Floor Statements

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.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today, the Senate began holding hearings for the President-elect's nominees to serve in his Cabinet.

This morning, the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony from Pete Hegseth to serve as Secretary of Defense. Few nominees will face the kind of troubling questions that Mr. Hegseth faced going into today's hearing. He is, by outward appearance, woefully unfit for a job like Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately for Mr. Hegseth, his testimony thus far has failed to address the disturbing questions that plague his nomination. It appears Mr. Hegseth's strategy is to follow the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.

Mr. Hegseth failed to explain, for one, why someone with his lack of qualifications should be entrusted to lead our Armed Forces. Why should America entrust our military to a television personality who has never led any large organization? It is a huge organization, DOD. He hasn't come close to having any of that kind of administrative experience. We didn't hear any good answer to that question.

Mr. Hegseth also failed to answer for his deeply flawed history of financial and organizational mismanagement. Why should he be the one entrusted to manage the Pentagon's budget? Again, no good answer.

When asked about his comments as recently as 2 months ago, when he claimed that ``we should not have women in combat roles,'' he had no good answers.

Finally, Mr. Hegseth failed to assure us he has the temperament for the job. His history of excessive drinking is troubling for someone seeking to lead our military, and his reflexive defiance against the allegations regarding sexual assault undermines his credibility.

If Mr. Hegseth had nothing to hide about his past, then it shouldn't be a problem for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to allow all committee members to review all FBI background documents, but today, Chairman Wicker rejected this reasonable request by Ranking Member Reed to let committee members review Mr. Hegseth's past. Again, if there is nothing to hide about Mr. Hegseth, why is the chairman hell-bent on keeping all relevant information out of the hands of his colleagues? To dismiss the allegations against Mr. Hegseth but then reject full transparency is odd at best, dangerous at worst. It reeks of something hiding in the dark.

Being Secretary of Defense demands discipline, character, and restraint. Mr. Hegseth's history shows he is deficient in all these qualities, and so far, his hearing has not changed that.

Mr. President, now on the noms tomorrow, Mr. Hegseth is not the only nominee testifying this week who must answer for a disturbing record. The number of people with disturbing records who have been nominated-- some of them are good nominees, but the number with disturbing records and histories--I don't think I can remember a time in history when we have had that many.

Tomorrow, we will hear from a large collection of nominees, but let's focus on two: Russell Vought to serve as Director of OMB and Chris Wright to serve as Secretary of Energy.

Let me begin with Russell Vought, a key figure in the first Trump administration and one of the chief architects--one of the chief architects--of Project 2025. This man is not just a bystander who supported it; he helped put it together.

No administration on Earth can claim to be pro-worker and then nominate someone like Russell Vought to oversee the Federal Government's budget. Again, you can't be pro-worker and be for Russell Vought. He has spent years--years--pushing for trillions in cuts to America's social safety net--something that would cause immediate and severe harm to tens of millions of American citizens.

We all know Mr. Vought's history very well. We know his awful and radical record from the first Trump administration. Even after leaving government, Mr. Vought was the go-to authority for the most radical elements of the House GOP, advising them on budgets that punished America's families, seniors, kids, law enforcement, and others with draconian--draconian--budget cuts. His budget cuts weren't just snipping at the edges; they cut to the deep.

Tomorrow, when Vought testifies before the committee, Americans will be reintroduced to his outlandishly extreme agenda. If Project 2025 caused your stomach to turn during the election, Mr. Vought would be a nightmare scenario. If you are among America's working class or from low-income families or from middle-class families working hard to make ends meet, Mr. Vought would be disastrous. If you rely on programs like Medicare or nutrition assistance, Mr. Vought would put those services in danger. On the other hand, if you are among the wealthiest of Americans in this country, Mr. Vought is a wave of good news. He is a staunch advocate of tax cuts for the ultrarich and deregulation for America's mega corporations, even if that means adding trillions to the deficit.

As we will all see tomorrow for ourselves, confirming Mr. Vought would be a disaster for America's working- and middle-class families.

Finally, I would like to say something about President Trump's nominee to serve as Secretary of Energy, Mr. Chris Wright. There is a lot--a heck of a lot--in Mr. Wright's background that should trouble Americans who care about affordable energy and creating good-paying, clean jobs.

Mr. Wright is one of America's wealthiest fossil fuel executives and has a history of sounding like a climate change skeptic. He once said, ``There is no climate crisis'' and ``We have seen no increase in the frequency . . . of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and floods.'' What on Earth is this man talking about? Is he such an ideologue that he doesn't see the truth of the world around him?

Mr. Wright, look over at California right now and say that we haven't had increases in these kinds of problems.

Tomorrow, Mr. Wright must answer for his background and his comments. It is like putting a fox in the henhouse. If you believe in clean energy, you couldn't have a worse nominee.

If confirmed, will Mr. Wright fight to lower costs for American consumers or will he fight to help the bottom line of polluters and oil companies? Will Mr. Wright push policies that build on the progress we made in the Inflation Reduction Act that has created hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of good-paying, clean jobs or will he kill those

jobs because he is such an ideological extremist? If confirmed, will Mr. Wright advance our country into a prosperous, affordable clean energy future or will he take us backward and do the bidding of Big Oil? He must answer these questions and more tomorrow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Barrasso and Durbin be permitted to complete their remarks prior to the scheduled recess.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week, the American people will see for the first time what kind of Trump administration they are going to get in the coming years: one that will fight for working people or one that will fight for the swamp?

Over the next 4 days, over a dozen of the President-elect's nominees will testify in committee and make their case to the country. These hearings, in a very real way, are the opening salvo for holding the Trump administration accountable to the public.

So, today, I want to talk a little bit about how Senate Democrats will approach these hearings to uphold our promise to stand up for America's working and middle class. These hearings will be the very first real opportunity to see the Trump administration's view on who they will fight for--working people or the special interests?

Our approach will be this: We will use these hearings to show the contrast between Donald Trump's agenda of helping the special interests--especially the very wealthy--and the Democrats' agenda to fight for working Americans.

Nominees should expect tough, candid, but fair questioning. They should come prepared to be honest about everything--their backgrounds, their experiences, and their commitment to increasing opportunity for all Americans, not just those at the top. They will also be asked tough questions about where they stand on the President-elect's stated policies on things that will hurt the middle class, such as tariffs, tax cuts for the wealthy, and undermining policies that lower drug prices.

If the President-elect's nominees demonstrate they are qualified and committed to lowering costs, increasing wages, and strengthening our security, Democrats will take that very seriously. But if the President-elect's nominees are going to push policies that make inflation worse and put more money in the pockets of special interests, or duck those important questions, they will be put on the record about their views for all the American people to see.

That is why Democrats have insisted on regular order for the President-elect's nominees. A thorough nominations process ensures the American people know precisely who these nominees are and who they will fight for.

Unfortunately, a troubling pattern emerged last week from some Republican chairs who seem eager to rush the nominations process without fully getting all the necessary documentation.

Getting documents is not trivial busy work. These are financial disclosures, ethics agreements, and FBI background investigations.

If these nominees have something to hide, these documents could show it. So it is important we don't rush to hearings without examining the record first.

The more Senate Republicans try to rush the process without the proper documentation, the more Americans will ask themselves: What are Republicans and their nominees trying to hide?

How can Americans trust, for example, that Donald Trump's Cabinet will be free from conflicts of interests if Republicans hold hearings before anyone is getting a chance to review financial disclosures?

How can Americans trust that these nominees will serve the public interest if we don't first examine all their ethics agreements?

How can Americans trust that Senate Republicans will do what is best for the American people if they are more focused on keeping Donald Trump happy than examining every nominee carefully?

If these nominees will push policies that make Americans' lives worse, Americans deserve to know it, and we can determine that with a complete, thorough, and exhaustive nomination process.

On Mr. Hegseth, tomorrow's hearing with Pete Hegseth is a good example of why a thorough and tough nominations process is so important.

Mr. Hegseth is Donald Trump's pick to be Secretary of Defense-- arguably, the most important position in the entire Cabinet. If confirmed, Mr. Hegseth would oversee a workforce of over 3 million people and handle issues of life and death on a regular basis. His job will be to keep our troops safe and keep our country safe. If there is any Cabinet position that ought to have a steady and drama-free individual, it is certainly Secretary of Defense.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth's background is deeply troubling, to put it generously. We all have read reports about his radical views, his alleged excessive drinking, the allegations about sexual assault, and his failures in the financial stewardship of multiple organizations. These are such serious allegations for such an important job. So why would the Armed Services Committee wish to rush through these hearings, particularly when the documents are not available to all the members of the committee, including the FBI background check?

Mr. Hegseth will have an opportunity to answer questions about these allegations and about his record as well as his views. He can expect his hearing to be tough but respectful, candid but fair.

The stakes during tomorrow's hearing will be very high--not just for the nominee but for the entire country. It is not hard to imagine an emergency situation where the Secretary of Defense has to make quick and steady decisions about our military. Is someone with Pete Hegseth's alleged history really the kind of person we want at the helm in a very, very important situation--dangerous situation--like that? Is that really in the best interest of Americans' safety? That is something Senators should ask themselves during tomorrow's hearing, and, of course, they should ask Mr. Hegseth questions about it.

When it comes to a job like Secretary of Defense, there can be zero question--zero--that the nominee is up for the job. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth's record leaves too many unanswered questions. Let's hope we get real answers and real documentation before anyone votes for Mr. Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.

Laken Riley Act

Mr. President, on Laken Riley, today, the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed on the Laken Riley Act. The Senate invoked cloture on this bill last week with a strong bipartisan vote. As I said last week, Democrats want to have a robust debate where we can offer amendments and improve this bill.

This issue is very important. Americans deserve for us to debate the issues seriously, including by considering amendments from the Democratic side. We are going to ask our Republican colleagues to allow for debate and votes on amendments. I hope my Republican colleagues will allow for it.

January 6

Mr. President, finally, on the January 6 pardons--not finally; next to finally--Donald Trump has promised to spend the first hour of his Presidency pardoning the violent mob which stormed the Capitol and attacked our police officers on January 6.

Instead of focusing on helping working families or lowering healthcare costs or making life better for the American people, Donald Trump's very first priority seems to be pardoning the January 6 rioters.

And yesterday, on FOX News Sunday, the Vice President-elect JD Vance--feeling the heat that these pardons are not very popular with the American people--said that while those who committed violence should not be pardoned, he implied that those who did not commit violence could deserve to be pardoned.

The people who invaded the Capitol on January 6, whether they committed violence or not, should not be pardoned. They unlawfully broke into the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power. What they did is a serious crime. There is no gray area here. There would be nothing more insulting to our democracy and to the memory of those who died in connection with that day than letting rioters walk free. We would be saying, in effect, that you could storm the Capitol, engage in violence against police officers or be part of a crowd that engaged in such violence, and try to overturn a free and fair election, and then walk away with no consequences--no consequences.

Rioters who broke into the Capitol on January 6 to try and stop the peaceful transfer of power and subvert our democracy do not deserve a Presidential pardon. Whether they committed violence or not, no one who participated in one of the darkest, most shameful days in American history should be pardoned.

Tribute to Pina Frassineti Wax

Mr. President, finally, on a Holocaust survivor on Long Island whom I met with this morning, one of my favorite things about serving as the senior Senator from New York is that I get a chance to travel around the State and meet so many exceptional New Yorkers.

This morning, on Long Island, I had a chance to meet an especially exceptional New Yorker, a living legend, a 100-year-old woman named Pina Frassineti Wax, a Holocaust survivor and proud Long Island resident. She was sheltered by Catholic nuns in a convent for 2 years to keep the Germans from sending her to the concentration camps.

And these days, there are so many Holocaust deniers, people who say it never existed or was ``exaggerated,'' and then there are so many more young people who know nothing about the history of the Holocaust, that those who survived it are very, very important to our history, to helping us understand what happened, to be a living witness to this awful, awful, awful

genocide that occurred against the Jewish people.

Ms. Wax is such a survivor. She combined her 100th birthday with constantly reminding people of the horrors of Nazi Germany and what was done to the Jewish people.

So, this morning, it was my honor to present her with a flag flown over the Capitol, expressing the Senate's recognition of her extraordinary life.

After enduring so much tragedy during one of the darkest chapters of human history, Pina has dedicated her life to teaching, loving, learning, and preserving the memory of the Holocaust.

And even at 100 years old, she is showing no signs of slowing down. She is whip smart, as energetic as ever, and still going very, very strong. People like her give all of us hope that, in the end, compassion and courage will always endure over hatred and fear--always.

Long Island is lucky to have her; New York is proud to call her one of our own; and the world is much better off because of her.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

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

Mr. President, today, our prayers are with the people of Southern California who have been impacted by the wildfires that have spread over the past few days. The images of homes, schools, places of worship burning are terrifying and almost surreal.

I have been briefed on the latest efforts by Federal and State officials to contain these fires. Sadly, there is a lot of work left to do before this crisis is over. Right now, it is vital that our firefighters and medical workers and first responders have everything they need from the Federal Government to combat the flames and rescue people from danger.

The Senate just passed, fortunately, a sweeping disaster aid package precisely for these kinds of emergencies, but now we must ensure all necessary disaster aid goes out the door as quickly as possible and is given to the people who need it and need it the most.

Finally, the fact that the worst wildfire in Los Angeles's history should happen in the dead of winter is another warning of the dangers of climate change. Extreme weather events will continue to happen regularly and will get worse if we don't tackle the climate crisis head-on.

We pray for the people of Southern California, and we thank all of our brave first responders working without rest to keep people safe.

Laken Riley Act

Mr. President, on today's vote, this afternoon, the Senate is going to hold its first procedural vote on the Laken Riley Act. I expect that this bill will have enough votes from both parties to proceed. If we get on the bill, Democrats want to have a robust debate where we can offer amendments and improve the bill.

On the first day of the 119th Congress, my good friend the Republican leader, Senator Thune, said he wants to make the Senate a place ``where all members should have a chance to make their voices . . . heard.'' Well, this bill will be a fine place to start.

We should allow debate and amendments on the bill. This is an important issue. We should have a debate and amendments, and that is why I am voting yes on the motion to proceed.

To remind my colleagues, this is not a vote on the bill itself. This is a motion to proceed, a vote that says we should have a debate and should have amendments.

Democratic Legislative Priorities

Mr. President, now, on the GOP taxes and our Democratic agenda, each day it is becoming clearer that the new Trump administration will look a lot like the old one: chaos for Republicans, bad news for working Americans. That is what this new Trump administration already looks like, just like they did 4 years ago.

All week long, Republicans have tripped over themselves to try to figure out how they are going to hurt everyday Americans through their agenda. All this talk about ``one bill'' or ``two bills'' is irrelevant. That is just Washington-insider machinations.

Americans need to know the real story: Republicans are united on using their new majorities to cut taxes for the ultrawealthy at the expense of working people. It doesn't matter if it is one bill or two bills when they are doing so much to hurt working Americans and only helping those who probably need help the least--the very least, by and large.

All these promises we heard from Republicans about fighting for the working class didn't even make it to Inauguration Day. They are back to trying to cut taxes for the ultrawealthy and megacorporations.

Look, I have no problem against those who are fortunate enough to have a lot of money. God bless them. But they need to pay their fair share. Almost all Americans would agree with that. So it is truly stunning--it is revealing--that Republicans are already spending so much energy trying to figure out the best way to make taxes for the very wealthy even lower.

We are already seeing a glaring contrast between how Republicans use their time in power and what Democrats believe in. A little later this afternoon, Senate Democrats will convene on the Senate steps for our first major press conference, where we will outline our priorities and where they lie in the 119th Congress.

We need to lower costs for working and middle-class people, not reward the ultrarich and America's biggest corporations. If Republicans want to work with us on real policies that lower costs for real working Americans, we are glad to partner with them. But if Republicans try to sell out our children's future with multitrillion-dollar tax cuts that only help those at the very top, we will fiercely, fiercely oppose them.

Nominations

Mr. President, now, on nominations, the American people have a right to know if President-elect Trump's Cabinet nominees are going to fight for them. Will they lower people's costs? Will they be loyal to the country and the Constitution? Or will they cater to their wealthy benefactors, like the first Trump administration? Will they try to undo the wellsprings of democracy?

We can answer these questions through a robust nomination process in the Senate. But when Republicans like the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee try to rush nominees before Senators have even received basic information, such as background reports, Americans have to ask: What are Republicans trying to hide when they don't want their nominees to have background checks and don't want to have full information about them?

These nominees will have enormous power. Every American has to go through a background check and is asked questions when they are applying for a job. These jobs are so important. Of course, this should happen here. But so far, some of the Republican chairs of committees are resisting, and that doesn't speak well for the qualifications or the confidence they have in their nominees.

In the last 2 days, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has noticed hearings on not one but two of President Trump's nominees without minority consent:

Governor Doug Burgum to be Secretary of the Interior and Chris Wright to be the Secretary of Energy. These two positions--Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Energy--will be tasked with managing our natural resources and our clean energy future. They will be responsible for protecting the good-paying, clean energy jobs created under President Biden. And I would remind my Republican colleagues: Those jobs are in red States as much as they are in blue States.

The American people deserve to know if these Cabinet nominees will protect good-paying, clean energy jobs; or will they kill these jobs and put a lot of people out of work for some ideological thing they are chasing?

Yet Senate Democrats on the committee have yet to receive basic information about either of these nominees' backgrounds.

Republicans choosing to rush nominees is quickly becoming a pattern. It is hard not to wonder: What are the Republicans trying to hide about these nominees from the American people? What are they trying to hide? What are they afraid of?

Tribute to Matt Fuentes

Now, finally, I want to end on a more personal but also a bittersweet note.

Mr. President, I have had great staff through all my years in the Senate and in the House. I owe everything to them. They work so damn hard. They are so dedicated, and they are so smart and so creative and so caring. So to say that this is one of the best I have ever had is really high tribute. But Matt Fuentes, my top health policy adviser for 8 years, is one of the very, very, very best I have ever, ever, ever had--8 years, amazing.

Matt, I want to thank you for your amazing work. I am so proud of what you have accomplished for us, for New York, and for the country.

As I said before, I have the best staff in the world, and Matt was no exception. He joined my team and immediately got to work helping defend the ACA when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017. He was instrumental in passing COVID relief, which saved thousands of lives. He led insulin reform policy. Now, people are getting insulin, and Medicare recipients, for $35. I don't think it would have happened without this guy sitting right here next to me. He figured out the ways to get it done. It is not easy.

And he helped us lower drug prices for millions of other Americans, because, as you know, as of January 1, there is a cap on how much any senior citizen can pay for all the drugs they use, as well as negotiations that would have been now allowed so that Medicare can negotiate with the drug companies, and 10 of the most popular drug prices are going way down.

Anyone who has worked with Matt would agree on one thing: He possesses a rare gift. It is true. It is amazing. He can translate the most complex policy into clear and direct essentials, while grasping the core, difficult political issues at play.

I can recall many times--probably more than either of us would want to admit--when I called Matt at 7 in the morning, at midnight: Matt, what about this? What about that?

He never got mad. He was always very factual and matter of fact and would answer and solve the problem.

So he is amazing. And despite all the stressful situations that the job put him in, Matt always radiated calmness and confidence. He never wavered under pressure. In fact, that is when he was at his best. When everyone else in the room was trying to prove they were right and others were wrong, he had the special ability to bring people together on both sides of the aisle. So much of what we did was bipartisan, and that is the reason right here. It was a sight to behold to watch Matt.

Again, I just have to say, with all the pressure and everything going on and having a new family--a new young family, a beautiful child; now there are two--he stayed cool as a cucumber. I don't know if they use that expression these days. My mother uses that one. It is probably out of date.

Have you heard it, Mr. President, from your mother, too--``cool as a cucumber''?

Matt was cool as a cucumber throughout all of it--thoughtful, kind, generous. He knows when to be serious but doesn't take himself seriously. He is always seeking to help but is never afraid to hold strong for what he believes is right.

You know, my wish for every Senator, regardless of our ideology, is that you have a Matt Fuentes--sometime, someplace--on your staff, working on some important issue.

I do want to say one thing. I hate seeing Matt leave. He is one of the best, as I said, I have ever had, but we have a new successor to Matt, who is his deputy, who I know will fill his large shoes.

So thank you very much.

Matt, from the bottom of my heart, thank you, thank you, thank you, not just for me but for everything you have done for America and Americans. Your legacy, no matter what else you do in life, is there. There are literally going to be huge numbers of people--tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions--who are alive, who are healthier because of you. What an amazing legacy.

God bless you, Matt. Good luck. Good luck to your nice wife, to your great little kids. I know you will do other great things, but forever, forever, forever, you will be part of the Schumer family and one of the best members of it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, President-elect Donald Trump comes to the Capitol to meet with Senate Republicans. We expect they will talk about their first order of business when they assume full control of government.

And what is the Republicans' first order of business going to be?

Will it be helping working people as Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail? Will it be increasing paychecks or strengthening workers' rights or making healthcare more affordable? Will it be investing in more American manufacturing jobs, like Democrats did 3 years ago?

No, no--and, again, no. Donald Trump and Republicans promised to fight for working Americans, but their actions already tell a different story.

Before even entering office, Donald Trump is working with Republicans to give very wealthy people and megacorporations another round of trillion-dollar tax cuts. At the same time that Americans are struggling with inadequate childcare and not

enough healthcare and the inability to buy a home, these Republicans are talking about helping the megacorporations and wealthy people get tax cuts.

Many of them are saying: Let's cut Social Security. Let's cut Medicare. Let's cut healthcare. Let's cut the ability of a first-time homeowner to buy a home, to pay for it.

So instead of working in a bipartisan way to put the needs of working Americans first, Republicans are getting ready to use the reconciliation process to reward the richest Americans and give more tax breaks to America's biggest corporations.

It is obscene enough that Republicans want to make tax cuts for the ultrarich their first agenda item, but it gets worse when you remember they already cut taxes for those same people just a few years ago, and we all saw what a disaster it was.

The last time Donald Trump and Republicans cut taxes for the rich, they claimed it would trickle down to the working people, to the middle class. It most certainly did not. Republicans promised that the average household would see $4,000 extra per year, but, in fact, real median wages grew less than half of a half of a percent--less than half of a half of a percent--in the 2 years following these tax cuts. Executive pay and bonuses, meanwhile, soared to record highs. Stock buybacks, which only reward shareholders, hit a record in 2018.

After the Trump tax cuts went into effect, the highest income earners in America paid less, effectively, in taxes than the working class for the first time ever. Imagine that. The highest income earners paid less, effectively, in taxes than the working class for the first time ever after the first Trump tax cut, and Republicans want to repeat that performance?

According to one study by economists at the University of California, the richest 400 families paid a lower tax rate than the bottom half of U.S. households in 2018. The richest 400 families paid a lower rate than the bottom half of U.S. households in 2018--paid a lesser amount, I believe.

There is nothing--nothing--pro-worker about cutting taxes for the wealthiest people in America, but that is precisely what Republicans are preparing to do as one of their first orders of business. They are not debating whether they should do it, just what is the best way to do it--one bill; two bills; choose your poison.

We already see a clear difference between the way Republicans are preparing to govern and how Democrats governed when we had the majority. We put bipartisanship first. We never made party-line votes the only part of our main agenda, as Republicans seem prepared to do.

Let's not forget--in the first year of the Democrats' majority, one of our signature bills was a bipartisan effort to rebuild America's roads, bridges, and highways, to put people to work, and fix our infrastructure. That is putting workers first.

In 2022, Democrats led a bipartisan effort to bring manufacturing back to our shores, to make America the world leader in microchip production once again, to plant the seeds for good-paying tech jobs at America's heartland. That is putting workers first.

In 2023, we even led a bipartisan effort to fix our immigration system with the strongest--the strongest--border security bill in over a decade. That was a bipartisan bill. We were hours away from voting on the bill here in the Senate before Donald Trump killed it for no other reason than a cynical political game.

So it is troubling that so far, we have seen little indication from the Republican majority that they are interested in continuing the bipartisan streak of the last 4 years or that they are really interested in helping the working people of America in any way. Instead, Republicans seem ready to use their majority to go back to the same old GOP playbook: tax cuts for the ultrarich, trickle-down fantasies, and turning their backs on working Americans whom they promised to fight for.

Nominations

Mr. President, now on nominations, every time a new administration begins, one of the most important things the Senate does is carefully evaluate, consider, and vote on the President's Cabinet nominees. Strong nominees only come from a strong vetting process here in the Senate.

I have been very clear where Democrats stand. We need thorough background investigations, we need hearings where both sides can prepare to ask strong questions, and we need a vote here on the floor. In other words, we expect regular order. It is deeply troubling, then, to see our Republican colleagues already beginning to shun regular order.

Yesterday, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources noticed a hearing for Governor Doug Burgum to serve as the next Secretary of the Interior without minority consent, as has long been the standard practice. Senate Democrats on the committee expressed reasonable objections to proceeding to this hearing because the committee had not yet received basic information on Governor Burgum's background.

What are Republicans trying to hide by rushing this and other nominees through committee? It is very reasonable to wait a little, get additional background information so both sides can be ready for the hearing. Why the rush? Are Republicans trying to hide the fact that maybe some of Donald Trump's nominees are not qualified for the positions they seek? Are Republicans trying to cover for nominees who will turn their backs on working Americans and use Agencies like the Department of the Interior to help giant polluters and Big Business?

The American people should know if Cabinet nominees will push policies that kill good-paying clean energy jobs created under President Biden. These are good-paying jobs that support communities in red States and blue States. Repealing these jobs would be profoundly anti-worker and might cause many to lose their jobs.

Americans deserve to know what kind of people are going to serve in President Trump's Cabinet. They need assurances that these nominees will fight for them, will cut costs, and hold the big corporations accountable.

When Republicans try to rush nominees through the process, the American people have to wonder what are Republicans trying to hide.

Gulf of Mexico

Mr. President, now finally, I want to make a brief comment about the President-elect's press conference yesterday.

Donald Trump throws out a lot of strange and rather random ideas on a regular basis. He did it yesterday when suggesting we rename the Gulf of Mexico the ``Gulf of America.''

Well, let me say this: I would agree working with Donald Trump on renaming the Gulf of Mexico only if he first agrees to work with us on an actual plan to lower costs for Americans. That is what the American people want us to focus on first, not on renaming bodies of water.

Our priorities--our Democratic priorities--are so much more closely aligned with the concerns of the American people than Donald Trump's seem to be.

The incoming President knows he has a tall task ahead of him. He spent years on the campaign trail making outlandish promises he won't be able to keep. In fact, he is getting ready to do the opposite of what he promised by cutting taxes for the very, very wealthy.

Donald Trump is in over his head, so he is doing what he always does in times like this: distract America with crazy ideas.

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico may be a zany new idea, but it isn't going to help people save money at the grocery store; it is not going to make trips to the pharmacy more affordable; it is not going to help anyone find a good-paying job. Donald Trump says these things because it will get him attention and make him sound like a tough guy.

If Donald Trump wants to rename an ocean to sound more patriotic, I would say we will help him on one condition and only on one condition: Let's come up with a real plan first--not a concept of a plan--to lower prices for Americans. Let's do that first. Then Donald Trump can have his fun.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, last week, 14 people were killed in a terrorist attack in New Orleans, and an explosion in Las Vegas injured several others. The FBI has warned that other attacks that copycat what happened in New Orleans could be a threat. Cities like New York and population centers like Long Island need to be prepared. There is one Federal program that stands as the cornerstone for anti-terror preparedness for places like New York City and Long Island--the Urban Area Security Initiative, known as UASI.

Today, I am announcing that I will request $615 million for UASI in the upcoming funding negotiations this spring. UASI is one of our best firewalls for staying vigilant against terrorist threats. My request of $615 million will help communities like New York City, Long Island, and the entire metropolitan area stand ready against acts of terror.

Last year, I was proud to deliver $2.3 million in UASI funding for both Nassau and Suffolk Counties. That is over $4.5 million in anti- terror funds just for Long Island this last year. I know these funds are critical for these communities and for people's safety on the island. I am also proud last year that we delivered another $150 million to New York City in this funding. We must keep this robust funding going this year too.

UASI funds help pay for everything needed to keep people safe--from training and joint anti-terror operations across the city and Long Island to emergency medical equipment to better tools for Homeland Security officers for intelligence sharing and for so much more.

We need UASI funds to keep people safe here in the Nation's Capital too. Over the next few weeks, millions will come for the inauguration and for paying homage to former President Carter, and many people will be moving in and out of the city as the government enters a period of transition. Strong UASI funding is vital to ensuring security during all of these events.

I want to be clear: Any effort to cut this anti-terror program, especially right now, cannot stand. We in New York and on Long Island use these funds on a rolling basis. We need these funds. And to repeat: UASI funds are a firewall at a time potential copycat attacks, like the FBI has warned, are happening.

Madam President, on Jimmy Carter, this morning, Special Air Mission 39 took off from Georgia, carrying the 39th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, so he may be honored here in the Capitol one last time.

For the next 2 days, President Carter will lie in state in the Rotunda of the

U.S. Capitol Building, joining the small and distinguished list of eminent Americans who have earned this honor. Later today, I will join Leader Thune and other congressional leaders in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol to place a wreath on President Carter's casket on behalf of the U.S. Senate.

Today and tomorrow, Americans will brave the snow and cold temperatures to pay their respects to one of the most decent men ever to hold the Office of the President. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word--kind, honorable, intelligent, humble, and deeply patriotic. These are virtues he brought to the Oval Office in an era when trust in government was arguably at a low in the 20th century.

But just as admirable as the legacy President Carter built after holding the most powerful job in the world, after leaving office, he established the Carter Center to continue his work on human rights, on spreading democracy, on fighting disease; and we all know about his work with Habitat for Humanity where he could often be found outside, building houses for families in need, well into his nineties. That was President Carter at his core. He never stopped serving others until his final day. America was lucky to have him as a citizen, as a President, and as a moral compass of our time.

Madam President, now, on the 119th Congress, as the 119th Congress begins, our Nation faces an uncertain future. Americans still see high prices every time they go to the store, when they go to the pharmacy, when they refill their tanks, and pay their cable and internet bills. We have done a lot of work over the last few years to slow inflation down, but the new majority must continue the work we have begun.

Donald Trump and Republicans made a slew of very bold promises on the campaign trail to fix our country's big problems. In some of these promises, they say they will fight for working people despite decades of doing the opposite and proposing things that would hurt them. Democrats will hold Republicans' feet to the fire to ensure they are accountable to the American people. Promises to help working people sound nice, but they mean nothing without real results, and too many of Republicans' promises, like tax cuts for the very wealthy, will actually make things worse for working people.

In the coming weeks, there will be one early sign that shows whether or not Republicans intend to keep their promises to fight for working people, and that is who they support through the nomination process. These nominees are going to be the faces of the new administration. They will be responsible for applying its policies. They will, in effect, be the ones responsible for following through, day-to-day, on the promises made on the campaign trail.

So the American people want to know: Will the President-elect's nominees follow through on cutting costs for the American people, or will they return to cutting sweet deals for mega corporations and the wealthiest people in this country?

Will the President-elect's nominees actually make communities safer, or will they protect the bottom line of special interests?

Will they help their corporate contractors cozy up to foreign entities and oligarchs, all while undermining our national security?

Will they spend time settling scores for President-elect Trump, or will they actually help keep America safer?

Will the President-elect's nominees keep their promises to serve America, or are they just going to serve the swamp?

We remember what happened during the first Trump administration. The swamp wasn't drained so much as doubled and tripled and more. Even during the last campaign, Donald Trump promised oil executives huge tax breaks if he won. That would be the opposite of the promises he made to the people.

These are the kinds of things we need to know from the President- elect's nominees. We need to be fair but thorough and give every nominee a chance to make their case while also subjecting them to some tough scrutiny. That is, after all, what any reasonable job application process demands, whether you are an average person applying for a job or somebody being nominated for a very important Cabinet position.

So that is what we Democrats intend to do. That is what we will do. It is no different than what we intend to do on the legislative side. I will repeat what I said last week: Democrats are ready to work with anyone, regardless of party, to make life better for working people.

Let me mention one example from last week. On January 1, because of what the Democratic Senate and President did, the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap that Democrats passed in the Inflation Reduction Act went into effect. Thanks to that policy, millions of Americans with Medicare Part D will save thousands of dollars each year on prescription drugs. If Republicans want to strengthen policies like these and help Americans save millions more on healthcare spending, Democrats are open to working together.

But our promise to Republicans also comes with a warning. Democrats will not hesitate to fight back if Republicans use their new majorities to hurt working families of America.

If Donald Trump and Republicans use their new majorities to push the same old GOP policies of tax cuts for billionaires, cuts to healthcare, cuts to Medicare and Social Security, trickle-down economics, Democrats will fight back.

If Republicans use their new majority to push policies that make life even more expensive for families, we will stand opposed.

If Republicans go after Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid in people's paychecks, they will have to go through us.

The choice is now in the hands of our Republican colleagues. They are now in the majority. They now have the responsibility. We and the American people will be watching.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 17, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, 4 years ago today, I stood on this very spot, alongside my colleagues, as we prepared to certify the 2020 election. As

we were going about our business, all of a sudden, I felt a hand pull my collar. My security detail gripped me by the arm and told me we had to get out--that a mob of rioters had broken into the Capitol and that we were not safe. I looked to the podium and saw Vice President Pence quickly being rushed out of the Chamber by his detail. As we evacuated, accompanied by two Capitol Police officers, we took a turn down the hallway, opened the door, and came within several yards of angry rioters before my security detail pulled us away to safety. We were maybe within 20 feet of them. Had one of them blocked the door or had a gun, Lord knows what would have happened.

Thus began one of the darkest, most shameful days in American history--of our democracy. That was 4 years ago today.

Less than an hour from now, the House and Senate shall convene for a joint session of Congress to complete the process of certifying the 2024 Presidential election. Today, we will not see the violence we saw 4 years ago. Today, the process will return to normal and remain solemn but peaceful. We are here today to continue the transfer of power, to acknowledge what the people have already decided and nothing more. Unfortunately, today stands in sharp contrast to what happened 4 years ago.

On that day, lawlessness and mob violence sought to bring democracy to its knees. Staff and Members of Congress hid beneath desks, barricaded the doors of their offices; rioters smashed windows and ransacked offices and broke into the Senate and House Chambers. Insurrectionists waved Confederate flags and donned Nazi symbols. Pipe bombs were planted near the DNC and RNC. This was in no way a peaceful protest. This was not even a protest that got out of hand. This was a deliberate and, in some cases, premeditated attempt to subvert the democratic process through intimidation and violence. It was one of the most shameful, reprehensible episodes in the history of this great Nation, and it happened because the loser of the 2020 election refused to accept defeat.

We cannot let anyone whitewash what happened here 4 years ago. Far too many individuals have tried to rewrite the history of January 6, have tried to sweep the truth under the rug and pretend like the day was perfectly fine or even a moment of great patriotism. That is a lie. Plain and simple--a lie. Future generations must never forget the truth. January 6, 2021, was a day that a violent mob tried to halt the results of a Presidential election. It was a direct assault on American democracy.

On that day, our Capitol Police faced their hour of maximum danger, but they responded with maximum valor. Outnumbered and overwhelmed, the Capitol Police and all of our first responders became the defenders of our democracy. Today, we honor all the members of the Capitol Police, the DC police, our servicemembers, and all first responders who kept us safe 4 years ago as well as everyone who has kept us safe since.

We acknowledge and thank all of the Capitol staff who stayed late into the night to restore order and clean the wreckage left behind by the rioters. They did their job without fanfare, without complaint, and away from the spotlight. They join our first responders as the unsung heroes of our democracy--every one.

We mourn, of course, all those whose lives were lost in connection with the attack. We mourn the brave officers who died in the days and weeks and months after the attack. We pray for their families and that they find comfort and grace. And it is shamefully, utterly outrageous that the President is considering pardons for these rioters who broke the law and attacked our police officers on January 6. Pardoning the criminals who assaulted police officers and tried to halt the democratic process would be a dangerous endorsement of political violence. It would send a message to the country and to the world that those who use force to get their way will not be punished. It is wrong; it is reckless; and it would be an insult to the memory of those who died in connection to that day.

On that day, the rioters tried to halt the peaceful transfer of power, but as we know, they failed. The insurrection failed because our democracy is stronger than the gale force winds of mob violence. The rioters failed that day because Democrats and Republicans were united amidst a storm of utter lawlessness and committed to finishing the job of certifying the election.

As hard as January 6 was, it will be one of my proudest moments in office because, on that day, the majority of us united to uphold our oaths to the Constitution. I still remember that, at around 5 p.m. this day, Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, and I gathered and said: We are going back into session now, and we are going to count the votes. We decided this despite the worries of some that the Capitol was not yet safe--and we did. We were not going to let the rioters interfere with our democracy. It was a historic moment of bipartisanship, where both sides united in the protection of our democracy.

I mention January 6, 2021, for many reasons. I mention January 6 to remind everyone that democracy is precious and can at times be a fragile thing. I mention January 6 to set the record straight for all coming time so that future generations may know the truth of what happened on that day and that they remain vigilant against future attacks on our democracy. I mention January 6 to warn this generation and future generations of the immense dangers that arise when election denialism is tolerated and excused and propagated. We can never ever again allow the level of unhinged election denialism to happen, not from Republicans, not from Democrats, not from anyone.

We are setting an example today. Even though the elections did not go the Democrats' way, I want to be very clear: On this January 6, our side will not engage in election denialism. We Democrats accept the will of the people. We accept the results even when we don't like them because our loyalties lie with the Constitution and with the rule of law. We hope what happens today rather than what happened 4 years ago stands as a shining example for future generations of how one conducts oneself in a free democracy.

We hope that the way we Democrats conduct ourselves today helps those Republicans who tried to subvert the election of 4 years ago understand the grave nature of their mistake. Far too many on the other side--far too many--willingly claim the election of 2020 was stolen even though they knew perfectly well it was not. Of course, I know plenty of my Republican colleagues, including my friend the former Republican leader, did not participate in the attempts to undermine the election 4 years ago, but too many did. If we want to prevent another attack like January 6, neither side can ever again tolerate the kind of conspiratorial madness we saw 4 years ago, and it starts by setting an example and doing the right thing today no matter which side got their way in the electoral process.

On this, the 4-year anniversary of the Capitol attack, the only obstruction we will see is the obstruction coming from the storm. Even then, Mother Nature will not be able to stop us from doing our jobs today. Today, we will convene; we will do our jobs; and then we move on to the business of governing for the American people because that is what our oaths demand of us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if Republicans do not work with Democrats in a bipartisan way very soon, the government will shut down at midnight.

It is time to go back to the original agreement we had just a few days ago. It is time the House votes on our bipartisan CR. It is the quickest, simplest, and easiest way we can make sure the government stays open while delivering critical emergency aid to the American people.

If the House put our original agreement on the floor today, it would pass, and we could put the threat of a shutdown behind us. Our agreement would keep the government open, provide emergency aid for communities battered by hurricanes and other natural disasters, support our seniors, support our doctors, nurses, rural hospitals, and protect our farmers from the dairy cliff.

As I said, the only--only--way to get anything done is through bipartisanship.

Mr. President, now on Senate business, as the Senate continues working on government funding, the Senate has other matters to attend to on the floor.

Today, the Senate is scheduled to vote on two more district judges: Ben Cheeks to be the district judge for the Southern District of California and Serena Murillo to be the district judge for the Central District of California.

For the information of my colleagues, our first vote will be at 11 o'clock to advance the Cheeks nomination. If cloture is invoked, the Senate will then vote to confirm Judge Cheeks

sometime this afternoon. And after that, we will proceed with a rollcall vote to advance the Murillo nomination. It is my hope that we can finish voting on these two judicial nominees by the end of the day.

Mr. President, I just listened to my friend Leader McConnell deliver what may be his final remarks on the Senate floor as Republican leader. Today, I want to wish him and his family my very best as he prepares to serve in this Chamber in a different role next year.

Everyone knows Leader McConnell and I had plenty of disagreements over the years on matters of policy and politics, but when the time was right, we found ways to work together to get very important things done for this country.

Today, I would like to acknowledge and thank him for those moments. We worked together, for example, to pass the national security supplemental to stand with our friends in Ukraine, to hold the line against Vladimir Putin, and safeguard America's national security interests around the world. I appreciate his commitment to these principles no matter who occupies the Oval Office.

We also worked together in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic to get the CARES Act done, and in the aftermath of the Capitol attack on January 6, Leader McConnell worked with me and the other leaders to bring the Senate back into session so we could finish the job of certifying the 2020 election.

These are just a few of the examples showing how two very different leaders found common ground to move things forward. In each instance, Leader McConnell's actions benefited our country.

So I thank him for those moments. I wish him, his wife Elaine, and his entire family our best wishes, and I know all of my colleagues on our side of the aisle join me in those best wishes and respect.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

I yield the floor.