Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Well, Mr. President, yesterday, 51 Republican Senators voted to advance one of the most erratic, unqualified, and unfit Cabinet nominees we have ever seen in modern times. Pete Hegseth is possibly just a few hours away from becoming the next Secretary of Defense, overseeing the greatest military in the world. He has neither the character, the experience, or the judgment required by the job.

If there is one word that should never describe a Secretary of Defense in this important position, it is ``erratic,'' but that is the one word that describes Mr. Hegseth best.

Before we vote today, I hope my Republican colleagues think carefully, one last time, about the risks to the American people and, particularly, to the men and women in our Armed Forces, of confirming somebody like Mr. Hegseth. I hope my Republican colleagues understand the danger of entrusting our military to someone whose background has not been fully vetted.

We know much of his past remains uninvestigated. We know Mr. Hegseth refused to meet with Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, save for the ranking member. How can that be? It is such an important job and he is afraid to meet with Democrats on the committee? He is going to have much tougher adversaries than that in places like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. How could he avoid that?

We know that new allegations keep coming up--as recently as last night--compounding the word ``erratic'' when it describes his behavior.

This is not the way to vet a nominee in such an important position as Secretary of Defense. When you are the one responsible for leading our Armed

Forces, erratic behavior isn't just a character flaw. It could mean the difference between entering or avoiding a military conflict, between life and death for our troops. We all want what is best for our troops.

We all know that voting for Secretary of Defense is one of the most important votes we are going to take all year. It mystifies me that of all the people President Trump could have nominated as Secretary of Defense, he picked someone as flawed--as deeply flawed--as Mr. Hegseth.

Is Pete Hegseth really the best we have to lead the greatest military in the world? Is this man with a history of excessive drinking really the guy you want on the other end of the phone at 2 a.m. in a crisis in control of the nuclear codes? Is this man with a mile-long list of allegations of abusing, degrading, and harassing women the one we want leading our men and women into battle? Is this man who failed to manage the finances of veterans' nonprofit groups, who drove his organizations into debt to the point where he could not even pay creditors, the person we want in charge of the Pentagon's budget?

I want this last point to sink in.

DOD is a colossal organization. It is a workforce of 3 million people, an annual budget of over $850 billion. Is Pete Hegseth really the person we want overseeing an organization as complex as DOD? A man who couldn't even manage the finances of a small nonprofit, yet they pick him. It is unbelievable.

He was pressured to resign from these small nonprofits. And now he is supposed to run the Department of Defense with its millions of people under his jurisdiction and billions and billions of dollars.

The odds are not low that he would mismanage the Pentagon's budget if he mismanaged small organizations.

Worst of all, his erratic behavior can rear its ugly head because we know when people who have a history of erratic behavior go into high- pressure situations, it often makes them more, not less, erratic.

I refuse to believe that Pete Hegseth is the best the Republicans can come up with for Secretary of Defense. There are surely other individuals--plenty of others--the President could nominate that would be conservative voices. We would disagree with their views, but at least we would have to admit they are qualified.

I can think of some Republican Senators who would certainly make a much stronger candidate than Mr. Hegseth.

I hope my Republican colleagues think carefully today about the consequences of this vote. I hope they do the right thing and recognize there are much, much better choices for Secretary of Defense than Hegseth. The credibility of the Senate--I think the credibility of the Republican majority--is on the line with today's vote. The well-being of our troops stationed around the world is on the line with today's vote. The very security of the American people, of our kids and families and neighbors and friends, is on the line with today's vote.

In short, we should not, cannot, must not elevate someone as erratic as Pete Hegseth to Secretary of Defense. We can and must--must--do better. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Finally, I want to turn briefly to the subject of Mr. Vought. No nominee is more threatening or antithetical to the needs of working people than this godfather of the ultraright--Russell Vought is the godfather of the ultraright--chief cook and bottle washer of Project 2025.

When Americans voted for Donald Trump, they were very clear they want inflation to go down. They want more affordable prescription drugs. They do not want Project 2025 running the show. But that is precisely what will happen when the vote comes to Director of OMB.

If you are one of the tens of billions who benefits from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Russell Vought is a nightmare scenario. If you want lower drug prices, you can forget about it if Russell Vought is running the show at OMB. If you want lower energy costs, if you want the U.S. to stand up to China, if you want America to create better clean jobs, Russell Vought is very, very bad news.

If you are part of the ultrarich in this country, if you are an oil executive or own a drug company, Russell Vought is your golden ticket. If there is any golden age coming under Donald Trump, Russell Vought proves it is only a golden age for those at the very, very top. As for everyone else, Donald Trump and Russell Vought say you are on your own.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will hold votes on two pivotal Cabinet nominees. First, we will vote to advance the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as CIA Director. I will respectfully vote no, not because of our political difference, which, of course, exists, but because I am deeply worried that Mr. Ratcliffe will be unable to stand up to people like Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, who are known to falsify intelligence.

As CIA Director, Mr. Ratcliffe will have to make decisions based on intelligence and fact. There may be no Agency more important than the CIA that has to be fact based. Sometimes, these facts will lead to inconvenient conclusions for his superiors and the President. It is in those cases where truth--not fiction, not ideology--must prevail, and I have my doubts that Mr. Ratcliffe will be able to hold firm.

Most troubling about Mr. Ratcliffe were the answers I got from him about Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump's nominee to serve as Director of National Intelligence. If confirmed, Ms. Gabbard would oversee the CIA and our entire intelligence community, and I think she would be colossally disruptive for American security.

If there is anyone who hasn't been fact based as you have listened to her statements over the years, it is Tulsi Gabbard. She seems to make things up out of thin air. No one could be worse in a position of DNI than someone who doesn't believe in facts.

So I told Mr. Ratcliffe he should urge President Trump to drop her nomination. If he really cares about the CIA and its integrity, he couldn't report to somebody like Tulsi Gabbard in good conscience. She is simply too risky.

Ms. Gabbard has a whole history of spreading falsities, cheering America's adversaries, and, if confirmed, I am worried she will push false intelligence for political ends. Those are precisely the moments Mr. Ratcliffe will have to hold firm, reject what she says, and go to the President and speak truth to power.

His answers to my questions about that were unsatisfying. So I am voting no because it is such an important position.

Now, on the Hegseth vote, today the Senate will vote to advance one of the most unqualified, erratic nominees for a major position we have ever seen in America. No position in the Cabinet carries the weight, the responsibility of Secretary of Defense.

The Secretary of Defense is in charge of keeping us safe and keeping the men and women in our Armed Forces and the civilians safe. So you need someone who has a steady hand. You need someone who has had experience in this kind of stuff. You need someone who, when he shows up to a meeting, you are sure that he knows all the facts and is going to be able to conduct himself properly.

If there is any Cabinet that should be universally trusted and uncontroversial, it is the Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth is

neither. He is neither trusted nor free of controversy, and I will strongly vote no.

I want my colleagues to think about how absurd it is that this nominee has even made it to the floor. It is a shame that that has happened. We are being tasked to trust our Armed Forces to a man with a history of erratic behavior. One of the kindest words that might be used to describe Mr. Hegseth is ``erratic,'' and that is a quality you don't want as head of DOD.

He has a history of excessive drinking, of alleged domestic abuse, and zero experience leading a large organization of any kind.

The new allegations that came out yesterday are even more troubling. And people say: Well, how do we know they are true? Well, first, the person who did it has no strike against her; but, second, it just corroborates in an even worse way of what we have known about Hegseth in the past. He has a clear problem of judgment, as you have seen by his statements. It is like saying your heart surgeon has twitchy hands, but I will let him do surgery on me. No one would do that.

How on Earth can America entrust our safety and security to a man who has allegedly shown up to work and other events inebriated? What if he shows up inebriated during a crisis? What is going to happen? This is dangerous.

If confirmed, he would be in charge of a workforce of over 3 million people, a budget of 850 billion. Where in his history does it show he is capable of doing that? And what if his erratic behavior spills over to his job at the Pentagon, a high-pressure job? And when people are having this behavior, usually high-pressure jobs make them more, not less, erratic.

What mystifies me so much about Mr. Hegseth's nomination is that there are so many other conservative defense leaders that President Trump could have nominated--people I wouldn't agree with, maybe, ideologically, on some of the issues that affect Secretary of Defense but people who would be capable of running the department. I know there are plenty of Republican Senators who would instantly make a better option than Mr. Hegseth.

Is Pete Hegseth really the best the Republicans have to offer? How low--how low--has this party come in making him the nominee? I don't believe he is the best. I don't believe he is close to the best. I would be voting, with complete conviction, no. Given his history confirming Mr. Hegseth is, simply put, a risky roll of the dice that Americans cannot afford, especially in such an important position.

Another of these pantheon of just awful nominees--not all of them are awful at all, but some are, too many are--is Russell Vought. With his nomination to be OMB Director, Donald Trump has made it official: Project 2025 is coming to the White House. The man who was the chief cook and bottle washer for 2025, who pushed it, who endorsed it, is now in one of the most powerful and sensitive positions in the government, OMB, which has a say over all government programs.

Golden age? It is sure not going to be a golden age for the American people if Mr. Vought becomes the head of OMB. It is one of the most important Agencies in the government. They oversee every Federal Agency, every town, every locality. Every family is going to be affected. You want to get your drug prices lowered? Vought doesn't like that; look at 2025. You want to feed hungry kids? Vought doesn't like that; look at 2025. You want to preserve and expand $35 insulin? Vought doesn't like that. You want to make the tax system fairer and not have tax cuts for the very wealthy but help the middle class with tax breaks? Vought doesn't like that. He wants it to go to the wealthy.

I asked him--he was in my office yesterday--I asked him: What part of 2025 would he disagree with? He couldn't point to a single one. In this panoply of awful proposals, he couldn't name a single one he didn't like.

He is also a proponent of impoundment of funds. It may be unconstitutional, but it could cause real damages as the cases would go through the courts when he sued for it. And that means he can pick what he doesn't like and just end it, even if Congress has lawfully voted for it in a bipartisan way.

So this man would be devastating to the families of America if he got into office. I hope my Republican colleagues will look at his record and vote against him. Nobody can claim to be pro-worker and then vote for Russell Vought.

Executive Orders

Mr. President, on the EOs and the GOP agenda, the more people look at President Trump's Executive orders, the more obvious it becomes that no golden age is coming to America, unless, of course, you are very rich, well-connected, or own a drug or oil company. With the ferocity of a bulldozer, Donald Trump has spent his first few days in office dismantling decades of progress that help working people, help middle- class families, help people afford healthcare.

There are many Executive orders signed by the President that have flown under the radar but, nonetheless, also have proved devastating.

He has halted, for one, leasing for wind energy projects in the outer continental shelf, putting at risk billions of dollars of investments and killing good paying jobs in the United States, in my State of New York out on Long Island, particularly.

He thinks he can cut them off. Of course, we are going to fight that, and people will fight it in the courts. But President Trump yesterday was out there touting a new program, a new proposal, by some foreign investor to create more energy because we need it. But in his EOs he says: No clean energy, no offshore wind. Is that ridiculous?

It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is talking out of both sides of your mouth. It is one hand doing one thing, and another hand doing the opposite. It is devastating--devastating--and we are going to fight that proposal tooth and nail because it is so important to New York, to Long Island, to America.

He has repealed the Biden-era policies that make it easier for Americans to enroll in the ACA; 20 million Americans pay less for healthcare. That is in the Executive orders; get rid of it.

And in his first week in office, he has killed policies that provide a year of postpartum care for low-income moms in Medicaid. How is that the idea of a golden age?

Here in Congress, it is the same story with our congressional Republicans. They continue to dedicate the lion's share of their energy into fighting the best ways to pass their multitrillion-dollar tax cuts for the ultrarich.

But I want to leave my Republican colleagues, who are now talking about budget and debt ceiling and all of that, with a thought, food for thought. All this planning and agonizing about one bill or two bills is a side show. Eventually, it is going to be clear they can't pass anything without Democratic help. Republicans have spent their entire time talking among themselves about tax breaks and radical budget cuts when they should be spending more time with Democrats talking about bipartisan policies that do not prioritize the ultrawealthy. Thus far, at least, Republicans haven't even pretended to be bipartisan.

Instead of indulging their hard-right ideology of tax cuts for the ultrawealthy, Republicans should put the needs of ordinary Americans first. Make it a golden era indeed, but for the middle class and working people, not for the powerful and privileged. We look forward to them coming and working with us on these issues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if there was one word--one word--that should never, ever describe a Secretary of Defense, it is ``erratic,'' but that is the one word that describes Mr. Hegseth best. Advancing a Secretary of Defense is one of the most important votes Senators are going to take all year. This man has lives in his hands--the lives of citizens, the lives of people of the world, and the lives of the brave men and women in our Armed Forces.

So I want my colleagues to think carefully. Of all of the people we could have as Secretary of Defense, is Pete Hegseth really the best one we have got? Come on. You know he isn't. You know he is not even close.

Is this the best man we have to lead the greatest military in the world? Is this man with a known history of excessive drinking the guy you want at the other end of the phone at 2 a.m., in a crisis, in control of the nuclear codes? Who are we kidding? Who are we kidding?

Is this the man--with a mile-long list of allegations of abusing, degrading, and harassing women--you want to be leading our men and women in battle?

Is this the man, with a track record of erratic behavior, the best you think the members of our military deserve as a leader?

Is this the man, with a truly horrific and devastating lack of judgment, the best you think our country and our fighting men and women deserve?

Pete Hegseth has proven to lack the necessary morality, sense, judgment. So I plead--I plead--with some of my Republican colleagues just to answer me this: Do you think this is the best person for the job? Do you think this is the best person we have to lead the best military in the world?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, well, Donald Trump made a lot of promises on what he would get done on day one. Well, today is day three of Donald Trump's Presidency. Nothing Donald Trump has done will help lower grocery prices. Nothing Donald Trump has done will lower prescription drug costs. Instead, President Trump's biggest accomplishment to date has been to issue unconditional pardons to 1,500 lawless rioters who attacked police officers and invaded the Capitol.

Why on Earth is the President already spending so much time focused on the past, focused on his grievances, instead of focused on costs and jobs and improving healthcare for the American people? The American people have to wonder, how on Earth will pardoning January 6 rioters help me pay for food at the grocery store, help me get a lower cost for buying a home, or help me save more money for my retirement? How on Earth will Americans feel safer if the President rewards lawbreakers who assault police officers by setting these criminals free?

So much for focusing on lowering prices.

Pardoning lawless rioters is not what the American people signed up for when they voted for Donald Trump. They wanted the President to get to work quickly on issues that impact them--costs, safety, healthcare.

The first 3 days of Donald Trump's ``golden age'' has been golden for everyone but working Americans. It is a golden age for big corporations. It is a golden age for pharmaceutical companies. It is a golden age for polluters. It is a golden age for lawlessness. It is not--not--a golden age for hard-working Americans who want their costs reduced.

Cabinet Nominations

Mr. President, on nominations, yesterday, I met with President Trump's nominee to serve as Director of OMB, Russell Vought. I walked into my meeting with Mr. Vought, of course, skeptical. Then I walked out of the meeting even more deeply troubled. Of all the extremists President Trump could have picked for OMB, he picked the godfather of the ultraright.

Mr. Vought's goal is clear and simple: He wants to dismantle the social safety net and starve America with the most radical budget cuts in living memory. In the past, he has called for gutting Social Security, gutting Medicare and Medicaid. He wants to eliminate the Department of Education. He has proposed cuts to disability payments for retired veterans. He wants to cut SNAP benefits, raise drug prices--all in the name of an ultraright, extremist ideology that prioritizes the needs for the wealthy few. They want to cut the daylights out of everything else so they can give tax cuts to the very wealthiest in our society, who are doing quite well.

When I asked him which parts of Project 2025 he disagreed with, he was unable to give me a single answer.

I am also deeply worried that Mr. Vought will disobey the law when it comes to following through on congressional spending. President Trump has already begun issuing Executive orders that jeopardize billions upon billions in bipartisan infrastructure projects across the country. They say this is

temporary, but we all know how Washington works--temporary trial balloons turn into permanent anchors.

Congress has already approved these investments. President Biden has signed them into law. These projects help red States and blue States and support families, help parents raise kids, and lead to stronger communities.

If Donald Trump does, in fact, freeze these funds now so he can resume them and take credit down the line, people's jobs and livelihoods would be at risk. Mr. Vought, I fear, would only enable this unlawful behavior. In fact, Vought is one of the leading proponents of impoundment of funds, which should be frightening not only to those who represent blue States but also those who represent red States where so many of the investments are going.

Mr. Vought is testifying right now before the Senate Committee on the Budget. It is important that we build a record about the deeply harmful plans he has for the country. It is an opportunity for Americans to see for themselves how truly radical President Trump's second term could well be.

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Mr. President, under President Trump, it will be a golden age for the anti-choice--the extreme anti-choice--movement. The bill we are voting on today, the Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill, is as pernicious as they come. It attacks women's healthcare using false narratives and outright fearmongering, and it adds more legal risk for doctors on something that is already illegal.

So much of the hard right's anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by people who have little or no understanding of what women go through when they are pregnant.

The situation targeted by this bill is one of the most heartbreaking moments a woman could ever encounter--the agonizing choice of having to end care when serious and rare complications arise in pregnancy. It is moments like this where we should support women and doctors most, not use them as political football, as this bill does so heartlessly.

Remember when Republicans claimed they would leave the issue of choice to the States? Remember that? That is out the window. This bill is a metaphor for what is to come: an emboldened, extremist anti-choice resurgence far, far further to the right than the American people are.

Here is a message to my Republican colleagues: Today would be a great day for Senate Republicans to do something lowering the cost of groceries instead of attacking women's reproductive care. It would be a great day for Senate Republicans to do something to make prescription drugs more affordable. It would be a great day for Republicans to help do something to help Americans trying to buy a home.

Instead of lowering costs, Senate Republicans are putting their energy into controlling women's healthcare. This is not what the American people signed up for.

Artificial Intelligence

Mr. President, finally, on AI, yesterday, a group of AI and tech companies announced their pledge to invest as much as $500 billion to ramp up our Nation's AI and data center infrastructure. Of course, if AI becomes one of the central technologies of our lives, as is expected, we must build the capacity to support that demand, no question about it. But already President Trump is tying himself into knots and talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he goes on about how we need more power, we need more electricity to meet the demands of AI, and then on the other hand, he spent his first day in office proposing Executive orders that cut clean energy investments, halting wind and solar and putting those jobs at risk.

These AI data centers will depend on more clean energy production and transmission, and cutting clean energy will cut a good chunk of the new energy that is about to come on board. So for President Trump to cut clean energy investments is tantamount to cutting AI's potential. One hand doesn't seem to know what the other hand is doing.

If President Trump wants to help AI's growth instead of hurt it, he should revoke his promise to kill the clean energy jobs we are going to need to support America's energy needs.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I speak, Senator Murray speak, and then the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Murray, a great champion of women's health, for adding her eloquence and expertise to the debate. When it comes to the issue of choice, women's rights, women's health, there is no greater spokesperson than she. So I thank her. We will hear from her shortly.

Now, today's vote on the Senate Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill makes one thing very clear: Under President Trump, it will be a golden age but for the extreme anti-choice movement. The bill is the very definition of pernicious. It attacks women's healthcare using false narratives and outright fear-mongering, and it adds more legal risks for doctors on something that is already illegal.

So much of the hard-right's anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by people who have little to no understanding of what women go through when they are pregnant. The scenario targeted by this bill is one of the most heartbreaking moments that a woman could ever encounter: the agonizing choice of having to end care when serious and rare complications arise in pregnancy. And at that moment of agony, this bill cruelly substitutes the judgment of qualified medical professionals and the wishes of millions of families and allows the ultraright ideology to dictate what they do.

Women should be supported and trusted when faced with serious pregnancy complications. This is when male politicians should step up and support women, not use them as political footballs, as this bill so heartlessly does.

And, if anything, this bill is a metaphor for what is to come: an emboldened extremist, anti-choice resurgence, further to the right than the American people are, even than most Republicans are.

Remember when Republicans said this issue would be left to the States. Both President Trump and our Republican colleagues said: Don't worry; we are going to leave this to the States.

That is not what this bill does. It doesn't leave it to the States. And I think that we are going to see this over and over again where promises made during the campaign are just broken. This one: 2 days after Donald Trump is inaugurated as President, it is no longer left to the States. And any promise that people made that we are going to leave things to the women and their doctors, that is out the window with this bill. And again, we are going to see that repeated over and over again--not left to the States, imposed by some politicians here in Washington on women across America, and not respecting the rights of women and their doctors and their families.

Here is my message to my Republican colleagues: Instead of attacking reproductive care, today would be a great day for Senate Republicans to do something to lower the cost of groceries or prescription drugs or helping Americans buy a home. It would also be a great day for Senate Republicans to trust women and leave their healthcare choices up to them, but they are not doing that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on January 8, Dr. Nancy Leftenant-Colon, one of the original Tuskegee Airmen, and the first Black woman to serve in the U.S. Army Nurse Corps after its desegregation, passed away at the age of 104 in Amityville, NY.

Known affectionately by those who loved her as ``Lefty,'' Dr. Leftenant-Colon always dreamed of being a nurse. Her family came to New York from South Carolina during the Great Migration with virtually nothing in their pockets. But they worked hard to make a living that provided Nancy and her siblings with opportunity.

Dr. Leftenant-Colon graduated in 1941 from New York's Lincoln School of Nursing in the Bronx, the first school in the country to train Black women to become nurses. But when she tried to sign up for the Armed Forces, she was told that the military was not accepting Black nurses.

Nevertheless, Dr. Leftenant-Colon persevered. In January 1945, she volunteered and was accepted into the Army Nurse Corps as a Reservist. She was given the rank of second lieutenant, and her first assignment was to Lowell General Hospital, Fort Devens, MA, where she treated wounded soldiers of World War II. In 1946, Dr. Leftenant-Colon was assigned to the 332nd Station Medical Group, Lockbourne Army Air Base-- now Rickenbacker Air Force Base--in Ohio. There, she teamed up with legendary flight surgeon and Tuskegee Airman Vance H. Marchbanks, Jr., where once they delivered and saved the life of a premature baby girl nobody thought would survive.

Dr. Leftenant-Colon made history becoming the first Black woman integrated into the regular Army Nurse Corps. She was assigned at Lockbourne Army Air Field when President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, abolishing segregation in the U.S. military.

In July 1948, Leftenant-Colon was granted regular status in the Army Nurse Corps. Four years later, she became a flight nurse with the U.S. Air Force. It was in the Air Force that she married Reserve Captain Bayard Colon, who passed away in 1972.

From 1953-1955, Major Leftenant-Colon was a flight nurse with the 6481st Medical Air Evacuation Group, Tachikawa, Japan. During this time, she set up hospital wards in Japan and in active war zones. She was credited with saving many lives during the wars. She had to wait five years for her certification as a flight nurse. Major Leftenant- Colon went on to an assignment as a flight nurse, evacuating French Legionnaires from the Dien Bien Pu Province, Vietnam. She was aboard the first medical evacuation flight into the defeated French outpost in Dien Bien Phu. Her final assignment was to McGuire Air Force Base, NJ, where Major Leftenant-Colon retired as chief nurse in 1965.

Upon her retirement, Major Leftenant-Colon returned home, to her alma mater, Amityville High School, as the school nurse. She held that position from for 13 years. In 2018, Amityville High School authorities announced that a new media center was being constructed to commemorate the life and military service of Major Leftenant-Colon.

Dr. Nancy Leftenant-Colon was a great American, and an outstanding, committed U.S. Army nurse who overcame unfair barriers and prejudice to help change the course of history.

Here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I extend my sincerest condolences to the family of Dr. Leftenant-Colon. We grieve for her passing. And we share in her family's enormous pride at everything that was accomplished by this great New Yorker and great American.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this morning I have some amazingly great news. After more than 2 years of being unjustly detained by the Taliban, Ryan Corbett from Dansville, NY, is finally free and on his way home. In just a few hours--praise God--Ryan will be back on American soil and will be able to hug his wife Anna and his beautiful children, Miriam and Caleb and Ketsie. They represent the very best of Upstate New York--hard-working, God-fearing, persistent, and humble. Soon, Ryan will be back home in Western New York in the community he loved so much and that waited so desperately for his return.

I met with the Corbett family repeatedly. Every time I met with them, his wonderful wife Anna--strong but quiet--never gave up; and his beautiful children who so miss their dad, you could just feel it. And every time I met with them, just my heart went out, and I said ``I have to do more and more and more.'' It is a moment we have all prayed for and hoped for. And thank God this day has finally come. What a blessing. What an amazing day.

When I heard Ryan's story from his family and listened to them as they pushed and pushed for his release, I saw that even in the darkest moment, even when hope seemed lost, the Corbett family never, never gave up, and they never got angry. They never pointed fingers or called names. They just kept persisting and persisting and persisting. And their beautiful, hard, unrelenting, patient persistence has paid off.

I worked very closely with the Corbett family to build bipartisan support for Ryan's release. We brought attention to his imprisonment and made dozens of calls to elevate his case to the very highest levels of government. I want to thank President Biden and his administration's negotiating team as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for helping bring Ryan back.

We can finally, finally say these five amazing words: Ryan Corbett is coming home. He is coming home to New York. He is coming home to Dansville.

I can't wait to see him and welcome him back very, very soon.

Trump Administration

Mr. President, now on the first day of President Trump's presidency, moments after taking the oath of office, President Trump declared that it was the dawning of a golden age here in America. But on day one into his presidency, it is clear that Donald Trump's golden age is not for the working and middle class. His golden age, rather, is for the special interests, the wealthy elite, and the corporate insiders he promised to take on as President. Just look at his first day in the White House, which shows exactly what I am saying.

On day one, President Trump, in his Executive orders, made it harder for Americans to save on prescription drug costs. President Trump cleared the way for Big Oil and polluters and halted leasing of offshore wind farms. He took steps to make it harder to enroll in the ACA and made Medicaid less generous. He removed the United States from the Paris Climate Accords.

Nothing the President did on day one lowered grocery prices. Nothing helped Americans achieve their dream of owning a home. Nothing will help working families earn more and save more. Their drug costs will go up. The cost of buying and maintaining a home will go up. The cost of healthcare will go up. The cost of energy will go up.

So who is exactly Donald Trump's golden age for? Not for working Americans; that is for sure. President Trump's golden age is one for America's biggest drug companies, who can now worry less about lowering their prices. It is a golden age for America's richest oil executives, who want nothing more than to kill clean jobs and deepen America's dependence on fossil fuels. It is a golden age for America's top 1 percent, who want another trillion-dollar tax break, paid for on the backs of workers in the middle class.

And, sadly, it is a golden age for lawlessness and lawbreakers who were pardoned yesterday by President Trump. There is no other way to describe President Trump's pardon of January 6 offenders than un- American. Let's be clear. President Trump didn't just pardon protesters; he pardoned some people convicted of assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy. It is a betrayal of the highest order of our Capitol police officers who risked their lives to keep us safe.

When President Trump talks about a golden age, he is talking about a golden age for drug companies, powerful oil executives, and rioters who attack our police and attack our democracy. That is not the golden age Americans want.

Nominations

Mr. President, nominations, this week the Senate will continue exercising its constitutional duty to offer advice and consent on the President's nominees.

Last night, the Senate unanimously confirmed our former colleague, Senator Rubio, as Secretary of State. Even though Senator Rubio and Democrats differ on many issues, it was clear he was very well- qualified for the job and deserved confirmation.

Now, if every one of President Trump's nominees were as qualified and experienced as Senator Rubio, they would sail through the Senate with bipartisan support. But, sadly, too many of the President's nominees do not match Senator Rubio's caliber, too many have troubling backgrounds, too many seem unprepared for the job and proved so during testimony, too many nominees have been rushed through before their paperwork has been submitted.

Senator Rubio was thorough and quick with his background checks and documentation. He did it the right way. But too many other nominees have delayed and dragged their feet. So it is wrong to try and rush them through.

And too many of the President's nominees seem more interested in pushing the ultraright's extremist agenda than in fighting for working- and middle-class families.

Later today, I will meet with President Trump's nominee for OMB Director, Russell Vought. Mr. Vought is one of the most troubling nominees that President Trump has selected. He is about as ultraright as they come. So during our meeting, I hope to get a clarity on a simple question: Who will Mr. Vought fight for if confirmed? Is it the American people, or is it Project 2025, which Americans have already rejected?

I look forward to our conversation because I believe it is important both sides hear directly and candidly from the President's nominees before we are asked to vote on their nomination. After all, the debate over President Trump's nominees is not just about senior-level positions in the administration; the debate on nominees is a debate about the President's very agenda and about who will benefit. Whose side are these nominees on?

President Trump promised an agenda that will fight for the working and middle class. He promised a golden age for the country, but actions speak louder than words. And so far, the President's nominees suggest that if there is any golden age coming, it is only one for the very, very elite.

So Democrats will continue to get the President's nominees on the record on very important questions. Will Donald Trump's nominees focus on cutting costs, or will they be more interested in cutting sweetheart deals for big businesses? Will they protect our communities, or will they focus more on protecting special interests? Will they serve middle-class and working families, or will they serve the swamp? That is what the American people want to know.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, I really want to thank my friend, our great leader on women's issues and on choice issues, Senator Murray, for leading this floor block. She has been indomitable on this issue. I can't think of a person who has done more to protect the rights of women than Patty Murray. So thank you for your great leadership.

I want to thank all my other colleagues who will join me as well.

Look, it is Donald Trump's first week as President, and Republicans are already escalating their war on women's reproductive freedoms. They didn't wait long. And the Republicans' desire to impose politicians' and their views on women's health and substitute their judgment for the judgment of the woman, her family, and her doctor continues.

There are many different permutations and combinations of this, but it is always: Take the women's rights away. Let some politician for some ideological reason decide.

This week, Senate Republicans will advance their so-called Born-Alive bill, a bill we have all seen before, which the Senate squarely rejected in the past. The bill is deeply pernicious because it attacks women's healthcare through false narratives and outright fearmongering. It seeks to make something illegal that is already illegal.

In essence, the Republican bill would substitute the judgment of qualified medical professionals and the wishes of millions of women and their families with an ultraright ideology. It is the long hand of injustice reaching down and hurting women from afar.

And so much of the legislation is passed, frankly, by men who have, really, no understanding of what women go through when they are through difficult situations like the one my colleague from Washington State has outlined.

This would harm the ability of medical professionals to provide healthcare based on evidence and on science. It would expose medical professionals to the risk of punishment and prosecution if they don't comply with the hard right.

So we are here because we need to expose this bill exactly for what it is: myth-based fearmongering. It is an attack on reproductive care.

The anti-choice movement keeps trying to come up with these scenarios to try and scare people, but they misstate the facts and misstate the evidence.

This bill is clear. It is an attack on reproductive care. It is anti- women, anti-family, anti-science.

I will tell my Republican colleagues this: Democrats will oppose any attempt to erode access to high-quality and safe reproductive care. Democrats will continue to fight for America's women, America's doctors, and America's families who sometimes have to make heartbreaking, difficult decisions when serious complications arise during pregnancy.

That is what makes this bill so, so horrible. It basically takes a woman who is in a very serious, difficult situation and tries to use her as a political football. That is a bad, bad thing.

So we should resoundingly reject this deeply partisan bill when it comes to the floor later this week.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, a few hours ago, beneath the dome of the U.S. Capitol, with the eyes of the world upon us, the United States carried out, yet again, a peaceful transfer of power. We fulfilled the sacred commandment handed down to us by the Framers nearly two and a half centuries ago. We observed the inauguration of Donald Trump, the 47th President of the United States.

I congratulate President Trump. I congratulate Vice President Vance. The prayers of the American people are with them.

Today, let me also thank one more time our Nation's 46th President, Joe Biden. History will look kindly on President Biden's 4 years in office. He lifted America out of the abyss of crisis. He restored decency and integrity to the White House. His bold agenda, made possible by Democrats in Congress and particularly in the Senate, will stand the test of time.

When Americans drive on better roads, breathe cleaner air, enjoy good-paying manufacturing jobs, and save on prescription drugs, it will be because of the things we accomplished under President Biden's watch. So I thank President Biden and I thank Vice President Harris for their service to our Nation.

The peaceful transfer of power is the defining feature of a free society. It is what separates nations like the United

States from the wastelands of despotism and autocracy. As we have seen recently, the peaceful transfer of power can never be taken for granted. It requires all sides to accept the will of the people and affirm the results of the democratic process, no matter the outcome.

That is what Democrats firmly believe in. Democrats believe in the peaceful transfer of power, and we showed it today. Democrats are loyal, above all, to our Constitution and to our democratic principles, and today we practiced what we preached: the democratic transfer of power. I hope that today's inauguration shows the world that the chaos of 4 years ago was an unfortunate aberration and not the norm.

It is now time to look to the future. The challenges that face America are many and great. The Senate must respond with resolve, bipartisanship, and fidelity to the working and middle class of this country. While President Trump and I often disagree, I stand ready to work with him and with anyone, regardless of party, to advance the Nation's well-being. The American people want us to work together to make their lives better. Democrats are ready to do just that. We have been and always will be.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Day

Mr. President, finally, today, of course, is not just Inauguration Day but Martin Luther King, Jr., Day too.

Today, we remember that the march of justice may sometimes feel slow and halting, but if we persist and persist and persist, then one day we, too, shall reach the Promised Land.

I like to say that Dr. King hoisted a giant mirror on his shoulders and, with his brilliance, his eloquence, and his faith, he forced America to look into that mirror. And America didn't like what it saw, and that began us on a real road, a real path to greater equality, and we still have a long way to go.

But King was an amazing man, and it is fitting that his holiday is the only holiday on the calendar named for just one person. We have Mother's Day for the mothers, Father's Day for the fathers, Presidents Day for the Presidents, Veterans Day for the veterans, but only one holiday for one man. That is because Dr. King was so unique and so amazing.

Now, the work of justice--we all know, and Dr. King taught us--does not happen overnight. Sometimes progress rushes forth like a mighty stream. Other times it may feel as if progress flows in reverse and moves backward. Either way, Dr. King's hopeful message is the same: No matter the odds, we shall overcome.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Well, tonight, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Senator Rubio to serve as the next Secretary of State.

Democrats have been very clear about our approach to President Trump's nominees. We will neither rubberstamp nominees we feel are grossly unqualified, nor will we reflexively oppose nominees that deserve serious consideration.

Senator Rubio is an example of a qualified nominee we think should be confirmed quickly. Earlier today, he was unanimously reported out of committee with full support from Democrats, and he should be quickly confirmed here on the floor.

So today, I will vote yes on Senator Rubio. While I certainly do not agree with many of Senator Rubio's positions, in this instance, it is important for the new administration to have a Senate-confirmed Secretary of State as soon as possible. So I will vote yes.

Republicans did the same with Secretary Clinton during the first Obama administration. It was appropriate then; it is appropriate now.

I will vote yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, first, a few words on SALT. A few days ago, the House Freedom Caucus made a ridiculous proposal that Congress should extend the SALT caps after they are set to expire this year by imposing a new cap on New York businesses, large and small, and the businesses in many other States. The proposal by the House Freedom Caucus is ridiculous, and I will come back to the floor at 11 a.m., after the vote, with more to say about it.

Israel

Mr. President, on the Middle East and Israel, this week has been a long time coming for the families of the Israeli hostages, for civilians in Gaza, and for countless people across the world.

A little over an hour ago, Israel's Security Cabinet voted to approve the ceasefire that negotiators announced earlier this week. It will soon go to the full Cabinet for approval.

Fifteen months after Hamas's heinous attack on October 7, it is welcome news that we are now at the brink of a cease-fire agreement that will reduce violence in Gaza, reduce harm to innocent civilians, and free many of the hostages. This cease-fire marks a hopeful turning point for Israel, for the Palestinian people, and particularly for the families of the hostages who have waited so long in agony. We will not rest until every hostage comes home.

This agreement would not have been possible without months of steadfast diplomacy by the United States and our allies in the region and could not have happened and would not have happened until the threats of Hamas and other Iranian proxies like Hezbollah were radically reduced, which, thankfully, they have been.

I want to thank President Biden and everyone in his administration who persistently negotiated for a year to make this agreement possible. I thank and honor all the families of the hostages, especially those who live in New York, for their courage and perseverance and boundless grace amid so much grief. Among the hostages are many New Yorkers: Omer, Edan, Sagui, Itay, Keith, Gad, and Judi.

Getting to know the families of the hostages, hearing them share stories about their loved ones in captivity, about their hopes and their fears and frustrations and their perseverance will be something I will remember forever. Today, I promise them this: We will keep working to make sure every hostage comes home.

Now, the task is to ensure that this temporary agreement paves the way to a lasting peace. This first phase is critical for bringing home all the hostages and preserving Israel's right to defend itself. We must make sure that the terrorists of Hamas can never again pose a threat to Israel or to the region. We must also do everything we can to deliver immediate and lifesaving relief to civilians in Gaza. For 15 months, they have suffered unimaginable destruction. It will take all parties working together to make sure the Palestinian people can rebuild their lives with dignity, with security, and outside the terrible shadow that Hamas cast over the Gaza Strip, including using so many innocent civilians as human shields.

I urge the Biden administration and incoming Trump administration to work together with all parties at the negotiating table to ensure the deal is implemented and followed through in its entirety.

Mr. President, last fall, Donald Trump went to Long Island, NY, and claimed he would ``get SALT back.'' That is good news-- very good news--because it was precisely Donald Trump and congressional Republicans who created the SALT cap to begin with.

These harmful policies double tax hard-working New Yorkers. They have hurt so many middle-class families--teachers, firefighters, police officers, construction workers--particularly in higher cost areas like Long Island and the Hudson Valley of New York.

So it is good that Donald Trump and some Republicans have seen the light and that they have heard from vociferous Long Islanders, and now they are changing their minds about SALT. But let's not forget, these costly SALT caps are set to expire at the end of the year.

So to our friends on the other side, if you actually want to lower costs for Long Island, Hudson Valley, and other families across the country, all you have to do is do nothing at all on SALT caps. Let them expire, which they will right at the end of this year, and then they are gone for good, all of them.

Yes, if Congress simply says do nothing about SALT caps, all of it will go away, and that is what we should do. But instead of ensuring that New Yorkers will get SALT back, the House Freedom Caucus wants to impose a whole new round of SALT caps. They want to place new SALT caps on New York businesses small and large and want to push an increase in the SALT tax on New Yorkers.

The House Freedom Caucus is a group of very powerful, hard, hard right Republicans. The House Freedom Caucus's SALT plan will increase costs across Long Island and the Hudson Valley almost immediately.

I have got only one response to the House Freedom's SALT proposal. As we say in Brooklyn, forget about it. Forget about it. There is no scenario under God's green Earth that New York taxpayers will ever accept another unfair SALT cap like the House Freedom Caucus proposes. New York families, from Long Island to the Hudson Valley and across the State, have suffered long enough at the hands of broken Republican tax policies.

I will do everything I can, first, to remove the entire SALT cap tax and, second, to never let a new proposal that for the first time imposes the SALT cap on businesses small and large to be put into effect. I am going to do everything I can to fight this dastardly proposal.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last night, President Biden delivered his farewell address, reflecting on his 4 years in office, which will be remembered as one of the most productive periods in modern American history. Working alongside President Biden for the American people was the honor of a lifetime.

When President Biden took office, America was in crisis. The pandemic was surging. The economy was reeling. Our democracy was under assault. But President Biden, with good help from Senate Democrats, got right to work, and together, I am proud that we achieved one of the most ambitious legislative agendas in decades.

Working with President Biden, we created nearly 17 million new jobs, the most in a single term. We passed historic legislation, like Chips and Science--that was a baby that I nurtured--the bipartisan infrastructure law, and the Inflation Reduction Act. We lowered the cost of prescription drugs for tens of millions of Americans. We passed the first gun safety law in 30 years. We enshrined marriage equality into law. We confirmed 235 well-qualified and historic judges to lifetime appointments--more judges than any majority has confirmed in decades--and so much more.

President Biden also left America with a somber warning in his address--one that every American should listen to. He cautioned that ``an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence'' that will threaten all the progress our country has made in the last 4 years.

President Biden is right. An oligarchy is beginning to take shape in America, and you can see it by looking at the incoming Trump administration.

Donald Trump has not even taken office yet, but many of his top advisers and Cabinet picks are extremely wealthy people with deep ties to corporate special interests. Many of these Cabinet picks seem to see the world through the eyes of a very rich and privileged individual--a very limited vision indeed. And the agenda they are pushing--tax cuts for the ultrawealthy and draconian cuts to the working class--is narrow and only furthers inequality in America.

Donald Trump's agenda would precisely benefit the oligarchy class that President Biden is warning about. The progress we have made under President Biden's leadership--lower taxes for families, more affordable healthcare, investments in infrastructure and energy--should not be undone only to assuage the desires of a limited few.

We Democrats will continue the legacy that President Biden created, continue fighting for working families, and make sure that everyone in America--not just the uberwealthy--has a fair shot.

TikTok

Mr. President, now on TikTok, the 170 million Americans who use TikTok are rightfully asking the same question: What will happen to the app after the ban enters into effect next week?

Today, I want to say a few words about protecting TikTok's future while also protecting America's national security at the same time.

We aren't against TikTok. We want TikTok to keep going. But we are against a Chinese company that is in cahoots with the Chinese Communist Party owning TikTok. Unfortunately, TikTok, as it exists today, has too many security risks that cannot be ignored. The law passed last year was intended to sever TikTok from the influence of the CCP while keeping the app available for Americans.

It is clear that more time is needed to find an American buyer and not disrupt the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans, of so many influencers who have built up a good network of followers. That is why, last night, Senate Democrats tried to pass a bill that would extend the deadline to give everyone more time to come up with a workable solution, but Senate Republicans blocked our bill, which is stunning because time is running short.

We will continue to work to find a responsible solution to keeping TikTok going, protect American livelihoods, and protect against Chinese Communist Party surveillance. We must and can do all three. I have made my views clear to the current administration, and I will work with the Trump administration and with both parties to keep TikTok alive while protecting our national security.

We can all agree that we must protect Americans' privacy from the prying eyes of the Chinese Communist Party, but we also should agree it must be done in the right way, without risking content creators' livelihoods by rushing this process in a premature way. TikTok should survive but under new ownership.

Cabinet Nominations

Mr. President, on nominations, this week, the American people have gotten their first real look at what is in store for them under a second Trump administration, and it is very bad news for the working and middle class. Senate Republicans, of course, are in the majority. They control, to a large extent, the final outcome of each nominee in this Chamber if they stick together. And Donald Trump's hold on Senate Republicans, as we have seen throughout the nominations process, is very, very strong.

Even so, there are two reasons why holding these hearings is extremely important regardless of outcome. First, they create a contrast between the parties. People will see what we stand for and what our Republican colleagues stand for as they support Trump's nominees. And second, the hearings create a record to hold these nominees accountable should they fail on the job down the line--which, unfortunately, I think many will, given their meager qualifications.

The contrast between whom Democrats will fight for and whom Republicans will fight for is becoming exceedingly obvious, thanks to these hearings. On the Democratic side, we want answers to the things Americans are worried most about: What does Donald Trump's agenda mean for jobs, for inflation? What are Trump's tariffs going to do to people's bottom lines? Will it send prices shooting up?

And people are going to ask: Are my prescription drugs going to get more expensive? They are going to ask: Will our broken tax system become even more unfair under President Trump in a way that rigs the system for the ultrawealthy? These are the questions Americans care about. These are the things Democrats want answers to from President Trump's nominees. And in many cases, the answers are very, very troubling.

Second, even if these nominees are confirmed in the end, given that Donald Trump's hold on Senate Republicans is so absolute, the American people deserve to have a record they can reference down the line.

Candidly, many of President Trump's nominees are not fit for the job. Look at Pete Hegseth. Confirming some of these people would be a reckless roll of the dice for our country, but Republicans, under pressure from President-elect Trump, seem willing to press ahead nonetheless.

Should the time come that some of these nominees fail on the job, the hearings we are holding right now will come back to haunt our Republican colleagues because the warnings will have been there from the start. By asking tough questions, by getting nominees on the record, by establishing that many of these individuals are unfit, these hearings will have been the canary in the coal mine that warns everyone that some of these nominees are too great a risk.

So Democrats will continue to uphold our responsibility to scrutinize each nominee on the issues Americans care about. We will continue asking the tough questions because working people deserve to know whose side Donald Trump is truly on. Is it working people, like Donald Trump claims, or is it corporate special interests like his nominations all too often suggest?

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, let me begin by speaking of the recent news of a cease-fire agreement in the Middle East. I have good news. I have just been informed by the administration that a deal has been agreed to. It is welcome news that there is an agreement that will free many of the hostages. A cease-fire is very good news for Israel, for America, for the Palestinian people, and particularly for the hostage families, who have waited so long in agony.

A cease-fire will reduce violence in Gaza and harm to innocent civilians. It couldn't have happened without steadfast diplomacy and until the potency of Hamas was radically reduced. We will not rest until every hostage comes home.

Mr. President, now, on the Hegseth hearing, the takeaway from yesterday's hearing on Pete Hegseth is very clear: Pete Hegseth is woefully unfit for the job of Secretary of Defense.

For Mr. Hegseth, yesterday's hearing was an exercise in obfuscation. When confronted about the serious accusations against his character, Mr. Hegseth repeatedly dismissed them as ``smear tactics'' but refused to respond to how these character issues impact his qualifications for the job.

When asked if being guilty of sexual assault is disqualifying for the job of Secretary of Defense, Mr. Hegseth refused to answer. Imagine if any other American interviewing for any other job refused to answer that question.

Clearly, more information is needed about Hegseth's background. But when Democrats asked to make Mr. Hegseth's full FBI background documents available to all members of the committee, the Republican chair said no.

Why? Why is the Republican chair insistent on keeping relevant information about Mr. Hegseth locked away from committee members?

Perhaps the reason for Republican stonewalling is that the more evidence that is revealed about Mr. Hegseth, the more obvious it will become that he is woefully unfit for the job.

For Mr. Hegseth, when there are serious allegations, to not answer them directly and instead just call them ``smear tactics''--especially in such an important job like Secretary of Defense, where people's lives are on the line--is just totally unacceptable, totally inadequate, and, basically, a nominee for a very important position just ducking the most important questions he faced.

Now, let me say a few things about why these hearings are so important for our country and to our side.

By all indications, our Republican colleagues seem perfectly comfortable with advancing Mr. Hegseth through the Senate, despite his lack of qualifications. Many of our colleagues have private doubts about the nominees, but, publicly, they are still willing to embrace them.

Donald Trump's hold on Senate Republicans has become very powerful. Nevertheless, we Democrats will continue to push and pressure and scrutinize each nominee in committee because it is so important to get them on record. Americans need to see that many of Donald Trump's nominees are simply unfit for the jobs they have been chosen for. Americans need to hear these nominees answer for Donald Trump's harmful policies.

And if some of these nominees are severely unqualified--and many of them are--these hearings are essential for exposing that. Even if they get confirmed in the end, the information must come out. Even if they get confirmed, it is so important to have all these questions asked and to see what the answers, or lack of answers, are.

If the time comes, months from now, that some of Donald Trump's Cabinet members fail on the job, these hearings will have served as an important warning for the American people to see. That is why Democrats are committed to ensuring each nominee is vetted thoroughly and scrutinized during the testimony.

One other point, by the way, on why we think the hearings are important: The hearings are also an opportunity to show whose side each party is on. Are these nominees in favor of tax cuts for very wealthy people? Are they in favor of keeping programs that help working-class people, keep prices down, such as making sure that Medicare can negotiate drug prices, which brings down the price for everybody? Where do they stand?

Where do they stand? The hearings glaringly show that Donald Trump and his nominees are on the side of the very powerful and that we Democrats who are asking the questions are on the side of working people.

And as the hearings wind through and we go through more and more witnesses, it will become clearer and clearer to the American people who is on whose side.

So it is important to have a record of these nominees even if they get confirmed in the end to see who they are and to guard against the dangers that might occur with them in office and to show who is on whose side.

Now, a couple more of today's nominees are very troubling. One is Mr. Vought. Few nominees illustrate what is at stake for working-class families better than Donald Trump's pick for OMB director, Mr. Russell Vought. This is one of the most influential positions in the entire White House, responsible for not only producing the President's budget but also executing the President's agenda across the executive branch.

I will be candid, Mr. Vought's appointment to OMB director would be a nightmare scenario for working Americans. It is difficult to imagine a worse choice to implement White House policy than the chief architect of Project 2025. Let me repeat that, because our Republican friends don't want to talk about 2025, but at the same time, they are likely to vote for someone who was the chief architect of the project in a powerful position to implement it: head of OMB.

You cannot, you simply cannot be proworker and support the nomination

of Russell Vought. The last time he worked at the White House, Mr. Vought pushed radical budget proposals that gutted Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and funding for public health.

During the last default crisis, Mr. Vought was a key advisor to hard- right Republicans who pushed America to the brink of disaster by using the debt ceiling as blackmail to cut trillions in funding for healthcare, for seniors, for hungry kids.

When Congress did not appropriate Donald Trump's border wall, Vought raided the accounts of the Pentagon and the Treasury Department to pay for it. And on top of it all, Mr. Vought put America's national security at risk by illegally withholding foreign aid to Ukraine in an attempt to help Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

To call Mr. Vought an extremist would, frankly, give extremists a bad name. The only people in America who can be happy about Mr. Vought are the richest of the rich, who would make a killing if Donald Trump and Republicans hand them another trillion-dollar tax cut. And, again, just let me repeat, this man is the chief architect of Project 2025. Republicans are running away from that project now, but at the same time, they are putting its chief architect in one of the most powerful positions in the Federal Government, which had a broad range across just about every policy.

So today's hearing with Mr. Vought is a reminder to the American people that Donald Trump does not intend to keep his promises to working people. If Donald Trump were serious about being proworker, he would not have turned to the godfather of the ultraright to oversee White House policy.

And on Chris Wright, the tragic fires in California are another warning that the climate crisis continues to grow in strength. The scientific community across the world from the U.N. to NASA to even national security experts agree that ignoring climate change is dangerous.

So Donald Trump's nominee for Energy Secretary is truly alarming: oil executive Chris Wright. Everything you need to know about who Mr. Wright is and what he will fight for can be found in the following quote he once gave in an interview. Mr. Wright said:

Oil and Gas make the world go round.

Mr. Wright amassed his wealth in fracking and is an oil executive, so, of course, he thinks oil and gas are the only things that count in the world. An article from the New York Times this morning called him an evangelist for fossil fuels.

What makes Mr. Wright so troubling, however, is that he is perfectly willing to admit climate change is happening while rejecting that we should do anything about it.

He says calling climate change a crisis is pure fearmongering. He says the real crisis is that not enough people are using hydrocarbons. Imagine, that is what he said, not enough people are using hydrocarbons. That is the crisis in the world. Can you believe it?

He even says that roadblocks to unrestrained fossil fuel development are outright ``immoral.'' This man is an extremist when it comes to energy issues. He is not even among the conservative mainstream he is so far over.

What a shock this is, a wealthy oil executive thinks that the solutions to the world's problems are to produce more oil. This is who Donald Trump wants leading America's energy policy.

Mr. Wright's nomination should be an alarm bell for every single American who has gotten a job recently at battery plants, EV factories, and other good-paying clean jobs. Many of these Americans are in red States that trusted Donald Trump to look after them. But as far as Donald Trump's pick for Energy Secretary is concerned, he thinks ``we're not in the midst of an energy transition.'' That is his words.

Tell that to the workers in rural America rebuilding EV batteries and wind and solar. I hope our Republican colleagues will repeat those words to the employees in their districts who have gotten good-paying jobs in these new clean energy industries.

Everyone knows we still have a lot of work to do before we reach our clean energy goals, and everybody knows it is not going to be easy. The question is whether or not Donald Trump's administration is going to protect the clean energy jobs we have created or kill them and put people out of work for the sake of Big Oil.

Mr. Wright's nomination suggests that Donald Trump is willing to let all those good-paying clean energy jobs we have created disappear.

And to my Republican colleagues, when Donald Trump and Mr. Wright start cutting the jobs that have come from clean energy that are in your States, don't say we didn't tell you so. And remember, the voters are going to know who you voted for, for the head of Energy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.