he's the coach and he wrote it. i asked him to clarify why this this group and the steichen was founded to put together he owned it. he said it right they are his words to the committee and to the american people to make no mistake about what's coming. mr. vought is the person, the proof that this document exists project 2025 and the documents that got put into it. this notion that all of these programs that make a difference, positive difference to people, to help in those utility bills get a little high. ride everyone's wearing jackets and their wording about -- worrying about getting cold. we had a storm to hit a big part of america. did you see the photos of florida? the entire south.

you can't stay warm in the winter when you he goes out and you can't insulate your home. you are going to get sick. why in the world with this person offer an effort to eliminate the programs that matter. how about ohio and wisconsin. their constituents depend on these programs every day. one area that caught my attention is that quote head start or to dispense have worse behavior in academic outcomes than children who do not enroll in the program. i think mr. vought was surprised when i told my wife to head start. i'm the united states senate and what do you think about that? he didn't respond. my constituents that go to that

head start steps away from the church that i go to when i'm back in new mexico, what is he saying about early childhood education and why is that on the chopping block and quite honestly every one of these programs that -- and other programs that president trump has talked about a favorable way is on the chopping block. as a matter of fact when these budgets come to congress they are going to have mr. vought's signature just like these other budgets do as well so i'm very concerned about where we stand today and here's what it comes down to. all of those teachers those police officers and firefighters and pipefitters ironworkers and the builders back in new mexico the small businesses that are our favorites, i hope someone

speaks up when these budgets come forward and they will increase costs on all of these families and make things harder. there has got to be a better way to do this. as i close make no mistake about all my brothers and sisters who have claimed that project 2025 didn't exist and they never read it and they weren't aware of it because mr. vought is proof that it exists and now he's being nominated as the head person to put these budgets together. it's about time that someone is honest with the american people and i hope they are ready to speak up and own it just like mr. vought did. i want to reiterate one thing yesterday two days ago president trump talked about the golden age. it's a golden age for drug manufactures and it's a golden age for big oil companies the

golden age for -- that's not a golden age for people who need help golden age of american workers for helping those who need food stamps and other golden age for -- the golden ages for a limited few. you could not have a worse nominee and the more powerful position than mr. vought. on the subject first, yes. we just had the hearing yesterday and it's all coming up. project 2025 they used to say he had nothing to do with the trump presidency and it has everything to do with the trump presidency and as they have learned i will -- i hope we will get some votes but it will hurt their constituents as much as anybody.

[inaudible] that i or any clean energy which i wrote in large part the ira is the law to impound those funds to be unconstitutional absolutely. yes. [inaudible] hegseth is so unqualified he ranks up there with vought for the defense department people's lives depend on and the men and women in the armed services.

pete hegseth has shown himself not only incapable of running a large organization he also shows himself incapable of showing up for showing up and away where you could get anything done. he is so out of the mainstream and so unqualified for the dod i'm hopeful we forget our republican colleagues to join us. we have a vote this afternoon. [inaudible] there are some nominees like rubio that got broad support for to have a detailed discussion i have some doubts about mr. ratcliffe particularly when i asked him how he would react to tulsi gabbard put in charge in charge of him and the dni. for a day or two or for a few hours to examine these nominees

who have such power thoroughly absolutely, absolutely. our ideas to let the whole truth come out and not to rush them through and we don't want that to happen. [inaudible] i will call him tim who is our expert. to take a blanket brushed across it and 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 effective. if they get word of telework i'll take a dagger to the heart of federal workers of the federal government. >> there was a hearing in the house not long ago last year with the opm director appeared before the house for the last time and he revealed the results of the study the percentage of federal workers and teleworkers

is lower than the percentage of private federal workers. why is that? what you ought to be focusing on is being affected and a lot of private employers realize it's affected just like we have realized telehealth is effective. you can access content during these platforms so why would you happen across-the-board ruled rejecting what is a best practice in the private-sector to do it? i have my caseworkers who do a lot of telework and my tax expert is an addington virginian and appalachian and she handles all the tax concerns raised by virginians in any part of the state. her job has always been telework and even when she's in the office she's interacting with constituents by telework. that across-the-board thing is designed to make people's lives harder. it's a real challenge and it leads to less effective service

of our fellow americans which is what we want our federal workers to do. >> thank you everybody.

it's the return to office directive in the federal hiring freeze. how easy and how hard are these initiatives going to be for the trump administration to enforce quick think a lot of it is hard to right now that the returned office mandate agencies do have a lot of agreements as per example with their unions and federal employees those who are eligible for telework have been teleworking for many years even before the pandemic so a shift in person workforce will be a challenge and will take some

time and the executive order on the return to office left a lot of open to determine in terms of how that's going to be implemented. >> reactions that you've seen and what's most interesting to you especially do the hiring freeze could extend the hiring freeze there is a feeling of uncertainty and concern among federal employees to some extent. i think the hiring freeze wasn't necessarily unexpected. it was something that president trump did in 2017 early on in his first term. it's something we are seeing come back again but in terms of what agencies it's going to impact and how it's going to play out only time can tell and tears again a lot of uncertainty among federal place. >> what we know about the number of federal employees that work in the office every day in "the washington times" point out a house oversight committee report 10% of federal employees to a

28,000 employees never going to the office from 1.1 million employees are allowed in telework. >> the numbers that i've heard from different agencies in their reports to the office of management and budget gets about more than half of the federal workforce is entirely on-site because they hold roles like federal firefighters, law enforcement officers tsa workers so there a lot of different positions that require completely on-site work. those who can telework and who are eligible to first place many are spending 50% roughly of their time in the office already so they are above that 50% mark which is what the byte administration was trying to hit but now with trump's mandate on return to the office and there's a memo giving more detail about that last night i think we might see that shift towards more in person work. >> although started 28,000

federal employees who were fully remote and the ones who are partially remote if they tomorrow return back to the office is there space for all those employees could expand that is a great question. there is a big concern for a lot of federal employees about having enough office space. they are obviously concerned from different members of congress in terms a lot of the office space sitting empty but at the same time federal employees in the survey that federal "newsweek" did many were concerned about not having enough space and having to potentially share cubicles but a lot of agencies after the cope of 19 pandemic started taking down the amount of office space they hold in the opponents of the work to continue scaling down on office space so that leaves the question of federal employees are pushed back to the office full-time will there be space for them it's hard to say. it depends on agency.

>> you mentioned the unit unions and their reaction to american federation of governor employees there've directive to return to office full-time turns back the clock to the 420 to one congress wanted to expand telework by law and congress took action decades before the pandemic recognizing telework was an important tool for agencies providing eligible employees the opportunity to work hybrid schedules a huge tool for recruiting and retaining workers and the public and the private area and it will make it harder for federal agencies to compete for top talent. what is the american federation how many employees does it represent text and it represents a couple hundred thousand federal employees of the largest federal employee union and many other federal units have expressed strong support of telework options to federal employees. none of the unions have said

federal employees should be entirely remote and i think they are also saying the same thing a lot of federal jobs require. aig is one that is very vocal and pointing to the 2010 federal enhancement act shows where telework has been for the last several years. >> federal news network until the bottom of the hour. we'll get your calls in the topic changes to the federal workforce. the segment will have a special line for federal workers 2-027-488-0002 otherwise the numbers as usual (202)748-8003 for federal (202)748-8002 for independents democrats (202)748-8000 and republicans

(202)748-8001. what is schedule f? >> this is another ex-executive order that president trump sign when i was expected because it came at the end of his first term as well. at that time once president biden stepped into office it was rescinded but what it does is try to make federal employees who earn career position some nonpolitical positions put them in a new classification of federal employees and eventually removed their civil service protections and that means they are easier to fire and gives agencies more flexibility in letting people go. the executive order that came back lays the groundwork for returning something like federal f and they change the name of it this time around but there was a final rule from the biden administration trying to prevent that from happening so there's a

little bit more back and forth this time than the initial executive order. the goal there was to reclassify certain career federal employees. >> the expectation that this goes to the federal courts to determine that classification is something you think could make its way to the supreme court. >> the national treasury employees union did file a lawsuit against the executive order which has been changed to federal policy/career but it's essentially a same idea. i think the lawsuit shows there will be strong pushes and strong questions on both sides of this issue. something to watch out for. >> before we get the calls one more topic to throw on top of this, the government diversity equity and inclusion staffers come explain the latest on what's happening there this week. >> there is a memo from the office of personnel management

yesterday that asked eight agencies to the put all of their employees work and i'm the eia or dei projects on paid administrative leave. at this point it's hard to say exactly how many employees as one packed but it's removing those employees immediately. some are working on their positions and working on dei projects. again those sorts of roles focus on making workplace culture more inclusive and make fire -- hiring more diverse and that something mr. trump is pushback on and trying to reverse some of those policies. you, madam president. you, madam i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: we are not in quorum call, so the senator is recognized. mr. blumenthal: madam president, we are in the midst of considering peter hegseth to be the next secretary of defense.

i don't think there's a more important office in this country. having power and responsibility for 3.4 million americans, most of them in uniform, many of them civilians, all of them potentially putting their lives in harm's way. the president-elect's choice to lead the department of defense is not only one of the most significant he will make but also probably the most unqualified nominee for this position of immense authority and responsibility in recent history. it's clear that his history of mismanagement, he drove two veterans' organizations into the ground financially, makes him

patently incapable of the powerfully challenging management tasks that he will have as secretary of defense. this sprawling enterprise has to be directed and guided by someone who has had some significant management responsibility in the past. i hesitate to say how much because the standard and the bar have always been extremely high under both republican and democratic administrations, including president trump's first term when he appointed general mattis. i voted for general mattis. he was obviously a republican nominee, but he had the experience, not just in combat but also at the pentagon.

now i know that the president wants to be a disrupter and a change agent. the pentagon may be in need of some change and disruption, but not chaos, not financial mismanagement such is characterized pete hegseth's service for veterans of freedom and then concerned veterans for america. what can be said about his service in those two organization is that year after year he spent more than he raised. he had deficits year after year. not by a little bit, by hundreds of thousands of dollars so that at the end of his service at veterans for freedom, the board

did an intervention. they had a forensic study done which showed that there were tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid debt and they, in effect, ousted him. he then went to concerned veterans for america and same pattern, roughly the same financial failings, deficits year after year, significant in their number and total amount. and there again, he left under a cloud with a nondisclosure agreement so that we don't have necessarily the full story. so just as a management issue,

this nomination is fundamentally flawed. he left those two separate organization smoldering in ruin after just a few years as their executive director. we have documents from whistleblowers that detail a toxic workplace environment at those organization. it was rife with alcohol abuse and sexual harassment under his leadership. former employees have detailed that mr. hegseth routinely used organization funds to pursue personal pleasures, usually involving alcohol and women. his underlings refer to them as party girls, end quote. these veteran service

organization ran fiscal surpluses before mr. hegseth's tenure and upon his exit their budgets were really inflamed. in one case the organization simply ceased to exist. veterans for freedom was absorbed by another organization. he testified that he's proud of the work he did while he was at veterans for freedom and concerned veterans for america, but he made a career of advocating for policies that would, in effect, contract and even defund the veterans' administration and harm servicemembers, veterans, and their families. for years he lambasted veterans who pursued disability compensation and he advocated for nonprofit -- i'm sorry --

for profit colleges that make their livings preying -- living preying on servicemembers and veterans. these organizations and the policies he advocated could potentially have done grave harm to our veterans. during his confirmation hearing, mr. hegseth also refused to answer questions regarding the use of active duty military within the borders of the united states. one of the president-elect's own former secretaries of defense stated unequivocally, quote, the option to use active duty forces in law enforcement roles should be only used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. end quote. yet, the president-elect is

apparently laying down plans to use the active military to for mass deportations and civic unrest. americans don't want our military, men and women, on active duty, raiding restaurants and farms, looking for individuals who overstayed their visas. if the president is unwilling to invest in ice, it should not be our active duty military going into homes, work places, schools, churches, hospitals, and in effect performing the raids, the law enforcement duty, that really are specifically prohibited by statute. pete hegseth will be behind these policieseses. -- policies. many of them he's already

endorsed. most of them unfortunately were not deviled into in any -- self--ed into in his hearing because so much was on his sexual improprieties and alcohol abuse that would be disqualifying, let's make no mistake, there's a lot of focus on this latest affidavit. there is significant information, not anonymous smears. significant information in that affidavit. but there was already enough on the record. in fact acknowledged during that hearing by mr. hegseth himself as to information that would be disqualifying if he, as a major, were up for promotion, if he, as a corporal, were up for

promotion to a sergeant. that's about marital infidelity, open, blatant, a matter of public record that would be disqualifying to him within the military. in fact, might even subject him to discipline within the military. other reported instances of drunkenness, of misconduct, all of it in the public record acknowledged by him at least as to the marital infidelity. so the focus on those personal aspects of his background took time, and by the way, we had very limited amounts of time because we were not permitted a second round of questioning. we were not given access to the

fbi background court. we were not given, in fact, the benefit of a full fbi background investigation, an adequate one because there were gaps as shown by the affidavit as to who was interviewed, and that's in part why that affidavit is important because it shows that there were, in fact, gaps in the fbi's investigation. the american people don't want the national guard or our military reserves or our active duty, their own neighbors on the streets of des moines, cleveland, hartford, montgomery, places where they call home checking their papers, conducting surveillance

operations that could sweep vast amounts of their private data. that's our military going into our work places and our homes collecting information. the founders of this nation never envisioned our military as a police force, neither did congress, and that's why we the insurrection act and other measures that forbid that kind of intrusion. in fact, it was that kind of invasion of their homes by the british military that caused them to adopt many of our constitutional guarantees against the use of the military in those kinds of purposes. mr. hegseth declined to state his opposition to such deployments when asked during

his hearing. what he said, and i take him at his word, is that he will heed the president's direction as commander in chief. the reason he was chosen for this job, obviously is not his experience as a manager, it's not his bona fidies as a leader of major organizations, it's his loyalty to the president, to donald t bona fides and more than loyalty, it's fealty. it's that acquiescence. obedience, up seekousness, blind

loyalty that would lead him to take that order and in turn order american troops into people's homes. there's no question that beyond what could happen in america on our soil, his confirmation also presents enormous problems for our partners and allies in the middle east. i've been working with the senior senator from south carolina for some years to encourage the normalization of relations between the state of israel and the kingdom of saudi arabia. it's an enterprise and an effort that i think has occupied many of us in this chamber. we have visited the region together. and one of our objectives in fact is a treaty or agreement that would bind us closer

together. israel, saudi arabia, america, perhaps the uae, as part of normalization of relations between saudi arabia and the regional nations and israel. suffice to say that the recent cease-fire announcement between israel and hamas is a historic shift in regional politics, i believe that mr. hegseth's personal beliefs would diminish our support of the peace process or derail it entire ly because f comments he has made about police -- about islam and muslim nation. those comments were explored in some detail in his testimony. my concern is there have been numerous reports in addition to his own words that appear to convey a hostility on his part,

if not outright antagonism toward islam and muslims. a former employee of concerned veterans for america alleged that he shouted racist and islam phobic chafrntss during a official tour in ohio -- chants during a official tour in ohio, well known in the region where muslim nation and islam are predominant. in his book, "american crusade," he expressed concern about muslim birth rates and said the present moment for christians is like the time of the crusades in that christians must arm themselves, quote, metaphorically, intellectually, physically. our fight is not with guns yet.

end quote. not with guns yet. well, we are not in a time where we need a crusader in the old fashion sense of that word and who says that christians must arm themselves metaphorically, intellectually, physically, physically for a fight that may be coming. we are trying to engage those nations in a common purpose toward normalization, peace and stability, an expansion of the abraham accords. people in israel are hoping that that progress can be made, there can be a successful effort to build on the abraham accords.

and the current cease-fire agreement is the result of both the trump administration and the biden administration coming together, the two teams, and envoy -- making sure that peace was the objective, not antagonism or hostility. ambassador whitcover i don't think would want a secretary of defense talking about a crusade against muslim nations. i don't think that a more problematic and concerning nominee has been put before this body. and i urge my republican colleagues to review what senator murkowski and senator

collins said when they announced that they were going to oppose this nomination as they did earlier today. senator murkowski said, and i'm quoting, i have met with him and carefully reviewed his writings, various reports, and other pertinent materials. i closely followed his hearings before the senate armed services committee and gathered substantial feedback from organizations, veterans, and alaskans. after a thorough evaluation, i must conclude i cannot in good conscience support his nomination for secretary of defense. and she went on to talk about some of the allegations that have been made against mr. hegseth. although he has recently revised his comments -- again, i'm

quoting -- recently revised his statements on women in combat since being nominated, i remain concerned about the message that confirming mr. hegseth sends to women currently serving and those aspiring to join. women have served our nation with distinction overcoming immense obstacles to excel in combat and leadership roles and they deserve to know that their leader honors and values their commitment to our nation, end quote. now, the reason for that comment by senator murkowski was statements made by mr. hegseth. 30 days before his hearing about the lack of value in women serving in the military and the inability, lack of capacity of

women to serve in combat. he reversed himself, would one of my colleagues called nomination conversion. and modified his previous remarks. but he couldn't tell you what caused him to have a different opinion. and in the course of that hearing, truly revealed that he continues to have that view of women, which is a problem for recruiting women. they are now 18% of our military force. and more than just recruiting women, retaining women, especially when the scourge of sexual assault continues to be so problematic in the military. we fought it for years, a number of us on the armed services committee have supported

measures that would provide for more effective prosecution through a system of investigation outside the chain of command. we've adopted those reforms. and military leaders have joined us in seeking to combat sexual assault and harassment. and here we have someone who has been accused very credibly and plausibly, not just in this affidavit but by others, and the record is replete with them. they're accusations. there are no convictions here. mr. hegseth denies them. but again simply what he acknowledges having done would disqualify him from a role of command in the military. and that background and record can't help but discourage women from joining and staying in the military. senator murkowski goes on to say, quote, while the allegations of sexual assault

and excessive drinking do nothing to quiet my concerns, the past behaviors mr. hegseth has admitted to, including infidelity on multiple occasions, demonstrate a lack of judgment that is unbecoming of someone who would lead our armed forces. these behaviors starkly contrast the values and discipline expected of servicemembers. men and women in uniform are held accountable for such action, and they deserve leaders who uphold these same standards. mr. hegseth complained in our hearing that the military was lowering its standards for the men and women who serve in uniform. the only standards being lowered here are the standards for the secretary of defense if mr. hegseth is confirmed.

mr. trump, president trump is in effect dumbing down the department of defense and it threatens to do grave damage to that powerfully important institution. senator murkowski goes on to say, above all i believe that character is the defining trait required of the secretary of defense and must be prioritized without compromise. the leader of the department of defense must demonstrate and model the standards of behavior and character we expect of all servicemembers. and mr. hegseth's nomination to the role poses significant concerns that i cannot overlook given the global security environment we're operating in, it is critical that we confirm a secretary of defense. however, i regret that i am unable to support mr. hegseth. end quote. what a powerfully damning

stat statement, not damning necessarily mr. hegseth as a human being. i respect his service. i said at the hearing that i was grateful and respectful of his service to our nation, including leading troops in combat and advocating for veterans. but these concerns about his personal background and about his lack of experience negate that respect for his service as a secretary of defense, as a secretary of defense. we are not choosing him to be a

colonel, to be promoted. we're choosing him to lead the entire united states military and to make decisions that will be a matter of life-or-death. i was moved as well by the statements made by our colleague, senator collins, very much along the same lines. and i want to repeat some of what she said, again in the hope that our colleagues will listen to both of them. and she said as an expert, if i may say, on the global challenges that this country faces now, quote, the secretary is going to be facing a number

of incredibly complex problems that are going to require highly skilled management ability. i'm concerned mr. hegseth does not have the management experience and background that he will need in order to tackle these difficulties. i am also concerned about multiple statements, including some in the months just before he was nominated that mr. hegseth made about women serving in the military. he and i had a candid conversation in december about his past statements, and apparently evolving views. i am not convinced that his position on women serving in combat roles has changed. that is in some ways the nub of the problem. what he has said, how he has

failed in past management positions, how he lacks that credibility as a managerial lead le leader. senator collins continues. women comprise merely 18% of our active duty military. they continue to make critical and valuable contributions to our national defense. i have long advocated that women who wish to serve in and can meet the rigorous standards of combat roles should be able to do so, and numerous women have proved they can accomplish this difficult feat. currently thousands of women are serving in combat roles and many other serve in noncombat function. their service is essential to the success of our military. mr. hegseth also appears to lack

a sufficient appreciation for some of the policies that the military is required to follow because they are codified in the laws of the united states of america. while i understand his points on the importance of up-to-date and workable rules laws, our prohib torture come from american laws and treaties, ratified by the united states, including the geneva convention. therefore, i will vote against the nomination. end quote. mr. hegseth has demeaned and dismissed the importance of the geneva convention. in fact, he's berated the lawyers in the department of defense who set standards and guidelines for what can be done. i will never forget talking to our former colleague, our great colleague, a friend and mentor

to me, john mccain, about why he opposes torture, waterboarding, that kind of physical abuse, why he believed that these laws have to be followed by our military, not just as a matter of humanity, but effective military str strategy. torturing to gain information often pro dupeses false information -- produces false information, but it also reduces the quality of our military performance. and yet, mr. hegseth seems to dismiss those ideas about the geneva convention, about standards for military conduct.

as categorically, as he does many other of the standards that should apply. i hope my colleagues will listen to senator murkowski and senator collins, because in their statement they say more effectively than i am in this lengthier talk on the floor how important a vote against mr. hegseth is to the future of our national defense. much has been written about him. i urge my colleagues to review an article that appeared in "the new yorker", "pete hegseth's

secret history" by jane mayer, who talks about some of these instances, not anonymous smears he says so many of them were, but in sourced and substantiated account of the kinds of misconduct that were detailed in a whistleblower report and other documents. again, not an anonymous smear. specific and explicit facts that were claimed. we don't have eye witness proof in sworn testimony before the armed services committee, but this report is powerful in what it shows.

i hope that my colleagues, in the hours that we have left before we will vote again on mr. hegseth's nomination, will reconsider perhaps their vote earlier today, that they will recognize they will be responsible if things go wrong, and we hope to god always that nothing goes wrong, especially all of us who have family members who have served, mine in the united states marine corps, my oldest son is a combat veteran, and my second son, michael, is a navy seal.

the responsibility of the secretary of defense to order men and women into harm's way is a truly awesome responsibility. mr. hegseth isn't the person to have that responsibility, and i hope my colleagues will recognize that fact and vote against his nomination. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

no time is yielded back a final vote could occur tomorrow about 9:00 p.m. eastern. looking at other nomination senate intelligence committee announced a confirmation hearing on january 30. the meantime several other nominees including lee zeldin to

have the epa, chris wright for energy secretary and dog program for interior secretary were advanced by the respective committees. further votes have not been scheduled by the full senate. good afternoon everybody and it's a privilege to be here. we are the preshow for the show that is going to begin in just a little bit. with president trump. we have two esteemed governors here uniquely by the way to governors in just a moment. but the state of america politics that are almost petri dishes in experiments throughout the united states for how to do business and i think we are learning a lot and we will learn a lot from both of them throughout the next half hour. sarah huckabee sanders sisters

and governor of arkansas. her she's the daughter of mike huckabee who was the governor in 1996 -- 2007 you may know her as the trump white house press secretary in 2019 she was the first woman to serve as a governor of arkansas. any beshear is also here. he's the governor of kentucky steve this year 2007 -- 2015. he served as kentucky's attorney general for 2016 until 2019. the chair of the tga. i want to get to states were going to the elevator pitch and talk about how we are thinking about investments and everything else effort want to start with politics at this moment we are going to hear from president trump in just a little bit. there's a lot of questions about what we are going to hear and what it means to be america

americanfirst right now. so want to read you a quote i spoke with monday night of ford ceo who said the following. i thought is a very provocative thought. said we always like support the idea of america as a leader. it is a difference if the framing is as trump says america is the winner. because it means there must be losers. i am curious how both of you from a political perspective given this moment we are living in today, given the foreign investors i hope you will help will come to your state. think about that idea. >> i am happy to jump in. excited to share the stage with a fellow governor and fellow southern governor. we have a unique perspective having grown up in politics. but i think when it comes to america first, the idea and so is the perspective of the

president, so with is the rest of the world doesn't win when america strong and the rest of the world does better when america has a strong economy. we are providing good national security, things like that matter to what happens across the rest of the globe. america first, america winning does not mean others are losing. it should not come as a surprise to anybody that the leader of that country wants them to be successful. i'm the governor of arkansas i went arkansas to win i went arkansas to do while at the same way i would imagine governor beshear once kentucky to do well. we are fighting to bring economic development, to bring investment, to succeed and be at the top. i want to be at the top. that is a good thing for the rest of the world when the rest of the country strong. >> what he think? >> first of all they get to the economic form first time

kentucky's ever been invited we are excited to be here. and introduce kentucky on the world stage. whether this concept of america versus a good thing or bad thing, depends on how it is implemented. if it's implemented in a way that ensures the american people have good jobs, quality healthcare, strong infrastructure. strong public safety. those are good things. especially our alliances concerning thing for the world the ultimate reliability and consistency and that save up a plan and as you can. there will always be some rhetoric how it's implemented, what's its implications and, i

think that's both what impact it will have on the world. and what impact it will have on the american people. i think we will talk about this more. my belief and would probably of slightly different ones on why president trump is president again. that last group of immutable movable voters had a gut check and they believe president trump would make it a little easier to pay the bills at the end of the month. so, do these policies raise prices? do they lower prices? that's a lot of what to watch as we move forward. >> segment which a watch. what are your expectations of the possibility of tariffs? and whether they are a negotiating tool or something else? >> i think certainly the president -- mcchord of the really important things to look at is this is not his first time. he is now coming in having been the president before. he knows them the tools that he has in his toolbox he was able to successfully.

we saw a really strong economy under president donald trump. we sought relationships across the globe. and in many cases, if they don't like the way center of the way he went about it it's hard to argue his policies were not affected did not make our country stronger. and so it is one of those things he will use as a tool in his toolbox and something he can use and leverage and negotiation at the end of the day he is the ultimate dealmaker. he will use as is going about trying to make sure america comes out. >> the only reason i mention this there's another view which is a has to be a toll booth. it is a toll booth because when it comes to the budget on the deficit and the united states this may be a tool not just to negotiate other countries but a tool to collect revenue. >> part of the administration just said that publicly. when you look at this, these

threaten tariffs and outright and belts are about leverage. why? president trump is been very clear they are about leverage. but the impact could go right to the reasons he got elected. could have significant impact on that very quickly. it's a 25% turf on canada. that will raise gas prices there's a threat of 25% turf on mexico. not will raise food prices. when you look at inflation but americans see it is food prices. as the world watches it is going to be important to know what the leverage being sought is not just following a trade imbalance but looking with the objective is whether there any steps being taken.

it's likely to be. >> if i could have one thing there. one thing is really important that conversation particularly when you're looking gas prices. what things a president talked about a lot in the last couple of days is unleashing energy. that balance is a big difference. we saw that the first trump administration we actually were no longer dependent on others for energy resources. one of the best ways we can be competitive as not to depend on other people for our energy. my dad and knowing it would probably steal good material from our parents having watch them grow up in this business, or the most important phrases like my dad said as a country cannot be free if they cannot feed themselves, fuel themselves and fight for themselves.

>> business leaders are in this room, here today, and elsewhere. >> this time it feels different and that is now surrounded by business executives many from silicon valley and i think of a mask but you look at that inauguration some of them and better seats than cabinet members. what is going on in which we think about and what is that mean an how is a fundamentally different than the first time around when a lot of those

people did not attend those things are they there because they want to be there because they feel like they have to be there and be honest and tell us what you really think. >> we probably have very different answers for certainly, there is a much greater optimism that exist this time around than it did in 2016 being one of the first people to go into the white house, right after the president took the oath of office, fast or eight years being in dc a few days ago for the inauguration, there is a very different feel in a sense of excitement. that was not as widespread as what you see right now also have a look at the numbers and donald trump one by historic margin in a big mandate to come into office in the republican has not done that in decades and so now, it is not just that is coming in with excitement, but is coming in with a lot of political capitol is the guy got afraid to

spend it and you see him move at a pace unprecedented and i think it in large part because of that level of engagement that you see from a lot of people who work at the table the percent round. >> one of the spec thing and i don't disagree that there people are very excited about it to my think that the idea of a wide margin is a different question yes but in terms of electoral votes but in terms of actual population, much more narrow raises the question help hold the rights of u.s. will be a don't know we got happy too many fact effect checks but i think basic math when you look at the election commissions that yes he won and yes, there's energy there historic margin is not map here's what i think my see campaign run by donald trump published pretty smartly and attacking big tech, attacking in many ways and certainly attacking facebook or met it and

so many others and now you see all of those executives, sitting in the really good seats which is really interesting from the company perspective, but also really interesting from the candidate now that president printed that perspective and i think that is just one example how the day today me change and how we will be watching. >> here's about the day today the polarization is where i to go with this because both of you are here, telling the essays really selling your states, and i want you to talk about what they're selling points are in a moment but there's a question about consistency with the united states will be polarized as it is a federal two years or every four years, seem to maybe flip-flopping back and forth and policies and fundamentally change, by the way you're dealing with this radial that said tvs in your say for example. heart is it for you to self he stated how should they be

thinking about investing the u.s. given that polarization. >> disabled discipline federal politics but agreement respect the governor because i know what she does day today and who your governor is, if you're a citizen of your state or you are a business in that state, that is really much more important to you and i believe that any makeup of the federal government sent that is the relationship you have an location and growth and business climate and in workforce and in so many other means is a direct relationship as an employer you have that you should have, and so much of what we do on a day-to-day basis is driven by, getting things done, being practical, and a lot of the politics i believe is a governor and the day-to-day running of our state does appear, because good jobs except all healthcare and safe roads and bridges and safe communities, get schools things we need to deliver whether rendered low and i believe those

are the things that should unify the united states and think that we can work on together for at least i hope things that we can start working on before we start arguing. so the argument does not terms of giving us basic done pretty remote here because foreign direct investment is critical the united states in the 1980s but there first north american manufacturing facility in kentucky is still the largest manufacturing facility worldwide and that changed everything in kentucky is one of those investment that changes the next 30 years and i was glad to have one of those and invested $5.8 million to build into a large battery plants that will be one of the next big mover sent both required for investment while we here come up you to talk to ceos directly here at those who has found thousands of jobs in our state's davos, switzerland is hard to ceos that are from three different confidence but i can talk to it one place so for us

being here is good business and can be a lot of other reasons to come with a chance a short period of time, to communicate with, to continue the trust with, to find out the different concerns governor hopefully announce expansions, that is a real value for governors to be in the realm with business. >> living pushback on this point, which is the reason i mentioned at least, you're one of the things that trump dad very early on an objective orders sent money for charging stations commute by stevie industry to make your way, the biden administration was a big proponent of the beneficiaries of that and i imagine you know, the foreign companies on the makers is what i will be doing it out, the policy will change and somehow you think about that is you silk your state knowing t there is this federal overly maybe shifting. and shifting the question is do we think it overtime it will start to shift all the time. >> the federal overly maybe shifting, by the private sector

and his direction is not. no tvs are picking up stevie for the biden administration are going to continue after the speed may be different than the governments dollars coming in maybe different a lot of people try to fight future but nobody has ever one we know that this is big part of the future and they said this weekend that if you're not brave enough to invest before the inflection point, you get that behind and self that growth in the ev industry whether government dollars are coming in or not is never going to make linear but the importance of the 18 into especially as we see more charges and the cost will come down and even if the credits there, when he takes off, you know we be a part of it may have that 58 billion-dollar investment before the ira was ever past and so while it is helping the cash flow certainly of it, this is the private sector and the sustainability of electric and has been pushing and driving it will continue to

do so soon a covenant about was the elevator pitch. >> well i think one of the things and certainly completely agree with the governor, is so important for us to have the opportunity to come in and talk about what our state has to offer and we are so directly connected i think one of the reasons that things like the government subsidizing individual sectors within private industry is dangerous is because exactly what you see with the electric vehicles and we should not be putting are so unskilled instead. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to

the consideration of s. res. 34, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 34, congratulating the washington university in st. louis bears women's soccer team for winning the 2024 ncaa division iii women's soccer championship. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday, january 24. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further that the senate resume consideration of executive calendar number 3 and that all time during recess, adjournment, and leader remarks count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune:

mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until >> the senate could i don't right-click the cia director and timber also voted to advance the nomination of defense secretary p.m. republican susan collins and lisa markowski joined democrats in voting out, there to 38 hours of debate on the pete hegseth nomination before confirmation vote and if agreement is not reached about would hpen just before 9:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow night, watch live gavel to gavel's coverage on "c-span2". >> the hill in a number of other sources every that a federal judgeas temporarily halted to president trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship for the children of many

migrants that the president the executive order on his first day in office the judge ruled that president trump's order directly contradict the constitution which guarantees the citizenship for all people born within the u.s. under the 14th amendment. following their issue of the executive order 226 filed suit against that directive is just civils group, to argue the contradict a current law you citizenship the admiration status of their parents u.s. district court judge a reagan appointee, agreed to request washington state in 17 states and locked the order from taking effect for now and during the hearing of a cnn is reporting that the judge said that the benchmark over a decade as i can remember another case where the question presented is this clear missus want this is a blatantly unconstitutional order. >> cspan, democracy unfiltered, funded by these television companies and work. including comcast.

>> you thinking this is just a community center, no coming it is way more than that to my comcast partnering with a thousand community centers to create wi-fi enabled and so students from low-income families can get the full and the tools to be ready for anything. comcast up for c-span as a public service come along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. she's can shop at argosy spans ongoing short sort browse our latest collection, apparel, books, home to court and assess recent there's something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support her nonprofit operations, shop now or anytime, at c-spanshop.org. >> presented today voted to limited and vince nomination of transi t