceless and

no one who could defend them and the innocent unborn. so she began years and years to the faithful witness of the hope of life and faithful work for trying to provide for mothers in crisis and help and alternatives to medical care. here's what she was doing when she was arrested. she was singing hymns in a clinic hallway from a wheelchair. that's right. she was arrested for singing hymns in a clinic hallway from a wheelchair. this concentration camp survivor, 89 years old, immigrant to this country, was put in prison, federal prison, by the last administration because she sang hymns from a wheelchair. mr. president, i cannot begin to express -- words do not capture the insut of what this administration has done. and when you consider who the biden administration saw fit -- saw fit to pardon while they were prosecuting and persecuting

these gad americans, joe biden on -- good americans, joe biden on his final days in office, commuted the sentence of al vevera torres, he pled guilty to sexual assault and murder of laura hobbs, of crystal tobias, age 9. this is who joe biden saw fit to give pardon to and to waive the rule of law for or there's kaboni savage, a drug lord, he was convicted of killing four children. this last administration chose to reward and those it persecuted, it is hard not to feel rage. this is a grotesque abuse of the conscience of this country. this is a grotesque assault on

the principles of this country. that is why, mr. president, i have urged president donald trump to pardon all of these pro-life prisoners unjustly persecuted, unjustly targeted, unjustly imprisoned by the corrupt biden administration, and i do mean corrupt. from a man who used his power illegitimately to pardon his own family, to pardon his own son, to excuse his own kin of wrongful, willful looeltys -- illegalities, who sent concentration camp survivors to prison because they spoke up for life, it does not get morally worse than that, morally debased any more than that, mr. president. and so, this is a time to turn the page. more than that. this is a time to right a wrong.

president trump can turn the chapter on this dark period of our history. he can right the wrongs that this last administration perpetrated. he can begin to restore the requirements that the conscience of our country puts in front of us. mr. president, he can, again, renew the commitment that is found right there in our constitution. that commitment to honor liberty of conscience, to honor the right to follow god, to live out our faith peaceably, which is what these pro-life prisoners, still prisoners, were doing. and so i urged him, i urged president trump from this floor to pardon these americans unjustly persecuted, unjustly prosecuted, unjustly condemned, i ask him to pardon them and to provide that moral clarity and leadership without which we cannot hope to lead the free world. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, it seems like a long time ago that we had the general election on november 5. it seems like a lot of water under the bridge, whatever your met for might be -- metaphor

might be. but we do know with clarity that this election was a referendum on the policies of the biden administration and on the direction that they had chosen for the country. and the vast majority of americans believe, according to public opinion polls, that the country was heading in the wrong direction. and so if you think about it, one of the great strengths of democracy in our great republic is when people feel like the country is heading this the wrong direction, they have the power to change it, and, indeed, they did by electing president trump and republican majorities in the house and senate on november 5. over the last four years, we know that people in my state of texas and across the country have been living under the burden of high prices and high

interest rates, almost exclusively caused by reckless excessive spending by the federal government. i had a chance to question russ vought who will be the next director of management and budget and he confirmed what milton told us a long time, this is the consequence of excess federal spending. and when you think about the gasoline that the biden administration poured on the fire of inflation and what it did to decrease its standard of living for people in my state and across the country, it is a tragedy. and then the federal reserve, of course doing their job trying to figure out how do you dafrp down inflation -- damp down inflation using the tools they have. they've raised interest rates and then of course everything became more expensive from a

home mortgage to buying a car, if you were a farmer or rancher, the cost of your inputs into your next crop are higher because of the cost of borrowing. so i couldn't be more excited about president trump's administration and this new direction for the country, what he called a new golden age of prosperity. so i was thrilled also to happen to meet with and get to know some of the people that i did not know in his cabinet. fortunately the president wisely chose kleeh texas -- chose three texans in his cabinet and i had the opportunity to introduce rob to be the head of the agric agriculture. i didn't know all of them. so it was great to get to know

them. people like scott besent, nominated to head up his team at the department of treasury. howard lutnick as secretary of commerce and russ vought who will lead for a second time the office of management and budget. these three gentlemen bring a wealth of experience and expertise and i have no doubt america will be better off with them at the helm assisting president trump during his administration. as i mentioned, howard lutnick was one of the individuals i got to know a little bit better who had been tapped for secretary of commerce, and of course mr. lutnick is well known in financial circles, having been a fabulously successful business man. he successfully led organizations in the financial

services industry for decades. and at first glance people may assume, well, this is just another rich guy serving in the trump cabinet, but there is much more to the story about howard lutnick than initially meets the eye, and i just want to tell that story just briefly. howard and his wife have four children, and he kuwait literally would -- quite literally would not be with us today if it weren't for his family. on september 11, 2001, in new york, where they live, was the first day of school, of kindergarten, for his son kyle. and howard, like a good father, was going to take his son to school, and so he was going to be a little late to his office

at canter fitzgerald. canter fitzgerald, his company, was located in the world trade center. and woe all remember the -- and we all remember the tragic story of 9/11, what happened that day. more than two-thirds of canter fitzgerald's employees, howard lutnick's company, including his own brother, were killed that day. howard told me in my office, he said these were my friends. he said i've always made a point of hiring people, working with people who i know personally and can trust. and so his friends, his employees, two-thirds of them, including his brother, were killed that day. it's hard to fathom what a profound loss that must be.

as anybody can imagine, this company, now having lost two-thirds of its employees, was in a vulnerable state and many expected them to close shop. yet in the midst of this personal tragedy and with the future uncertain, howard picked up the pieces and rebuilt canter fitzgerald. this is a man, unlike most men, a person of heroic character. there's no doubt in my mind that howard lutnick will be well suited to help rebuild the american economy and help put the country back on electrical. -- on track. he gave a portion to cantor fitzgerald to his employees, something he was not obligated

to do in order to get them back on the right track. in addition to mr. lutnick, president trump has tapped other impressive individuals to lead his economic agenda. last week i had the pleasure of speaking with scott bessent in the senate finance committee on which i serve. one of the issues we discussed during the hearing was something we all care about which is the threat of the chinese communist pa party. mr. bessent named china as one of america's biggest challenges which should come as no surprise to anyone here in the senate. we all know, for example, that chinese fentanyl is the number one cause of death for young people in america between the age of 18 and 45. we all know that china is conducting joint military operations with russia and continues to assert excessive and illegal maritime boundary

claims in the south china sea, threatening a regional conflict that may not be confined to a region. president xi, the president of the peoples republic of china and head of the chinese communist party, has signalled his plans to invade taiwan by 2027. that's just two years away. and of course one of the reasons china has been able to become such a threat economically and from a military standpoint to the united states is u.s. investments in that country. mr. bessent rightly noted that last week that china has one of the most unbalanced economies in the history of the world, and they're using their surpluses to fund their military machine to modernize and threaten the peace not only in the indo-pacific but more broadly. i'm glad mr. bessent shares this

very serious concern of mine. it shouldn't be a secret to anybody in the senate that i've been working on this issue for some time now. back in 2023 the senate voted 91-6 to adopt my amendment to the national defense authorization act that would have required transparency for outbound investments. that is, american investors investing in china. but then unfortunately that provision did not make its way into the final version of the national defense authorization act. we came very close to passing provisions to address outbound investment in the continuing resolution at the end of the year. but of course that continuing resolution was loaded down with a whole lot of other last-minute provisions and collapsed under its own weight. so i'm hopeful and i'm actually optimistic we will get it done this year. but the fact of the matter is we

are running out of time. it's unfathomable both to me that the united states government, including our intelligence agency and our military, would be blind to the economic threat and the military threat of massive u.s. investment into china. we know china does not respect any firewall or dividing line between the military and businesses. they actually have a law. a military/civilian infusion law that requires companies in china to share their technology, their data with the peoples liberation army and the chinese communist party. it's unfathomable to me that the united states would continue this process without regard to what the potential consequences might be. it's no exaggeration to say that

it could well be investments from the united states into the peoples republic of china that allow them not only to build their economy but their military as well and threaten regional and world peace. and as one of our colleagues, united states marine, former marine said, and end up nose to nose, gun to gun with marines when president xi decides to invade taiwan, if that day occurs. so i was very pleased that mr. bessent agreed with me about the necessity of transparency for policymakers to understand exactly what's going on, especially in industries like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced semiconductors. mr. bessent is going to be a great partner because he understands how the economy works and how it's intertwined with our national security.

finally, i had the pleasure of speaking once again to reduss vought who was formerly the director of the office of management and budget and a job he held previously under president trump during his first administration. mr. vought led the omb then and so he's had extensive experience to build on in president trump's second term. at yesterday's hearing, we had a chance to talk about the government's spending problem. we have approaching a $7 trillion debt. the federal government spends roughly $6.75 trillion a year. and while we talk about it on a regular basis, congress has yet to do anything significant to deal with that mounting debt.

and right now we are paying more for interest on the national debt than we are on our own defense and national security. it's unsustainable. years ago admiral mike mullin who was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said the biggest threat to our national security is our debt. at the time i thought, well, that's kind of an interesting comment. but what he said then has become actually true. we can't spend more as we need to do on our national security to reestablish deterrence, to prevent us from having to fight in wars which is the goal of our military strength if we can't afford it. and with the mounting demands of interest on the national debt, this is simply unsustainable.

i believe we have a historic opportunity with president trump's second term and with republicans in the majority and the house and the senate to look at mandatory spending programs. unfortunately without bipartisan support which we're frankly not going to get, we can't look at salvaging or safering medicare and -- saving medicare and social security, but we can look at the hundreds of billions of dollars in mandatory spending programs that are on autopilot and have been growing at 5%, 6%, 8% a year and surely we can find some savings on those mandatory spending programs, just like most families and most businesses. if you think about how much money you have coming in the door, you say well, we've got certain things that we need, we

must have, food, shelter and the like. you have other things maybe that you'd like, maybe a new tv, a new car, whatever, and then you have things that you simply can't afford. that's would every family in america has to do. that's what every business has to do. but not the federal government. well, it's about time that we do exactly that. and it's also important to get spending under control to ease the historically high inflation which has robbed every man, woman, and child in america with a hidden tax, reducing their standard of living. that comes in large part from excessive federal government spending. and then we talked about commonsense things which i'm really happy that elon musk and the department of government efficiency and president trump have talked about, things like

getting federal employees back in the office, in person. what a novel concept. and of course reinstating work requirements for able bodied adults to get them back in the workforce. we have a lot of means tested programs, that means based on your income but if you have an able bodied individual who is capable of working and providing for the family, why should the taxpayers have to pick up the tab? so getting abel bodied men and women back in the workforce and off of these means-tested programs is really important. there's no secret that the american people were profoundly disappointed at the biden administration's handling of the u.s. economy. but i have no doubt that with president trump, howard lutnick,

scott bessent and russ vought on president trump's team, we will be in good shape to get the economy and our national security back on track and usher in not only a new age of american prosperity, but also to reestablish the sort of deterrence that will prevent the young men and women in this country from ever having to fight wars that could simply be prevented by reestablishing that deterrence. mr. president, i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

>> democratic senators and candidates require a commitment to the filibuster or creating carveouts that would render it meaningless. the democrat leader made it clear the days of the filibuster were numbered telling the crowd the democratic national convention his party would be changing the rules. the filibuster it seemed is on its way out. fast forward to yesterday, mr. president, yesterday there was a sudden change of heart. yesterday every senate democrat, the difficulty leader, long serving democrat senators expressed their desire to get rid of the filibuster joined together and filibuster a bill.

that's right, every democrat center participated in the filibuster yesterday. i'll leave aside the disturbing fact democrats chose to unite the blocking built to protect living breathing newborn children born alive after an attempted abortion. i want to talk about today democrats appear to believe there should be one rule for democrats and another role for everyone else. back in 2017 during president trump's first-term when republicans controlled the senate 32 senate democrats many of whom i might add are still serving today joined a letter to senate leadership asking for preservation of the legislative filibuster. democrats took power. all of a sudden democrats started to find the legislative filibuster a major inconvenience. they want to verify the partisan legislation like the federal takeover of elections and

discovered the filibuster was getting in the way. now republicans are in power again and it seems democrats are back to supporting the filibuster. the only thing i can gather from that is that democrats think they should be free to pass anye legislation they choose when they are in power but the republicans should not. that the rules should apply when they serve the aims of the democrat party and the rules should be abolished whenever they fear with democrats far left agenda. in short, one party to democrat party should be making decisions in this country. that's not a very democratic attitude, mr. president. it also betrays an elitism, a disdain for half of the electorate that perhaps had something to do with democrats electoral defeat in november. there is no doubt that the filibuster can sometimes be frustrating. i'm frustrated we couldn't pass

legislation yesterday to uphold basic human decency by regarding babies born alive after an attempted abortion receive appropriate medical care. the filibuster serves a crucial purpose. the founders intended the senate to be a counterbalance to the house. it was designed to be a more stable, thoughtful, more deliberative legislative body to check ill considered or interpret legislation or tyranny by the majority. as time has gone on the legislative filibuster is the senate rule that is that perhaps the greatest impact in preserving the founders' vision of the senate. the filibuster acts as a check on imprudent or ill considered legislation. it forces discussion and compromise, and critically ensures that americans party is not in power also have a voice in congress.

preserving the filibuster is crucial preserving the said its checks and balances role in our system of government. mr. president, i expect the democrats will continue to display our renewed enthusiasm for the filibuster during this congress. while i may strongly disagree with their choice of when to use it, i will continue to defend their right to do so. keeping the senate the senate and ensuring it continues to fill the role envisioned for by the founders is more important than temporary political gain. i hope when the day comes the democrats retake the senate, their time in the minority will have reminded them of the crucial role the filibuster plays and that they will carry their newfound enthusiasm for the filibuster with them when they again find themselves in our shoes.

mr. president, do i ask -- [inaudible] >> i will be filing cloture on former congressman sean duffy to be secretary of transportation here shortly. yesterday the commerce committee favorably reported congressman duffy nomination in a 28 to zero vote. in other words, unanimously. i hope will be able to move this nominee quickly as we did with secretary rubio who's also administered for out of committee. congressman duffy is highly qualified for this position. he served five terms in the u.s. house of representatives.

as the cochair of the great lakes task force he played a role in advancing number of transportation and infrastructure projects. at his hearing last week he demonstrated his knowledge of the issues that will be his responsibility in this role. our colleague senator baldwin said he is and i quote, the right person for this job. there's no reason to delay this uncontroversial and qualified nominee. democrats want to spend the nights and weekends taking votes on uncontroversial nominees, we can do it that way. the one way or the other these nominees will be confirmed. today the senate will vote on two pivotal cabinet nominees. first we vote to advance the nomination of john ratcliffe's to serve as cia director. i will respectfully vote no. not because of our political difference which of course exists but because i'm deeply worried that mr. ratcliffe will

be unable to stand up to people like donald trump and tulsi gabbard who are known to falsify intelligence. as cia director mr. ratcliffe will have to make decisions based on intelligence and facts. there will be no agency more important than the cia that has to be fact-based. sometimes these facts will lead to inconvenient conclusions for his superiors and the president if it's in those cases where truth not fiction not ideology must prevail. i have my doubts mr. ratcliffe will be able to hold firm. most troubling about mr. ratcliffe with the edges a got from him about tulsi gabbard, president trump's nominee to service director of national intelligence. if confirmed ms. gabbard would oversee the cia and our entire intelligence community. i think she would be colossally disrupted for americans security. if there's anyone who hasn't been fact-based as you listen to her statement over the years, it's tulsi gabbard. she things to that fact she

seems to make things up out of thin air. know it could be worse in a position at dni than someone who doesn't believe in fact. i told mr. ratcliffe he should urge president trump to drop her nomination if he really cares about the cia. it's integrity. he couldn't report to somebody like tulsi gabbard in good conscience. she is simply too risky. she has a whole history of spreading falsities, cheering america's adversaries, and if confirmed i'm worried she will push false intelligence for political ends. those are precisely the momus mr. ratcliffe will have to hold firm, reject what she says and vote as oppression and speak truth to power. his answers to my questions about that were unsatisfying. so i'm voting no. such an important position. now on pete hegseth vote. today the civil vote to advance one of the most unqualified erratic nominees for for a r position we have ever seen in

america. no position in the cabinet carries the weight and responsibility of secretary of defense work secretary of defense is in charge of keeping us safe and keeping the men and women in our armed forces and the civilians safe. you need someone who is a steady hand. you need someone who hasn't had experience in this kind of stuff beginning someone who when he shows up to meeting you are sure that he knows all the facts and is going to be able to conduct himself properly. if there's any cabinet that should be universally trusting, and uncontroversial, it's the secretary of defense. unfortunately, mr. hegseth is needed. he's neither trusted no free of controversy and i will strongly vote no. i want my colleagues to think about how absurd it is that this nominee has even made it to the floor. it's a shame that that has

happened. we are being tasked to trust our armed forces to a man with a history of erratic behavior. one of the kindest words that might be used to describe mr. hegseth is erratic. and that's a quality you don't want as head of dod. he has a history of excessive drinking, of domestic, alleged domestic abuse, and general experience leading a large organization of any kind. the new allegations they came out yesterday are even more troubling and people say how do we know they are true? first, person who did it has no strike against her here but second, edges corroborates an even worse we way of what wew about access and the past. he has come he has a clear problem of judgment as you've seen by his statements. it's like saying your heart surgeon has twitchy hands but i let him do surgery on me. no one would do that. how on earth can america entrust

our safety and security to a man who is allegedly shown up to work and other events inebriated? what if he shows up inebriated during a crisis? what's going to happen? is a dangerous. if confirmed he would be in charge of the workforce of over 3 million people, budget of 850,000,000,050,000,000,000. where in history does it show he's capable of doing that? and what if his erratic behavior spills over to a job at the pentagon high-pressure job and with people i have been this behavior, often high-pressure job to make them more erratic. what mystifies me about mr. hegseth is that there are so many other conservative defense leaders that president trump could've nominated. people i wouldn't agree with. maybe ideological and some of the issues that affect secretary

of defense by people who would be capable of running the department. i think there are plenty of republican senators who would instantly make a better option than mr. hegseth. is pete hegseth really the best the republicans have to offer? how low, how low has his party? making him the nominee? i don't believe he's the best bud ablative close to the best. i will be voting with complete conviction no. given his history, confirming mr. hegseth is simply putting a risky role of the dice. that americans cannot afford. especially in such an important position. another of these pantheon of just awful nominees, not all of them are awful, but some are, too many are, is russell vought. with this nomination to be omb director, donald trump has made it official.

project 2025 is coming to the white house. the man who was the chief cook and bottle washer for 2012 o pushed it, endorsed it is now in one of the most powerful and sensitive positions in the government, omb which has a say over all government programs. golden age? sure not going to be a golden age to the american people if mr. vought becomes the head of omb. it's one of the most important agencies in the government. they oversee every federal agency, every town, every locality, every family is going to be affected. if you want to get your drug prices lowered, he doesn't look at that. look at 2025. you want to feed hungry kids? he doesn't like that. look at 2025. you want to reserve and extend $35 insulin, doesn't like that. you want to make the tax system more fair, not a tax cuts for the very wealthy to help the

middle class with tax breaks? vought doesn't like that. she wanted to go to the wealthy. i asked him what park him he was in my office yesterday. i asked him, what part of 2025 we disagree with? he couldn't point to a single one. in this panoply of awful proposals, he couldn't name a single one he didn't like. he's also a proponent of impoundment of funds. maybe unconstitutional but it could cause real damage this case is go to the court when he sued for it. that means he can pick what he doesn't like an end it even if congress has voted for it. so this man would be devastating to the families of america if he got into office. i hope my republican colleagues will look at his record and vote against him. nobody can claim to be pro-worker and vote for russell

vought. on the toes and the gop agenda. the more people look at president trump's executive orders, more obvious it becomes that no golden age is coming to america unless of course you are very rich, well-connected or own a drug company. the ferocity of a bulldozer, donald trump has spent his first few days in office dismantling decades of progress that help working people come help middle-class families come help people afford healthcare. there are many executive orders signed by the president that have flown under the radar but nonetheless also to devastating. wind energy projects in the outer continental shelf and putting at risk billions of dollars of investment and killing good-paying jobs in the u.s. and my state of new york out on long island, particularl particularly. he thinks he can cut them off. of course going to fight that and people will find in the

courts. but president trump yesterday was out there touting a a new program, a new proposal by some foreign, a foreign investor to create more energy because we need it. he says no clean energy, no offshore wind. is that ridiculous? is robbing peter to pay paul? talking out of both sides of your mouth. it's devastating. devastating. we are going to fight that proposal tooth and nail because it's so important to new york, to long island, to america. he's repealed the biden era policies that make it easier for americans to enroll in the aca. 20 million americans pay less for healthcare. that's in the executive orders to get rid of them. and in his first week in office he killed policy to provide a year of postpartum care for low income ons and medicaid. how is at the idea of a golden

age? here in congress it's the same story with our congressional republicans. they continue to dedicate the lion's share of their energy into finding the best ways to pass their multi-trillion multin dollars tax cuts for the ultrarich. but i want to leave my republican colleagues aren't talking about budget and that seating and all of that with a thought, food for thought. all this planning and agonizing about one bill or two bills is a sideshow. eventually it will be clear they can't pass anything without democratic help. republicans have spent their the entire time talking among themselves about tax risks in radical budget cuts. when they should be spending more time with democrats talking about bipartisan policy but do not prioritize the ultra-wealthy. thus far at least republicans haven't haven't even pretended to be bipartisan. instead of indulging the hard right ideology of tax cuts for

the ultra wealthy, republicans should put the needs of making it a golden age for working class and middle class, not for the powerful and privileged. we look forward to them working with us on these issues. i yield the floor. quorum call:

>> there's been no lack of news on your be. i want to start college and six pardons. is there anyone who's been convicted of some crime related to january 6th that has nabbed the sentence pardoned or commuted by president trump ranking member that's right. it's all of them. the wording of the pardon was very thank you. i come to the floor today to address some of my concerns about the qualifications of the president's nominee to lead the department of defense, mr. pete hegseth. like many of my colleagues on the armed services committee, i left mr. hegseth's hearing last week with a number of unanswered questions and some peel concerns about -- some real concerns about his qualifications and abilities to serve in the role as secretary of defense. now, every single nominee for secretary of defense, from both

democrat and republican administrations, have met with me and other members on both sides of the aisle on the committee before their confirmation hearings, and i voted for every one of those nominees, both democrat and republican administrations. secretaries panetta, hagel, carter, mattas, hes per, and awes -- hes per, and austin. i didn't always agree with them, but they all had the qualifications and temperament for secretary of defense, so i supported their nominations. but mr. hegseth chose not to meet with me nor any other senate democrats except the ranking member, jack reed, and he broke with strong, long-standing tradition to ensuring our work on national security remains free from partisanship, and i think that's the important point. we are stronger as senators, as

congress, as a nation, if we are acting together. the committee, unfortunately, was not afforded the opportunity to ask a number of rounds of questions, and so there are a number of questions about his views, particularly regarding foreign policy and military policy, that we did not get an answer to. i've become the ranking member on the foreign relations committee, and so i'm very concerned about the role of the united states in the world. i think the american people expect transparency regarding mr. hegseth's ability to stand by our allies and partners, to uphold international agreements, to abide by rules ever engagements -- rules of engagement, and the bottom line, support the men and women in the military in a way that not only keeps us safe, but protects them as well. the almost three million men and

women who serve our nation in uniform deserve a secretary of defense who will not needlessly throw them in harm's way or seek to division them -- divide them with partisan politics. so i'd like to address a few issues now that we were not able to get to at the hearing, because we were not able to ask more than one round of questions. i want to start with the role that our alliances and our allies and partners play in our own national security. i believe, and we've seen it many times from the start of this nation, that we are stronger and safer when we lead together with our allies. we're fortunate, because we have strong allies and partners. we don't see that coming from vladimir putin, from xi in china, we don't see it from the north koreans or the iranians, but the united states has strong

allies who can stand with us. the most important security agreement we've had, i think anytime in our nation's history, is nato. it is a critical, indispensable part of our national security. yet, the president's nominee for secretary of defense wrote in his book "american crusade" that nato is, quote, a relic and, quote, that it should be scrapped. now, since his nomination, mr. hegseth has tried to walk back his opposition to one of our key international alliances, to nato, but in an advanced policy questions for the committee, he calls nato a, quote, vital u.s. interest in defending europe and american interests from russia and vladimir putin. now, the sudden reversal is welcome, because i think it's

very important that our secretary of defense understand how critical nato is and that it's stronger now than it was in the last -- anytime in the last since it was formed probably. we now have 32 members of nato. but mr. hegseth's 11th hour conversion to understanding the importance of our allies and partners raises questions about what he really believes. we asked in our questions for the record about nato, and we didn't get much of a response. now, if i had had the opportunity, i would have also brought up ukraine and mr. hegseth's head-spinning contradiction on this matter. just as america's national security interests are not to be trifled with, neither should be our commitment to defending democracy and the international world order, and any

inconsistency in that committee -- let me start that again because this is really important. any inconsistency in our commitment to support our allies and partners, to support democracy around the world, to support the international world order, that is going to be seen and exploited by our adversaries. so, again, i'm puzzled about how i should think about mr. hegseth's contradictory positions on a variety of national security and foreign policy issues. for example, he was critical of the biden administration, as have many of us on both sides of the aisle been in this chamber, for not moving fast enough to aid ukraine. but then he questioned the wisdom of sending any u.s. assistance to ukraine at all. in 2022, mr. hegseth called vladimir putin, quote, a war criminal and called for faster

u.s. aid to ukraine. now he says the idea of russia launching a nuclear war is, quote, overinflated and plays down the severity of the conflict as merely putin's, and this is again i'm quoting mr. hegseth, give me my shit back war. well, i don't think that our nato allies, those in the baltics and poland and eastern europe think about vladimir putin's nuclear ambitions as overinflated. they know the threat he poses to their countries and the world. and to be flippant about the threat of nuclear war, i think, is beneath the office of the secretary of defense, who will have to engage with our partners on a regular basis. now, i agree with president trump, that the american people want to see a resolution to this

years' long war. i'm sure that's true of the ukrainians as well. but mr. hegseth has not, either in his hearing nor in response to the questions that we submitted to him for the record, expanded on what the department of defense's role should be with respect to ukraine. even though we have already invested $66 billion in military assistance, and again i think it's very important that we stand by our ally, ukraine, because of the message it sends, not just to the russians and vladimir putin, but because of the message it sends to xi in china, to the iranians, to the north koreans, to anyone who is an adversary of the united states. if they think we're going to walk away from our allies, they're going to do everything they can to divide us. now, on afghanistan, mr. hegseth

has also been inconsistent on his views of the president's foreign policy. actually, he's been inconsistent in general on the president's foreign policies. in the leadup to the 2016 election, mr. hegseth was highly critical of then candidate trump's foreign policy stances, particularly on iraq and afghanistan. mr. hegseth called mr. trump, who was a candidate at the time, and i quote, all bluster, very little substance, and again quoting, an armchair tough guy. he criticized then candidate trump in 2015 for advocating for the withdrawal of forces from afghanistan, but then he took the criticism back. he sharply criticized the 2021 afghanistan withdrawal, as did i, but he's failed to publicly comment on president trump's 2020 deal with the taliban, which is what set the date

certain for withdrawal in 2021, that then the biden administration was actually tied to. now, i agree, i agree that that withdrawal was not what i wanted to see. i didn't support it, but they were terms that president trump in his first term set with the taliban, terms that i thought gave away the store to the taliban, because there were no concessions from them on what we were to get from the united states, the government of afghanistan was not at the table when the terms were negotiated, and now we're seeing the fallout from that. i know that no one is watching for gaps in u.s. national security policy more closely than president xi and the people's republic of china. now, mr. hegseth identifies china as our peer competitor,

something that i think all of us on the armed services committee, and probably everyone in this chamber, agree with. but if mr. hegseth is so concerned about china, then he should realize that nothing will encourage president xi's aggression more than seeing america abandon our allies and partners. mr. hegseth cheese china's -- sees china's ambitions as, quote, a fait accompli. yet he doesn't seem to recognize his own inconsistencies on these foreign policy positions could tribute to this. a question i would like mm mr. mr. hegseth to attempt to answer is what message would it send to our adversaries if the u.s. ceases its support, not just for ukraine, but for the international rules and norms that underpin the global order? now, i'm also concerned about that with respect to the conduct of conflict. in his book "the war on

warriors" mr. hegseth argued, again, i'm quoting, our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men in mahogany rooms 80 years ago. america should fight by its own rules, end quote. well, the rules that he's talking about are the geneva conventions, which establish bare minimum protections against violence, torture, and inhumane treatments, and they don't just protect those people who are fighting on the battle field, they protect american soldiers. during his hearing, mr. hegseth doubled down to say, quote, restrictive rules of engagement have made it more difficult to defeat our enemies, and that it would be his priority, quote, that lawyers aren't getting in the way. well, unfortunately, and dangerously, this appears to be one of the few issues that mr. hegseth is consistent on.

he has a documented history of supporting individuals who have violated military and international law by committing war crimes. these are individuals who were turned in not by our enemies but by members of their own units, who were convicted of crimes by our own military juries, individuals for whom mr. hegseth lobbied to get pardons. i don't think we can afford to entrust the safety and success of our men and women in uniform to a man who would himself disregard the laws of armed conflict and leave american credibility and moral authority in tatters on the world stage. now, while embracing officers convicted of war crimes, mr. hegseth has stated it is his intent to review all general

officers currently serving in the department of defense, and when asked if he would remove the current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mr. hegseth responded on the record that, quote, all senior officers will be reviewed. so, let's just think about what that means. sub subjecting our general officers in our military that is not politicized to a political litmus test is not only unprecedented, it is dangerous. it will convey to the american public that their leadership is poli political. one of the most important roles of the secretary of defense is to seek out and consider open, honest, and direct military advice from the senior officers in charge of our forces. i don't know how mr. hegseth expects to receive open and honest advice from his

commanders when he's advocating for a purge of anyone who disagrees with him. i'm also deeply troubled by the fact that mr. hegseth would act as a yes man himself, putting his own personal political interests above the well-being of our military men and women. mr. hegseth's confirmation hearing, when asked what he would do if he received orders from president trump that he knew to be illegal or unconstitutional, mr. hegseth wouldn't give a straight answer. all he could do was deny that president trump was capable of giving an illegal order. and just for the record, to be clear, in his first term, president trump did give an illegal order that then-secretary esper refused to follow. and for that, secretary esper was fired by the president.

so, mr. president, i am very concerned that mr. hegseth lacks the consistency and the moral clarity to lead the most combat-credible military in the world. and i am very disappointed that this body would put a nominee on the floor without the due process of advise and consent that the position of secretary of defense deserves. our men and women in uniform deserve better. and, therefore, for the first time since i was elected to represent the people of new hampshire in the united states senate, i plan to vote against this nominee for secretary of defense. thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is

recognized. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to commend senator shaheen for a typically thoughtful and compelling speech concerning the proposed nomination of mr. hegseth to be secretary of defense. i will follow by rising to express my opposition to mr. pete hegseth's nomination to be secretary of defense. mr. hegseth is the ninth defense secretary nominee that i have considered as a member of the armed services committee. i have voted in favor of all of his predecessors, including those in the first trump administration. while some former secretaries and i have disagreed politically, there was always an understanding that partisanship has no place when it comes to providing for our men and women in uniform. indeed, the weight of this

position, secretary of defense, is an onus. the secretary is responsible for leading a department of 3.5 million servicemembers and civilians, an annual budget of nearly $900 billion, and hundreds of thousands of aircraft, ships, submarines, combat vehicles, satellites, and our nuclear arsenal. they also play a powerful role with allies, partners and adversaries abroad, having to meet, communicate, and coordinate with a whole range of individuals from many different ethnic groups, many different religious groups. that's part of the role of secretary of defense. at a bare minimum, former secretaries of defense have had the experience, wisdom, and character to do that job. mr. hegseth, however, is simply

not qualified to meet the overwhelming demands to be secretary of defense. last week the armed services committee held a nomination hearing for mr. hegseth. during the hearing, my colleagues and i raised a number of concerning reports about him, a variety of sources, including his own writings, implicate him with disregarding the laws of war, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment and other troubling issues. instead of addressing these reports, many of which are documented and on the record, he dodged and deferred. he did not attempt to alleviate the fears that my colleagues and i have that there is material and a patent of views in his

personal history that could be used by adversaries to try to influence him, to try to deflect him from his sworn obligations and duties to the united states, and frankly to embarrass him as secretary of defense. these reports are unlike anything we have seen for a nominee of this importance, and if they are confirmed, they would undermine his ability to be an effective leader. as i have said for months, it is critical that the fbi and the trump transition team carry out an exhaustive background investigation on mr. hegseth. in that regard, i must say that i am extremely disappointed by the investigation process. before mr. hegseth's hearing, i was briefed by a transition team on the findings of the background check. i was alarmed that investigators

neglected to contact critical witnesses and whistleblowers, and i urged them to reopen the investigation. during my experience on the armed services committee, it is unprecedented that the fbi has returned to my office two more times as recently as last night, to provide additional information on the nominee. frankly, i still do not believe the background investigation is complete. last week, after the hearing, i was made aware that an individual with disturbing information about mr. hegseth has been interviewed by the fbi in december as part of the background investigation. however, their testimony was not adequately included in the briefing provided by the trump transition team. as such, i asked this individual to recount to me directly the testimony that she had provided to the fbi. i was disturbed by what i

received. earlier this week the armed services committee received a sworn affidavit from pete hegseth's former sister-in-law that alleges specific incidents of mr. hegseth's alcohol abuse, threatening and abusive behavior toward his second wife, and a repeated pattern of offensive public misconduct. the affidavit was signed and sworn under penalty of perjury, and it has been made available to all senators to review, and i hope that you do. i will share a few examples from her sworn testimony which she gave to fbi investigators. once while drunk in uniform, which is a violation of military law, mr. hegseth was so inebriated that his brother had to carry him out of a minneapolis strip club. this occurred during a drill weekend with the minnesota

national guard. the fbi was also told that mr. hegseth's second wife had an escape plan that involved texting a safe word to her friends and family to urgently request help without putting herself in more danger. this escape plan was executed on at least one occasion. on at least one occasion his second wife hid in her closet out of fear. and in many detailed examples, the fbi was told that mr. hegseth regularly became so drunk that he passed out, vomited, and had to be carried out of family events and public settings, sometimes shouting sexually and racist offensive comments. my point is this -- we know that pete hegseth's former sister in law testified about his abuse,

alcoholism and public behavior. however, we know now that her testimony was not adequately included in the trump transition team background briefing to the senate. this begs the question, what else is missing from the fbi report. the senate is not considering a low-level appointee right now. we are advising and consenting on the nominee for secretary of defense, and we cannot risk installing a leader who may have a history that is exploitable by our adversaries. nor can we risk confirming a secretary of defense who has shown that he is incapable of being responsible, accountable, and law-abiding 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as that job requires. in addition to mr. hegseth's struggling personal conduct, i also have grave concerns about actions he would take as secretary of defense. during his nomination hearing, i

asked mr. hegseth about disturbing efforts under way within the department of defense to intimidate military personnel and their families and reports that the trump administration may implement a so-called purge board to screen senior military officers for, quote, unfitness to lead. this raises the chilling possibility that the trump administration may fire officers who are deemed to have the wrong political views. i believe that the tuesday firing of the u.s. coast guard commandant admiral linda fagan, who by all objective accounts was an admirable leader, proves that the purge is under way. unfortunately, mr. hegseth would not categorically condemn those efforts during his hearing and instead talked about meritocracy and restoring accountability

within the senior ranks of the military. if the senate confirms mr. hegseth this week, who will be fired at the department of defense next week? and i doubt very seriously it will be based upon merit or anything else other than a political agenda. and that would be the beginning of the unraveling of the core element of our military. it is not political. it serves neither party nor person. it protects and defends the constitution of the united states. and if we lose that, we will have lost something that is, i think, the key to our success not only as a military force, but as a nation. despite mr. hegseth's comment, the united states military is already one of the finest meritocracies in the world. every member of the military is

in their position because of their ability. they are chosen by boards of other senior officers who evaluate their performance, who look closely at what they've done, and render their best professional position of the capability of that person to move on and assume a particular job. every member of the military is in their position because of their ability. when there's always a possibility that you need to count on the person next to you to save your life, there is no other choice but meritocracy and value. there is no other choice that you must or can make other than to pick someone whose focus, whose heart, whose spirit is to protect their fellow soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, space

men, not to exploit them. to make a judgment about their colleagues not based on their political affiliations, but on the fact that they are a co-soldier, sailor, airman. and i see a dangerous, dangerous point at which we will divert from this historic and compelling approach and become a political organization. we've seen it happen in other places around the world where militaries are undermined and subjected by political leaders that have a particular political point of view and passion, and they become essentially not an army but an extension of the political aspirations of the great leader.

we can't see that here in america. our present servicemembers can and should be confident that with hard work and skill and character, they will be successful in their military careers. that's the key criteria. indeed, this very meritocracy would prevent a person like mr. hegseth from rising higher in the ranks of the military. the totality of his own writings and conduct would disqualify any servicemember from holding any leadership position in the military. much less being confirmed as a secretary of defense. if there was evidence that a serving officer in the military was drunk in un uniform, in a sp club, if there was evidence that

a senior military officer was engaged in sexual relations while married to another woman, i guarantee you that officer's career would end swiftly, either by resignation or by court-martial. moreover, our servicemembers, since the birth of this country 249 years ago, have taken an oath to the constitution. their mission is to protect the country and all of its citizens and the ideals this country was founded on which should endure no matter who is president or what political party is in power. mr. hegseth's idea of meritocracy, however, seems to be that servicemembers should be pledge to a president who will be in power for four years and fit the ideas of a party that only half of this nation

supports. there is no faster way to undermined the moral of our nation's military and the support of the nation's citizens for it than to inject politics into the system. mr. hegseth, if confirmed, will not improve our military but destabilize it and weaken the institution. further, during his hearing, mr. hegseth failed to convince me and many of my colleagues that he is capable of running any organization remotely as complex as the department of defense. mr. hegseth has been the head of two separate veterans' organizations. from 2008 through 202010, he -- 2010, he led veterans for freedom which had a budget of less than $10 million, each year outlays exceeded revenues until the organization merged on

bankruptcy and had to be merged with another group. from 2011 until 2016, he ran the organization concerned veterans for america. during each of those five years, tax records show that the organization spent more than it raised. if this shhow -- if this is how mr. hegseth manages organizations with a comparatively small staff and budget, how can anyone have confidence that he will be able to effectively manage an organization with hundreds of multimillion and -- million and billion dollar contracts. if confirmed, he would be the leader of men and women of every race, religion, and political belief. he can only be an effective leader of an effective fighting force if he has respect for

those he leads and they trust he supports them. unfortunately, mr. hegseth has shown disdain and outright hostility for many he would lead. his writings made clear -- he said that diversity is not our strength, unity is. he said i'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. he has written that the other side, the left is not our friend. we are not esteem colleagues, we are foes. either we win or they win. we agree on nothing else. that is not the spirit to bring to lead the men and women of our military forces. when i joined the army as a young officer in the 1970's, the u.s. military was rife with racial tension, women were prohibited from serving in most

roles, gay servicemembers were banned and we relied on our national draft to fill our ranks. the soldiers i served with were proud to do so but it was certainly tholt the nation's most capable military -- not the nation's most capable military by any means. we have made great progress since then. today the department of defense is fully integrated. every race and religion is accepted. women serve in all combat roles and leadership positions, sexual orientation is irrelevant to service and the all volunteer force have isibly -- visibly protects its nation. the military is more diverse than it has ever been but more importantly, it is more lethal than it has ever been. this is not a coincidence. this diversity is the bedrock of our military power but mr. hegseth seeks to destroy that.

one of the strengths of the u.s. military which has made us respected around the world is the adherence to the rule of law and clear standards on the battlefield to treat civilians and treat prisoners with humanity. once again, this nominee for secretary of defense, if confirms, will -- and put that -- will put that principle in doubt. he has championed the pardoning of military members who were turned in with by their colleagues convicted of killing 14 iraqi civilians without force. he has advocated for interrogation efforts like waterboarding that is defined as torture -- in his book, "the war on warriors ""he wrote, quote,

should we follow the geneva conventions? if our warriors are forced to follow rules arby trailly and -- arby trayly, aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules? how can our military personnel trust each other and the partners and allies we need in this dangerous world, trust the united states, if such rules and conventions are tossed aside. what a bounty this would give our adversaries. and how would we have the moral authority to criticize the north vietnamese who tortured pilots like our colleague john mccain? if our secretary of defense is saying that waterboarding is

perfectly fine? we wouldn't. in fact, i think our pilots would be very much concerned if they felt there were no rules to the game. and if they went down behind enemy lines, they would be just brutalized, tortured, et cetera, and we don't even have a moral objection to it. finally, my top priorities has a united states senator has always been national security, and i hope my colleagues i hope noticed. i do not seek partisan wins or the political spotlight. i want to do right by my men and women in uniform and i refuse to cut corners on national security issues. the greatest privilege i've had in my life is to lead soldiers, to understand and respect them, to do my best by example and

leadership so that they would have confidence that their best interests was my sole interest. that's not what i heard from mr. hegseth, and that's not what he's going to bring to the department of defense. process is important for a nomination of this sort. other than me, mr. hegseth refused to meet with any of my democratic colleagues on the committee, an unprecedented act, a signal that he is not trying to be a nonpartisan secretary. he is, in fact, going to be very partisan. again, injecting politics into the department of defense, which is in my view fatal. the committee was denied a second round of questions with

mr. hegseth, although we needed that time, and i should point out historically when secretary hagel was here, we had three rounds of questioning, when secretary carter was here, we had two rounds of questioning. so the precedent is strongly in favor of an additional round. so we've been essentially denied the kind of access that would have revealed more of mr. hegseth's qualities, conduct, and thoughts, and that's not proichlt and -- that's not appropriate. and as i said previously the fbi background check was inadequate. again, the first time i've ever had a background check supplemented by two addendums to background checks, that's not the way i have experienced this. so i would hope that my

colleagues -- so i hope my colleagues will ask themselves does to this individual have the character and the competence and composure to be secretary of defense. i'm frankly not convinced and stunned with the lack of scrutiny which too many of my colleagues are using to consider this nomination. the lives of thousands and thousands of men and women in uniform, the security of our nation, and, indeed, the world is at stake. i hope we all will take time to reflect on whether we are ready to confirm mr. hegseth to be secretary of defense. i will personally urge my colleagues to vote against the nominee. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: in a few moments the senate will vote on the confirms of our next cia director and immediately following, there will be a vote on cloture of the nomination of mr. peter hegseth, president trump's nominee for secretary of defense. i will vote yes on cloture and i expect a majority of our senators will do so. three a months ago 77 million americans voted for change in the united states, and they sent president trump back to the white house. it was a decisive victory and a clear mandate to focus this nation on prosperity and peace. this work begins at the pending where we must -- pentagon where we must return to a policy of peace actually strength.

we're facing some of the most complex and global security environment since world war ii. the next few years will shape the direction for the remainder of the 21st century. it could be led by the united states, a future which would lead to freedom and prosperity for all americans in the absence of armed conflict or led by despots, the chinese communist party is working against us, its dictator xi jinping is using military force and economic coercion to shape the world order with the help of his junior partner king jong-un of north korea. vladimir putin remains intent on territorial expansion, iran, hamas, hezbollah, the houthis, and their like continue to attack israel and the united

states and isis remains set on killing americans every day -- every day. unfortunately, the biden administration wasted precious time and significant resources pu pursuing decisive policies at dod. we spernt months arguing with the administration over whether the defense drt should pay for hormone -- pay for hormone. so i'm glad we're going to abandon that type of policy. i could go on, but let me turn to focusing on the future. together congress and the president have a lot to do and we don't have much time to do it. we have a broken shipbuilding industrial base to fix. we have defense manufacturing jobs to build up and munition

lines to expand. we have an -- we have a budgeting system to update and audit system to update in decades and a resourcing problem that needs attention. on his way out the door, secretary austin now tells us we need to spend a lot more on national security. thank you, second austin. it is an admission four years too late, mr. president. we're simply falling behind our adversaries in too many ways. so president trump seeks to reverse the trend and bring much needed change to the pentagon. and he's chosen a man to lead the pentagon. his choice to spearhead these efforts is pete hegseth, a retired major and combat veteran

in the army national guard. admittedly this nomination is unconventional. the nominee himself is unconventional just like that new york developer who rode down the escalator in 2015 to announce his candidacy for president. that may be what makes mr. hegseth a good choice. he's not behaden to the status -- beholden to the status quo and is open to new ideas. he's intent on lethality and readiness and we should all be. his experience in the line of fire and his servicemember advocacy make at least one thing clear. pete hegseth will put the men and women of our military first. congress has often seen defense secretaries delay and evade congressional oversight. i think pete hegseth will be

willing and eager to partner with us in that regard. last week the senate armed services committee convened to consider mr. hegseth's nomination. in testimony lasting nearly four hours, he addressed three key audiences, our committee, the united states senate as a whole, and the american people. i think the american people liked what they saw. i know i did. he showed each of us why president trump chose him to be the next secretary of defense. first of all, he articulated a clear vision of the pentagon. i think it's clear to anyone who listened that he's going to bring energy and fresh ideas to shake up the department's stagnant bureaucracy. he restore a war fighting ethos and relentlessly focus on the military's core mission, to deter conflict and if necessary

to win a war. mr. hegseth is committed to bringing a swift end to the corrosive social policies that serve to divide our servicemembers rather than unite them. and as i pointed out earlier, the american people are behind him in this regard overwhelmingly. he correctly stated that we need to change the way the pentagon does business. he will restore a culture of accountability by cutting red tape, incentivizing innovation, and rebuilding the defense industrial base. he affirms his intent to tackle the hardest systemic problems that plague the pentagon, challenges that previous secretaries have proven unable to fix. and i mentioned that audit. i sincerely believe we'll get an audit done under his oversight. and importantly, he agreed that maintaining the inadequate biden

era defense budget levels would be dangerous to our national security. and we hear, as i said, the outgoing secretary admitting that very thing. in his testimony before our committee, mr. hegseth said this. my only special interest is the warfighter. deterring wars and if called upon, winning wars by ensuring our warriors never enter a fair fight. we let them win and then we bring them home. unquote. well put, major hegseth. i'm confident mr. hegseth, supported by a team of experienced top officials, will do exactly that. pete and his family have endured numerous smears and false news stories.

less reported is the outpouring of support this nominee has received. pete hegseth has devoted his career to fighting for his fellow soldiers and his fellow soldiers, men and women, are now speaking out in his behalf. in the past few months, a host of flag officers signed an open letter enthusiastically commending mr. hegseth. i thank these generallies and add owe generals and admirals for doing so. the armed services committee has received letters from female soldiers who support pete. we received messages from those who served alongside him on the battlefield, including a moving statement from a medal of honor recipient who backs pete hegseth to the hilt. these men and women uniformly vouch for pete hegseth's leadership, tenacity, and

passion for supporting the warfighter. on the day of his hearing, 100 navy seals marched from the vietnam veterans memorial to the senate office buildings. they marched together that distance and rows of mr. hegseth's fellow soldiers sat behind him in solidarity for the entire four-hour long hearing. these patriotic americans were willing to step forward and declare their support for mr. hegseth publicly. in stark contrast, i might add, to the anonymous attacks we've heard about. mr. president, in this critical moment for our national security, i believe we have the right man for the job. i urge my colleagues to continue in their support of mr. hegseth's nomination to be

our next secretary of defense. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

's right, it was very broad and associated january 6 and he said he might review those and come back what is the competition? the charges and punishment and shortening. and they are in the midst of being.

>> the biggest department, other any case is pending? wiped out. on monday or tuesday they had a comment announcement to celebrate. >> to have any comments reading up in admiration. people have been evicted of

firms not going to these cases but they have seen the details. more than 1000 people were convicted. express frustration, ignoring and abandoning these cases and anybody charge from the january 6 riots pardoned and they are an individual case by case review

and they express frustration in 20 were asking take office and said he will pardon the how it turns out. trump did what he said he's going to do. >> reaction yesterday from the international association chief. they said they spent supporters of trump and expressed disappointment. nobody attacked lease officers have been pardoned and they should serve their full term.

600 defendants were charged with assaulting or interfering with police on that day. 140 police were injured so there is frustration and disappointment for those who are defending the capital on that day. >> you are also frustrated by joe biden's pardon. >> he was an activist, in 1975 was convicted of fbi agents in serving a life sentence and was given a commutation, i believe is being released after 50.

>> about that specific product the fbi in the teeth on the way out the door. these last-minute pardons how expected for the and what is the preemptive? to prevent any potential future charters. the big case was when joe ford pardoned his predecessor to avoid lingering charges or trials about 50 years ago. in this case biden extended nonviolent crimes are a handful

of relatives but without ukraine, china and elsewhere. other pardons went to his wife with the one for the business deals from of the main accusation they urged to charge them for lying about a meeting. 2017 for that meeting in los

angeles and he said he wasn't there and there is documentary evidence. if you wanted to investigate that, but something former president has eliminated. >> what is the most interesting reaction? >> mike johnson said yesterday he found that shocking and unbelievable and said they were going to be investigating. it's a tough nut to crack because pardons are written into the constitution. i'm a lawyer but seems like we have to have an amendment to change that authority.

>> speakers mike johnson shocking constitutional about the biden pardon. >> everybody describe this, it is his decision. a peaceful protest should never be punished. there was a weaponization, prosecution's january 6 it was a terrible chapter. leave and redemption, second chances. a heavy penalty but the president has made a decision

there are better days ahead of us in. >> the president has made a decision different reaction of his reaction. >> redemption and saying it sounds like a good decision mentioning peaceful protesters something republicans of mentioned repeatedly, a lot of folks walking through but hundreds were charged violent convicted on that day really like polls, several of the police that they retired from their injuries suffered a heart

attack feels betrayed. >> usa todayto -- mr. wicker: i suggest that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. curtis. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty.

good morning, everybody. thank you for coming today to cover this press conference. critical issues to our caucus in congress. i cannot the development and addition healthcare and education. important issues to all of us starting with the first one. executive orders have been

issued by administration. three major pieces that are very fundamental. dreamers, farmworkers and family. across the country dreamers the opportunity to contribute in our economy and regular last.

in the country where they came from and no family connection that and their status regulated. farmworkers are critical not just to the economy you need to be scared of missing work report, it will show up at the dinner table. did together.

and eventually will be a week family. when you have week family, translates read major linchpins are critical and bring us together whether we are progressive i think dreamers and farmworkers, families bring us together so we will speak about these important items and with that want to get the four the vice chair of our caucus, ted lieu. >> i want to thank you.

i am foreign-born, a naturalized citizen. i want to focus decision issuing a statement very quickly after the executive order and opposing what he wants to do but also the effect of. the order. it is this no longer is, what would happen is 30 million americans with no longer be

recognized your birth certificate will no longer show. what is your parents passed away? what if one of your parents is a citizen and one is not? find out really citizens are not?

one of us is housekeeping matter. in the past, the issue of immigration has been discussed. we demand that we are at the table because the impacts our communities disproportionately so we cannot receive an item of which we have not been part of the discussion. we demand to be at the table. >> as you united and strong, ready charge and will bad.

we will not be stopped. we are going to stand with all immigrants, no matter where they came from africa, you name the country. they should be treated with dignity and respect and for me priority will always be making sure dreamers get the pathway to citizenship they deserve and they do it as quickly as possible. the president has said he will treat dreamers differently and that is the question of the day. we know how he's g