the presiding officer: the senate is will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, this morning we again invite you to enter the gates of our hearts. come into our lives and remove all false pride and disunity, replacing them with humility and harmony. reside with the members of this legislative body. create within them a hunger for holiness. lord, may they dedicate their work as a gift of love to you,

concrating even their -- consecrating even their thoughted for your honor. generate in their minds a spirit of expectancy that the best is yet to be. increase their joy and peace, as they experience the power of your presence. we pray in your mighty name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. 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.

of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of homeland security, chrissy noem of -- kristi noem of south dakota to be secretary.

.

:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, today the senate will vote on the nomination of kristi noem. i am voting no today. there are obvious and bipartisan solutions to fix the mess at our border and to grateful improve our immigration system. those solutions include the bipartisan border security bill we introduced last year with senators lankford, murphy and sinema, and even better a comprehensive reform package along the lines of the bipartisan compromise from the gang of eight from 2013. these are real solutions that

would solve our immigration problem and kristi noem seems headed in the wrong direction. i will vote no. now on the hegseth debate last night. last night senate republicans entrusted the mostly powerful military in the world to someone with no experience, terrible judgment and serious flaws of character. this is a deeply troubling moment. our troops deserve so much better than pete hegseth. our country deserves so much better than pete hegseth. his flaws were obvious to both sides from the start. given the deeply concerning information we know about pete hegseth and the immense importance of the job he now has, i hope, i hope for the sake of our troops and the good of our country that he can eventually grow into the job. senate democrats will insist on vigorous oversight of the defense department. on i.g.'s, yesterday in the dark

of night president trump fired at least 12 independent inspector generals at important federal agencies across the administration. this is a chilling purge and it's a preview of the lawless approach donald trump and his administration are taking far too often as he's becoming president. these dismissals are possibly in violation of federal law, which requires congress to have 30 days notice of any intent to fire inspectors general. these firings are donald trump's way of telling us he is terrified of accountability and hostile to facts and transparency. inspects general can be vital to keeping the government honest. they are the ones who tell the truth and shed light on bad behavior. and we all know that there's nothing donald trump is more afraid of than someone who is independent. but president trump all too often has an aversion to the

truth. and when someone confronts him with truth and facts, he fires them and replaces them with loyalists. we're a fact-based society, or we have been. we lose that, we lose the core of america. and donald trump's decision to fire 12 of the federal government's independent watchdogs is a glaring sign that it's a golden age -- and donald trump's decision to fire 12 of the federal government's independent watchdogs is a glaring sign that it's a golden age for abuse in government and even corruption. when government agencies disobey the law in the next year and there's no independent i.g. to keep them in check, donald trump could well regret this action. now on project 2025, does anyone here remember when donald trump claimed he had nothing to do with project 2025? remember last year donald trump seemed to go out of his way to distance himself from the wildly

unpopular project 2025. now one week into donald trump's presidency, that's all gone out the right-wing window. under donald trump, it's the dawn of a golden age for project 2025, and this should infuriate working people from one end of america to the other. here's a bloomberg headline from yesterday, quote, trump's early actions mirror project 2025 plan he once dismissed, unquote. in fact, according to bloomberg, more than 30 of the 47 initial executive actions announced by the administration come directly, directly from project 2025. let me repeat, more than 30 of the 47 executive actions announced by the administration come directly from project 2025.

project 2025 is officially donald trump's policy playbook. less than a week into his term president trump has gone after medicare, savings for drug costs, and the cap on out-of-pocket spending for medications. where do you find those ideas? well, they're right out of the 2025 playbook. president trump also signed executive orders that would eliminate good paying job and clean energy and open floodgates for big oil companies. where do you find that? the project 2025 playbook. and even though president trump said he wanted to leave reproductive care to the states, his actions tell us he was not telling us the truth. he pushed policies barring doctors from sharing information with patients about health care, including abortion, and is pushing anti-choice beliefs into the doctor-patient relationship here in the u.s. and across the globe. so when donald trump threatens

things, to roll back cost savings for prescription drugs or threatens jobs, he's making life easier for the big corporations and more expensive for average people. and where do these ideas come from? these and many, many more come from the 900 or so pages of project 2025. so no matter how much donald trump tries to convince people he had nothing to do with project 2025, the truth has now come out. project 2025 is the trump agenda, and unfortunately it seems very likely we're going to see more of these awful proposals in the weeks to come. from project 2025 right into the trump administration. on fema, yesterday president trump traveled to north carolina and california to tour sites ravaged by both hurricanes and

wildfires. while speaking to reporters, the president mentioned the role of fema, saying he plans to issue an executive order that could possibly eliminate fema altogether. in his words, quote, i think we're going to recommend that fema go away. look, if we want to talk about commonsense reforms to disaster reforms, that's one thing. but getting rid of fema entirely because of the hunger to shrink government at all costs is dangerous, very dangerous. that could leave families, business owners and local communities fending for themselves. president trump's proposal to get rid of fema has project 2025 written all over of it. project 2025 wants to privatize some of fema's programs including national flood insurance that vulnerable communities rely on desperately. project 2025 calls for the shrinking of the federal government's share of disaster aid and making the states and

local taxpayers pay a far larger share. that's antithetical to how americans stuck together and looked after each other in times of disaster. why do we have a national fema? because americans pull together, not divided one another. and when an area had trouble, whether it's floods in north carolina or hurricanes in florida or fires in california or the devastating effects of sandy in new york, the whole nation pulls together and says we're going to help those devastated areas. we're all together in this. now donald trump p and his toying with getting rid of fema undoes that beautiful part of america that said we all stuck with one another when one area had such a disaster that they couldn't deal with it all themselves. history is clear that when it comes to disaster response, there is some things only the federal government is equipped

to do, and president trump would be mistaken to ignore that. when states get overwhelmed when their highways are buckling, when they don't have trucks and ambulances because of flooding or fires or whatever, earthquakes, to get to the people in need, fema comes right in. it's happened in my state, it's happened in your state, it's happened in everybody's state. get rid of fema because a group of hard-right people want to see that the wealthy in america pay less taxes an la project 2025, un-american to me and against a tradition we've had for half a century. eliminating fema will only mean more pain. the president should back away from this threat. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip is recognized. mr. durbin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. pending before the senate on this saturday morning is the nomination of governor kristi noem of south dakota to be secretary of homeland security in the cabinet of president tr trump. i have never met governor noem. i had hoped we would have a chance to get together, but that didn't work out. i made a request for a courtesy meeting, but we couldn't schedule it. my vote is not contingent on a person showing up in my office, but i wish we'd had a chance to meet and talk about the awesome responsibility she is seeking with this department. department of homeland security is virtually of the creation of 9/11. that's when the term homeland started being used at our highest levels of our government, in an effort to keep america safe from 9/11 or anything like it happening in the future. over the years it has accepted major responsibility when it comes to the issue of immigration, particularly when

it comes to making certain that our border processes are orderly and reach our national goals, serve our national goals and values. it is interesting to reflect on where we are on the issue of immigration. starting point is we are a nation of immigrants, period, end of quote. i'm the son of an immigrant mother who came to the united states at the age of 2. i have been fortunate enough to be entrusted by my state to represent them here in first the house, now the senate. i'm honored with that responsibility. if you visit my office here in the capitol, you will see behind my desk my mother's naturalization certificate. very proud of it. before she passed away, i asked her if she still had it. though she was in kind of a compromised health position, she jumped out of her chair, was gone two, three minutes at most, then came in with a battered old

brown envelope. i opened it, and there was her naturalization certificate, which i display behind my desk. i might also say parenthetically that a little slip of paper came out of that same envelope. i picked it up, and it was a tiny, little piece of piper that said the filing fee of $2.50 had been paid. it was stamped official. i said to many mo, why did you keep this? -- i said to mom, why did you keep this? she said if the government challenged me, i could prove i paid my filing fee of $2.50. that was my mom, an immigrant lady, eighth grade education, raised three boys. we've tried our best to confirm her confidence in us and do our best to serve this country in various ways. so, immigration is personal to me. i'm proud of my immigrant roots. on my father's side, the opposite is true. family dates back to before the

revolutionary war. but that is not unusual in america. we are a gathering of families with many different backgrounds. but immigration is a central part of who we are as americans. and the question, of course, before us is, what are we going to do about problems in immigration? i can tell you the problems predated joe biden, predated my arrival in congress, and go back many other years. if you look at the history of immigration in this country, it is a mixed review. there are times when we embraced immigrants to build tr transnational railroad lines and the like, and times when we shunned them, said they were not welcome in this country. it moves back and forth. we're now at a period everyone knows, where immigration at our borders is a central issue raised in the last presidential campaign, and certainly on the minds of many voters. i was fortunate enough a few years ago, just 2013, to join

what was known as the gang of eight, four democrats, four republican senators, who sat down and said let's write a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and we did. in that group was senator john mccain of arizona, lindsey gr graham, senator flake, and senator rubio, our new secretary of state. on the democratic side, myself, senator schumer, senator menendez, and senators from various states joined, senator feinstein was one of them, who worked toward reaching a goal. we brought a bill to the floor, comprehensive bill, i think a good one. it passed with over 60 votes. unfortunately, after it was sent to the house of representatives, it died without even being debated. we missed an opportunity there. it tried to address some fundamentals, which i believe should be part of any immigration system in america. i can tell you what my

fundamental values are. i certainly identified myself as embracing immigration. when it comes to the process of immigration, there are certain things that i think are absolutely essential. i think most senators of both political parties would agree, though some would have variations on this team, central to immigration reform as far as i'm concerned is an orderly process at the border, which means, except in rare circumstances, people who come through that border gate in an orderly fashion, to be reviewed and carefully scrutinized before they go a step further as to their presence. sec secondly, i accept the premise and think every american probably joins in it, in saying we never knowingly want to allow a dangerous person in this country, period, end of quote. secondly, if an immigrant to this country is involved in dangerous conduct, the rest of the people who live in this country, we don't want them.

they can go back to where they came from or some other place, but they can't stay in the united states. the third reality is tough because it's easy to say and hard to live with, and that is we cannot accept everyone who wants to come into america tomorrow. it just has to be done in a thoughtful, orderly way, that is in the best interest of our nation and the people who live here first. we've got, for example, to allow people to come to this country if they bring skills that are necessary for our future, but we have to offer opportunities to people who are already in this country, citizens and those legally in america, for economic opportunity and the future. they're our highest priority, and should be. having said that, the department of homeland security, which governor noem is seeking to lead, is now embarking on a new era, the new trump 47 era, where mass deportation is the catch

phrase of the day. let me give you an illustration of what mass deportation could mean. we don't know for sure how it will be implemented, but i'm very concerned. we had a hearing this week with president trump's agriculture secretary, miss rollins from the state of texas. i asked her a question, which i think raises valid concern about mass deportation. currently, we know we need immigrants and migrant labor is a critical part of agriculture. when the illinois farm bureau comes to meet with me, they frequently raise the issue of immigration. in what way? well, for example, a member of the farm bureau has a dairy operation in northwestern illinois. she said to me it was the third generation of her family with that dairy operation. if you know anything about dairy operations, they are labor

intensive. those cows have to be milked twice a day, and you better be ready to do it and do it with frequency if you want to continue a successful dairy operation. it involves a lot of manpower, and it used to be that there was a time when dairy families in my state and others had a bunch of kids, because the kids were all ultimately going to be part of the family operation. those kids are not sticking around on dairy farms as much as they used to. so those who want to keep the dairy farms in operation need workers. it is almost impossible to find american workers on these dairy operations because it's such tough work. migrant labor becomes a critical part of the operations in dairy. i can recall a lady said to me, if i can't get migrant laborers to work on my dairy farm in northwestern illinois, this is the end of it, senator. we can't continue.

i don't have enough family members and certainly there are not kids or any workers in town who are anxious to get up at 5:00 in the morning and start milking cows. that's part of my lifestyle. a lady from the illinois farm bureau said i have an orchard in southern illinois. we grow peaches and apples. i will tell you that i've given up the thought of hiring any local young people to work in my orchard operation. they just won't do it. she said i've got a fruit stand out by the highway. i've enclosed it, i've air conditioned it. i still can't get young people to man the cash registers and sell the apples and peaches on the side of the road. they just don't like doing it. i rely every year on migrant labor to come and pick the crop and even to work in the fruit stand out by the highway. that's a reality. and she says i'm done if i can't get migrant workers. so let's put that in the context

of mass deportation. we estimate that 40% of ag workers today are undocumented. that means that literally they're working in most cases, many cases, i should say, without legal authority. they come with regularity from mexico usually or other countries nearby to work in the fields and go back home at a certain point. they are illegal while they are here, but they're doing valuable work. they're paid for it. it's backbreaking work, things that people just ordinarily don't want to do. now let's put that in the context of mass deportation. if the trump administration decides to use are the department of homeland security which governor noem is seeking to head to enforce mass deportation, what's going to happen in that orchard? what's going to happen in that dairy farm? what's going to happen in so many agriculture pursuits where migrant labor, undocumented

labor, is critical to the operation? i can tell you in many instances they will be removing the very workers that pick the crop. and so what does that mean to mr. and mrs. america? wait until you go to the grocery store in the produce section and look at the selection you have today and mark it in your mind, because it may not be there tomorrow if the people who pick the crop and grow the crop, who man and provide resources for the dairy operations are gone, many of these farm operations will be gone with them. so i ask ms. rollins who is seeking to be secretary of agriculture, are you going to warn the people in agriculture states like illinois and texas that mass deportation is a threat to their workforce? and she said, of course. she wouldn't answer that directly. i wasn't surprised by that. but it's an indication of the complication of mass depo deportation. take what i've said and apply it

to so many industries. the hospitality industry, good indication. how many people are cleaning those hotel rooms that you stayed in last night who are undocumented? a lot. and another area that i think is really critical is when it comes to caregivers. when you leave your child or grandchildren at the day care center in the morning and head off to work or whatever your assignment may be for the day, you entrust the most precious part of your life, that little child or grandchild, in many instances to an undocumented worker. they don't get paid as much as most and they have an awesome responsibility. i think every grandparent and parent would agree. you want to make sure that they're good and talented and qualified and show up to work. the same is true when it comes to caregivers for those senior citizens. your mother, your grandmother went down to breakfast this morning at the care facility,

and luckily had by her side one of the workers and caregivers who escorted her carefully back to her room. we all know that at a certain age a fall can be literally deadly and cost a person's life. so you count on that worker. now if you go into mass deportation and start removing the undocumented workers from child care facilities and senior facility p and nursing home facilities, how many people will be prejudiced and hurt by that? i'm afraid very many. so this notion of cleaning the ranks and ridding ourselves of undocumented people in this country, we have to give some thought to. if they are dangerous, if they've committed a crime, no questions asked. they have to go. and it has to be a serious crime, not just an arrest for shoplifting, for example. i personally believe they should not only be charged with a crime, but prosecuted. but if that happens, they're

gone, period. i think most people would agree with that. so governor noem's aspiration to head this agency comes as a critical moment in history. the economy in this country is about to change with mass deportation. we estimate there are about 11 million roughly, 11 million people in this country undocumented, meaning that they are here not in legal status. how did they get here? in a variety of ways. they overstayed visas in most instances. some came across the border, that's for sure. but many came into this this country as students or tourists and stayed. they comprise the largest share of the 11 million undocumented people in this country. i think we dealt with this issue in a responsible way in the bipartisan comprehensive bill. here is what we said, and i want to make it clear. i think this is a thoughtful and sensible way to approach it on a bipartisan basis. if you are undocumented in this country, under o bill, you are

required legally to step forward, identify yourself, pay a fee to remain in this country. you would then be registered by the government. we would know who you are, where you are. you would pay your taxes while you're working and make your contributions to social security and other funds. it would be enforced by something called e-verify, where every employer in this country would be required to check and make sure that the person who is working and undocumented was in fact be registered with the government. that to me is a thoughtful way to make sure that we are safe, still have the workers that we need and to say that those that are here and undocumented status, you may stay. we're not guaranteeing you citizenship, although i personally believe that they should be given a path to citizenship. but it is a starting point and a sensible one. we would say to those workers at the dairy farm in northwestern illinois, keep working, but now you're going to have your own social security number and your

own requirement for paying taxes on a personal basis, as an example. so, it's a little bit different than what president trump has envisioned. his sounds a lot different in many respects. but it's an indication of their awesome responsibility that governor noem will have if she becomes the secretary of homeland security. our border must be secure, and we certainly, as i said earlier, must deport any dangerous individuals who are here illegally. the approach that i've heard will remain to be seen what happens, by president trump and his dhs secretary nominee, kristi noem, is not just targeted at criminals. it is aimed at legal migrant immigrants and immigrant families who have lived in our country, many of them for decades, and are pillars of our community. without fail, i can predict what's going to happen if president trump pursues his

approach. in community after community, in tennessee and in illinois, we will discover undocumented people to our surprise. i didn't know that that man running the restaurant in southern illinois from mexico, the popular restaurant that meme love to go to on friday and saturday nights, i didn't know he was undocumented. i can't believe they are going to deport him. we're going to hear stories like that over and over again of people that we sit next to at church, count on every day in our business dealings, see at the nursing homes, see at the day care facilities who will be subject to deportation. and not just those who are undocumented, but many times it appears to be that they're going to say to their children who were born in the united states and are legal citizens under the 14th amendment to the constitution, they have to leave as well. there is no basis for that to happen in law or in the constitution, and yet i'm afraid that might be the future. we've already seen president

trump suspend refugee admissions program which provides safe haven for those fleeing oppressive regimes around the world, including people from afghanistan who literally risk their lives to help american soldiers survive in that wartime context. some of those people are being threatened now with exclusion and deportation. many refugee applicants wait decades to come to the united states lawfully, and all of them go through rigorous vetting. i'm talking about not months, but years of background checks before they can be considered as a refugee in this country. when they waited so long under difficult circumstances, that seems fundamentally unfair. the trump administration has already canceled flights for over 1,600 afghan refuges coming here including those who are at

risk because they fought for the u.s. on the side of the u.s. in afghanistan. i have a particular situation in chicago which i'm honored to represent. we have a section of that city, one of my favorites, known as ukranian village. it goes without saying that means so many people from ukraine have family and relatives in the chicago land area. great restaurants and bakeries and churches, schools. it's a vibrant part of the city of chicago. this is something most people don't know, when the governor of texas decided to send thousands of undocumented people to the city of chicago, it caused a lot of upheaval and change overnight, and many of those people had to be helped by units of government, the state of illinois, the city of chicago and others. at the same time those 50,000 people were being slowly integrated into the local economy, and most of them now

don't live in any government-sponsored facility but they have their own lives and they're working at this point. at the same time that happened, another 50,000 came into chicago from ukraine because of the war in that country and the displacement of people in that war. we were offered an opportunity under the biden administration for those ukrainians to come to the united states under two conditions. first, they have a sponsoring family. and second, they have a job waiting for them. they won't be dependent on government programs for their survival. we did that, and almost no one noticed these ukrainians had become part of the community in the chicago region and have been part of the economy. and they have been accepted and embraced. now they face the real prospect of mass deportation as well. where are we going to send them? where are they going? this war in ukraine makes it virtually impossible for them to

return to what was their home. so i hope that as we reflect on mass deportation, we realize there are complicating factors in many of these circumstances. stopping the flights to america will not make life any easier for those who applied for refuge status, and it sends a message in afghanistan to our allies and troops around the world that we will not stand by and support and be friends with those who risk their lives for our sol soldiers. president trump announced his plan to attempt to deny citizenship to children born in the united states if their parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. p i don't know if i have a copy at my desk here. here it is. i'd like to read to you, mr. president, the 14th amendment to the constitution. i hope everyone gets a chance to take a look at it themselves, on this whole question of whether

someone can be born in the united states and become a citizen. that has been the law in this country for over 140 years. and it really is a provision in the constitution which is explicit. here's what the 14th amendment says, and i quote it directly, all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside. that is the first sentence of the 14th amendment. so when president trump says that he is opposed to birthright citizenship and challenges it, it was no wonder that the court issued an injunction or temporary restraining order and stopped him immediately, saying this was a judge who was appointed by ronald reagan, that the constitution is explicit. we've got to make sure that our policy when it comes to

immigration is consistent with our constitution and consistent with our values. and for many years in this country, over 100 now, that has been very clear, that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the constitution. kristi noem, the governor of south dakota, has said she wants to end birthright citizenship. she's described the southern border as a war zone and called unl authorized -- unauthorized immigration an invasion. governor noem was the first governor to deploy the national guard to the southern border. i was disappointed she refused my request to meet because i wanted to ask her questions about those decisions. as i said before, we need a secure border. that's why i worked for years to pass bipartisan legislation. but we also need to protect millions of noncitizens whom americans rely on each and every day. immigrants make up 40% of our agriculture workers and 40% of our home health aide. they are an outsized percentage

of the child care workforce and the farm workforce in america. if they are gone, the cost much day care for families is going to go up because they'll be fewer -- there'll be fewer workers. immigrants have been a key part of america's success story. our nation, i believe, needs to more than ever in a thoughtful way remember the three elements that i stand for and i hope most people degree. one, we need an orderly process at the border. number two, no dangerous person should ever be allowed knowingly into this country or allowed to stay if they are seeking permanent immigrant status. and number three we cannot accept every person in the world who wants to come to america tomorrow. it has to be a thoughtful, orderly process consistent with our values and consistent with our obligation to american families. they do not deserve, those who are here, to live in fear each day. any real solution to immigration challenges must give them stabilitied hand a -- stability and a future they can count on. americans deserve a real, fixed

immigration system that protects americans and treats all fairly. i look forward to the opportunity to meet governor noam -- noam at some point -- to meet governor noem at some point. i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: everybody knows that except for native americans, this great nation of ours is a nation of immigrants. we're one of the most welcoming nations in the world, maybe the most welcoming to immigrants. because about a million people come here every year legally.

my family has been blessed by two -- a daughter-in-law of 45 years from south korea, a granddaughter-in-law of about six or seven years from ethiopia. i've learned much from them, and i think america is great because of the people that come here. but we're also a nation based on the rule of law, and we have not seen that immigration law enforced over the last four years. so i'm going to be voting for governor noem because she's committed to enforcing our

immigration laws. i think secretary mayorkas felt in his heart that we ought to give the american land of opportunity, the opportunity to anybody who wanted to come here. he said he was enforcing the laws, but we know that he wasn't enforcing the laws because you saw every night on tv people crossing the rio grande coming to this country and violating our laws as they entered. we all know that if you're going to be a sovereign nation, you got to control your borders. we can't have millions of people coming here in violation of our laws, people that are on the

terrorist watch list, people with criminal records, everybody just willy-nilly coming here. we are that land of opportunity but also a land of the rule of law. we're seeing deportations going on now with priority on people who are criminals or on the terrorist watch list. we're hearing some economists and some business people saying our economy is in jeopardy if we deport these people, but no employer is going to hire somebody on the terrorist watch list, if they know that they are. no employer is going to hire somebody with a criminal record if they know about that criminal record.

so let's talk about the impact of deportation on the economy after people with criminal records, after people that are on the terrorist watch list and the .2 or .3 of people that have been adjudicated that they did not meet the test of our law that they could legally be in this country and to have those three categories of people deported. then maybe let's talk about the impact on the economy after that. but i think that's quite a few months down the road. one other reason that i'm voting for governor noem -- and this is a repeat of what i said last night on the floor of the united states senate in regard to pete

hegseth being chairman, or being secretary of defense -- when these people that are nominees come to my office, i point out to them a couple things. number one, i always say you're going to be asked if you'll answer our letters, and everybody for decades has been saying yes to that, and i point out to them how they ought to really say maybe, because i use the last four years of the garland department of justice as an example showing these nominees when they come to my

office a file of about 158 letters that the department of justice and the fbi haven't appropriately answered, even after they said they'd answer all of our letters. now, that may be a tongue-in-cheek -- maybe, quote-unquote, maybe when i tell them that, but i think we have a responsibility to make sure that in our constitutional job of oversight to see that the laws are faithfully executed that we -- when we contact the administration we think things are wrong, that we're entitled to an answer. this isn't a problem just in a democrat administration. this is a problem in republican administrations. so i ask the new secretary of defense that issue. he said he was going to be diligent about that, and i discussed the same thing with

governor noem as well because we ought to have our cooperation of the executive branch of government in congress doing its job of oversight. i'm satisfactorilied that governor -- i'm sophisticated that governor noem will, to the best of her ability, help with us our oversight responsibilities and even help us get answers to those left over from the biden administration. i think governor noem is very well-qualified to be secretary of homeland security. i wish her well in the enforcement of law and reemphasize that border security is very important, not only for the sovereignty of this great nation of ours, because you can't be a sovereign nation if you don't control the borders, and secondly is for our national security because you can't have

people on the terrorist watch list coming to this country and invading us, and also for law enforcement because you can't have people with criminal records coming to this country. it's a big job that's left over from the last four years of a secretary of homeland security that wasn't enforcing the law. i think governor noem is up to the test, and we wish her well as she proceeds down this road of making sure that the sovereignty of the united states is protected and our national security is protected and we have a safe nation based upon law enforcement being able to do its job. i yield the floor.

mr. crapo: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. in about an hour or so, we are going do vote on the nomination -- or at least on cloture on the nomination for scott bessent to be the treasury secretary of the united states. and i rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion. a treasury secretary heads the agency charged with supporting economic growth, representing u.s. interests before foreign nations and global financial markets and organizations, managing the federal treasury, and overseeing financial institutions, to name just a few of those important responsibilities. past successful treasury

secretaries have understood business and financial markets as well as foreign policy, national security, budgets, and regulation. mr. bessent's impressive background positions him for similar success. he has worked for the last three decades as one of the sharpest minds in the global financial industry. he has decades of academic, professional, and leadership experience relevant to these positions. when it comes to mr. bessent's qualifications, there is no room for debate. his background and training are tailor-made for this role and he has the demeanering and character -- demeanor and character to be an effective secretary. his powerful presentation at his hearing about his desire to serve in government in order to make a meaningful difference was improvive to all. it includes restoring prosperity and opportunity that our nation experienced during president

trump's first term in office. as mr. bessent stated, accomplishing key tasks like extending vital tax cuts for all americans is literally a pass-fail exercise. and i look forward to working closely with him to make sure we succeed. i strongly is agree with the sentiment that my colleague, senator graham, shared at the nomination hearing, that if qualifications -- and i might add, cash -- are one's test, voting to confirm mr. bessent is one of the easiest we could ever take. in prior congresses, i've joined with many of my republican colleagues in voting for well-qualified treasury secretary candidates put forward by a democrat president. even though i didn't agree with all of the positions they advocated. mr. bessent's candidacy ought to enjoy similar support, and i encourage my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle to join with me with advancing his nomination. he is the right person for this job. and i commend president trump in making such an excellent selection. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from l south dakota. a senator: i would move to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question is on the nomination.

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.

the clerk: 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.

the clerk: ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mr. husted. plaza hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. justice. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. kim.

p the clerk: ms. klobuchar mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan.

ms. lummis. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. mccormick. mr. merkley. mrs. moody. mr. moran. mr. moreno. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schiff.

mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. mr. sheehy. ms. slotkin. ms. smith. mr. sullivan. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- barrasso, budd, cornyn, crapo, daines, graham, hassan, hyde-smith, johnson, kaine, kim, lee, lummis, marshall, mcconnell, mccormick, moody, moreno, paul, rounds, scott of florida, tillis. senators voting in the negative --

alsobrooks, duckworth, gillibrand, klobuchar, lujan, murray, padilla, reed, sanders. mr. schumer, no. mr. hickenlooper, no. the clerk: mr. schmitt, aye.

the clerk: ms. rosen, no. ms. ernst, aye. the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye.

the clerk: mrs. capito, aye. mrs. blackburn, aye. the clerk: mr. heinrich, no. mr. warner, no.

ms. blunt rochester, no. mr. sheehy, aye. mr. ossoff, no. mr. boozman, aye. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

ms. collins, aye. the clerk: ms. warren, no. mr. van hollen, no. mr. curtis, aye.

mr. ricketts, aye.

the clerk: mr. banks, aye. the clerk: mr. cruz, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, aye. the clerk: mr. thune, aye. vote:

the clerk: mr. lankford, aye. mr. gallego, no.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. mr. durbin, no.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, no. ms. baldwin, no. mrs. shaheen yoiks mr. markey, no. mr. kelly, no. mr. schiff, no. mr. cotton, aye. mr. blumenthal, no.

the clerk: mr. murphy, no. mr. hawley, aye. the clerk: mrs. britt, aye.

the clerk: mr. justice, aye. mr. risch, aye. mr. grassley, aye. the clerk: whitehouse, no. mr. husted, aye. mr. welch, no.

mr. tuberville, aye. mr. bennet, no.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye. the clerk: ms. hirono, no. the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, aye.

mr. booker, no. the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye.

the clerk: ms. slotkin, aye. the clerk: mr. coons, no. ms. cantwell, no.

the clerk: mr. cramer, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye.

the clerk: mr. hagerty, aye.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, aye. mr. young, aye.

the presiding officer: the yeas are 59, the nays are 34. the nomination is confirmed. mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that with respect to the nome nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the bessent nomination be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of scott bessent, of south carolina, to be secretary the treasury, 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 scott bessent, of south carolina, to be secretary of the treasury, 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. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. vote:

the clerk: 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. the clerk: mr. cornyn.

ms. cortez masto. the clerk: 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. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mr. husted. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. justice. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. kim. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan.

ms. lummis. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. mccormick. mr. merkley. mrs. moody. mr. moran. mr. moreno. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch.

ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schiff. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. mr. sheehy. ms. slotkin. ms. smith. mr. sullivan. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden.

mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- banks barrasso, blackburn, blunt rochester, booker, boozman, britt, budd, capito, cassidy, collins, cornyn, cotton, cramer, crapo, cruz, curtis, daines, ernst, fetterman, fisher, gallego, graham, grassley, hagerty, hassan, hawley, hoeven, hyde-smith, johnson, justice, kaine, kelly, lankford, lee, lummis, marshall, mcconnell, mccormick, moody, moreno,

mullin, ossoff, paul, ricketts, rounds, schmitt, scott of florida, scott of south carolina, shaheen, sheehy, slotkin, thune, tillis, tuberville, warner, wicker, and young. the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye. mr. risch, aye. senators voting in the negative -- alsobrooks, baldwin, bennet, blumenthal, heinrich, hirono, kim, markey, murray, reed, rosen, sanders,

schiff, schumer, van hollen, warren, welch, and whitehouse. mr. schatz, no. the clerk: mr. murphy, no.

the clerk: mr. husted, aye. the clerk: ms. duckworth, no.

the clerk: mr. lujan, no.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, no. vote:

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, aye.

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeaers 67. the nays are 23. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: department of the treasury, scott bessent of south carolina to be secretary. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12:00 noon on monday, january 27, 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, morning business be closed and the senate proceed to executive session and resume executive calendar number 5, scott bessent postcloture. if any nomination is confirmed during monday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. 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 12:00 noon on monday.