Floor Statements

Madam President, today, we are going to take a procedural vote on Kash Patel's nomination to be Director of the FBI. I want to take a few minutes to express my support for his nomination and to urge my Democratic colleagues to consider voting for this nomination.

Mr. Patel's resume doesn't look like a normal one for an FBI Director, but everybody knows in this Congress and maybe in the United States that we are not living in normal times. As I have exposed through my oversight work, the FBI has been infected by politicalization, and this storied Agency has been weaponized against political opponents.

Mr. Patel is the right man at the right time. His career has been a study in fighting for unpopular but righteous causes, exposing corruption, and putting America first. Mr. Patel has served as a public defender, a counterterrorism prosecutor under President Obama, and a House staffer.

In the House, he worked to expose Crossfire Hurricane as a political hit job that was based on discredited information paid for--would you believe it?--by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

After exposing the Russiagate scandal in Congress, Mr. Patel then went on to serve as Senior Director of Counterterrorism at the National Security Council, Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Chief of Staff to the Acting Secretary of Defense.

He has fought for transparency and accountability in government. I have fought for this in Congress for decades. That is the right approach because everybody knows that more transparency in government brings accountability by those of us serving in the government. In other words, the public business should be public.

Because of his efforts in exposing corruption, Mr. Patel has been relentlessly attacked, as we have seen over the last 2 months. These smears began long before his confirmation hearing. I understand why he has been targeted in this way. He exposed a threat to the existing system--a system that has retaliated against whistleblowers, engaged in unprecedented lawfare against the President and the American people, and obstructed congressional oversight. Mr. Patel will end these abuses. He will restore the FBI to its essential mission of keeping Americans safe.

Mr. Patel's vision for a new FBI is why he has been endorsed by organizations representing more than 680,000 law enforcement officers and by dozens of former and current FBI agents, State attorneys general, and U.S. attorneys. They trust Mr. Patel, and we should as well.

I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Patel's nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the nomination of Brooke Rollins of Texas to be Secretary of the Department of Agriculture.

I met Mrs. Rollins during President Trump's first term when we worked together to pass the largest criminal justice reform legislation since the 1990s, the First Step Act.

Now, she is focusing on her agricultural roots, having grown up participating in 4-H and FFA.

I am encouraged by her attention to detail and hard work, something I am sure will serve her and America's farmers well.

Mrs. Rollins is taking on a large role, leading 100,000 employees, making policy decisions that will affect family farmers across the country, and impact the efficiency and transparency of government.

In her confirmation hearing, Mrs. Rollins assured me that she would, to the best of her ability, respond to my letters and make the Department of Ag a place where whistleblowers can come forward confidently.

I look forward to working with this highly capable nominee to advance policies that will help Iowa farmers, including the enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and advocating for new markets for our ag products.

Mr. President, for the third time, I come to the Senate floor to ask my Democrat colleagues if they will respect the Democrats on the Senate Agriculture Committee. That committee voted unanimously to approve Mrs. Rollins to be Secretary of Agriculture. There should be no reason to spend 30 hours of debate, and it would show disrespect for the Democrats on the Agriculture Committee not to approve her unless we did it by unanimous consent.

Mr. President, sometime today, we are voting on the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard. She is going to be Director of National Intelligence after she is confirmed.

Until she was nominated, I only knew her from seeing her in media sound bites and what other people wrote about her. She came to my office, and we had a very good, very substantive conversation. I determined that she is very smart and obviously an articulate person.

In our discussion, we covered many of her past statements on various policy matters, and she was able to clarify what the media got right and what the media got wrong.

Obviously, since she served in the Congress of the United States as a Democrat, I and she may not agree on every policy. However, Representative Gabbard made clear that she does not see her position as Director of National Intelligence as a policymaking position. She understands that President Trump is the one who was elected. As Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard's job will be simply to make sure that the intelligence community is able to provide the best unbiased information to help President Trump make the proper decisions.

She and I also spoke about some of my past oversight work regarding the intelligence community. I have had mixed results in getting legitimate information that I have sought, depending upon who was in that particular position. For instance, when Rick Grenell became the Acting Director of National Intelligence, I suddenly and surprisingly got material that I had asked for after being totally stonewalled by previous Directors of National Intelligence.

Based on my conversation, I expect Tulsi Gabbard, along with CIA Director Ratcliffe, will ensure that the intelligence community will be forthcoming and fully responsible to Congress as we in Congress exercise our constitutional responsibility not only to pass laws and appropriate money but to be a check on the executive branch of government to see that a President--whether that President is Republican or Democrat--faithfully executes the laws as required by the Congress of the United States.

On another matter, yesterday, I took a minute or two to address the Senate to remind my other 99 Senators--which I do not have to remind the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee--that our nominee for Secretary of Agriculture, Mrs. Rollins, was voted out of committee unanimously. You would think, then, that if both Republicans and Democrats think that Mrs. Rollins is the proper person to be Secretary of Agriculture, she would be quickly approved for that position unanimously here in the U.S. Senate and maybe even be lucky enough to do it on a voice vote.

Now, I don't know what is going to happen, but I do know that we are going to be sitting around the U.S. Senate today for several hours to see whether we are going to vote on Ms. Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence or we are going to have that disposed of very quickly and get down to work.

But the people in this country send us to the U.S. Senate to actually do work. And when you are sitting around

just waiting for a decision from the minority of when they are going to allow us to vote on this particular nomination or how we are going to handle Mrs. Rollins for Secretary of Agriculture, nothing is getting done, and we are wasting a lot of the taxpayers' time with a lot of important decisions that have to be made, even after we approve all the members of the Cabinet.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, after the Gabbard nomination, the next issue up for consideration by the Senate is cloture on the Robert F. Kennedy nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. This Cabinet position is responsible for implementing the administration's health agenda.

As Secretary, Mr. Kennedy must spend his time focused on improving the health of all Americans, ensuring HHS is transparent and accountable to congressional oversight, and respecting whistleblowers.

I think Kennedy has made it very clear, in life as a citizen, talking about improving the health of all Americans.

So I would like to outline some of the priorities that Mr. Kennedy should focus on at Health and Human Services. And, obviously, I am asking him to focus on things and issues that are very dear to my heart and take up a lot of my time as a Senator from Iowa and a person very concerned about the quality of healthcare in rural America.

Our country spends more than $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare. Growing healthcare costs don't just strain Americans' pocketbooks. Healthcare is also a major driver of widening budget deficits and the Federal Government's unsustainable fiscal outlook.

We are not getting our money's worth for all of that spending. Major healthcare programs spending eats up 34 percent of the Federal revenue today, and that will grow to 41 percent of revenue by 2055.

Mr. Kennedy must--and I think he is committed to--ensure that the key health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, are protected and strengthened by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse.

The nominee must increase transparency and accountability. These actions will help make our healthcare system more efficient for the taxpayers and the consumers.

I am the author of major and more recent updates to the Federal Government's most powerful tool in fighting fraud, and that is people that use the False Claims Act. Since the enactment of this legislation--I am talking about reforms to the False Claims Act--the Federal Government has recovered more than $78 billion lost to fraud and saved billions more by deterring would-be fraudsters.

People in the Justice Department, both Republican and Democrat, say that the False Claims Act is their best tool to get after these fraudsters.

In the 1 year of just 2024--and Attorney General Garland reported this to me just a couple of days before he left office--in 2024, there was more than $2.9 billion in False Claims Act settlements and judgments, with $1.7 billion of it involving the healthcare industry.

Now, as you know, I listen to a lot of whistleblowers, and whistleblowers were responsible for helping to recover nearly all of that $1.7 billion.

And I think I discussed the False Claims Act and the use of it by soon-to-be Secretary Kennedy. He seemed to be very enthused about listening to whistleblowers and use of the False Claims Act, and I think that he was probably being made aware of it for the first time. So I hope he will look into how he can use this act and, particularly, by listening to reports from whistleblowers of the waste of taxpayers' money.

Now, the Justice Department and HHS, in combination, need to more aggressively go after healthcare waste, fraud, and abuse and empower and encourage whistleblowers.

My top healthcare priority is lowering the cost of prescription drugs. We can start by putting more sunshine on pharmacy benefit managers' practices and holding these PBMs accountable.

We should also establish price transparency on prescription drug TV ads. Knowing what something costs before buying it is just common sense and very helpful to the consumer. Transparency will bring more accountability and lower costs to consumers.

Mr. Kennedy must also protect and improve access to rural healthcare. The previous administration dragged its feet in opening up spots for what is termed the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration programs. HHS must also listen to the concerns from rural pharmacies and ensure rural hospitals benefit from additional physician slots that Congress has authorized.

I look forward to strengthening the new and voluntary rural emergency program to ensure that it is working for rural communities, extending telehealth access, and supporting physicians getting a fair reimbursement under Medicare.

I also expect HHS to support healthy moms and babies by improving care, coordination, and using telehealth in rural areas.

HHS should work with me to support kids with complex medical needs so these kids and their families are getting the right care at the right time and at the right place. Our programs helping support kids with complex medical needs covers probably six or--well, depending on how many problems these kids have--but they have to navigate across several different programs, and what we are trying to do through legislation we pass is to have help so that when you have to see five or six different specialists, you have somebody saying what is available and what can we do to help you make access to all this.

I also expect HHS to protect the most vulnerable and older Americans.

I have spoken at length with Mr. Kennedy about some comments that he made in regard to agriculture, and I have heard from farmers in Iowa and agricultural organizations and commodity groups in the State, fearful that Mr. Kennedy has some radical ideas on agriculture.

At the end of the hour meeting I had in his office, prior to his hearing before the Finance Committee, I was calmed quite a bit by what he told me about his views on agriculture. I hope that that calm can be maintained. But if it is not, Mr. Kennedy is sure to hear from me. So when we talked about this in my office, Mr. Kennedy prefaced our initial conversation by saying that he, as HHS Secretary, will not have jurisdiction over agricultural issues. So you can expect that I will expect him to leave agriculture practices regulations to the proper Agencies and, for the most part, that is the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency.

I have also sent letters to Secretaries of Agriculture and HHS requiring--requesting they provide information regarding conflicts of interest on the Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee to increase transparencies. The problem there is that there is a feeling among a lot of members of the Advisory Committee that they may have an unjustified conflict of interest in what they are suggesting we eat and the type of diet we have.

So I expect Mr. Kennedy to provide Congress with a confidential financial disclosure from the Advisory Committee before finalizing dietary guidelines so that we know that nobody has a vested interest in however those guidelines are written.

On issues of healthcare and agriculture, Mr. Kennedy said in his nomination hearing:

I agree with all of those provisions--

I am quoting him now.

I agree with all of those provisions, Senator.

Meaning this Senator.

My approach to [the] administration [of] HHS will be

radical transparency. If members of this committee or other

members of [the committee] want information, the doors are

open. . . . [I]f Congress asks me for information, you will

get it immediately.

That is the end of the quote. I don't know whether people, even in the Senate here but particularly outside, know how refreshing it is to have a member of the Cabinet say: If Congress asks me for information, you would get it immediately. Because over the years that I have been in the U.S. Senate, it doesn't matter whether it is a Republican or Democrat administration, carrying out our constitutional responsibilities to see that--checks and balances to see that the executive branch and the President faithfully executes the laws is not an easy process, and we have difficulty getting answers to our questions.

Now, I don't know how much of this--I have had trouble with HHS in the past, but I know when Pam Bondi came to my office, I showed her a file of 158 letters that I had written to the Justice Department in the last 4 years to get information and documents in regard to my investigations of wrongdoing, and most of them weren't answered. Or if we got answers, it was merely words on a sheet of paper. Not very helpful.

So thank you, Mr. Kennedy, for your promise. And I am going to quote again: If Congress asks me for information, you will get it immediately.

Because that is what our job is. Every high school student learns in government about checks and balances of government, that we not only pass laws and we not only appropriate money, but we have a responsibility to the taxpayers and the citizens of this country to make sure that a President does what the Constitution says he should do: faithfully execute the laws.

And Cabinet people are bound by that same thing. Every Cabinet member that comes to my office, I tell them

about the importance of our constitutional responsibility of oversight, answering our letters, and listening to whistleblowers. And in regard to answering letters, everybody that comes before a committee is asked by the chairman of that committee: Will you answer our letters? And everybody says yes. And I advise them to say ``maybe'' so that they aren't turned out to be liars.

So I expect Mr. Kennedy's Agency to provide timely and complete responses to congressional oversight. Oversight allows us to hold bureaucrats accountable to the rule of law and helps keep faith with the taxpayers.

So I look forward to working with Mr. Kennedy to improve the health of all Americans, make our healthcare system more efficient, and ensure HHS's adherence to Kennedy's radical transparency commitment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, one short issue to just make mention, and then I want to pay tribute to an Iowan.

This week we are going to vote on the Secretary of Agriculture to be confirmed for the Cabinet. That person was voted out of committee unanimously. So I think it is ridiculous for the minority--for a committee where every Democrat and every Republican voted for this nominee--to have even 1 minute of debate. It ought to be approved by unanimous consent.

Now, it may not be, but at least I expressed my opinion, and I gave a rationale why that should be done. We shouldn't be spending 30 hours of debate on somebody that has been approved unanimously by the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. President, sometime today, we are confirming Scott Turner as the new Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. As a former NFL cornerback, developer, State and local official, and Executive Director of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council, Mr. Turner understands the challenges facing American communities.

While the vast majority of housing and development issues are solved at the local and State level, I certainly understand how the Federal Government and the programs utilized by many Iowa individuals, families, and communities assist with making our cities the best place to live, work, and play.

I look forward to working with Scott Turner to advance Iowa's priorities and sound policies for our Nation.

Even though I did not meet with Scott Turner in my office, as I do with most nominees for the Cabinet, I stressed to him today the importance of responding to congressional letters and inquiries, and I will have an example on that in just a minute.

I want to explain that Congress has the constitutional duty to perform oversight over the executive branch and, as we learn in our high school government classes, what we call checks and balances. Congress not only passes laws and appropriates money, but we have a responsibility to make sure that those laws are faithfully executed by whoever is President of the United States. Oversight then allows us to hold bureaucrats accountable to the rule of law, and it helps keep the faith with taxpayers, because, if we have transparency in government, we have greater accountability of the government product or lack thereof.

Let me give you an example where congressional oversight has been much needed at Housing and Urban Development. Congress passed legislation that became effective July 2013 that requires Federal contracts to include anti-retaliation protections for contractor employees. This works to make sure that whistleblowers are protected.

However, over the last decade, the HUD inspector general found that thousands of HUD contractors lacked these whistleblower protections because the Agency failed to adequately update past contracts to include whistleblowers and whistleblower protections.

Last August, following up on my responsibility to investigate, I requested answers and records about these findings, but Housing and Urban Development, under the Biden administration, failed to fully respond and provide responsive records.

I fully expect Mr. Turner, as the new Secretary, to respond to all the congressional inquiries in a timely and responsible manner.

I look forward to working with this new Secretary to support long- term housing and revitalization policies to keep our communities, our States, and our Nation strong.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, we will vote on the nomination of Russ Vought to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. Vought served as the OMB Director for much of President Trump's first term, and before that, he was Deputy Director of the same Agency. So he is clearly qualified for this job.

My discussions with Mr. Vought focused on the Nation's dismal fiscal trajectory, overregulation, congressional oversight, and respect for whistleblowers.

With the Federal Government running a $2 trillion annual deficit and a national debt approaching $37 trillion, a fiscally sound budget is more important than ever, and I am counting on Mr. Vought to help the President chart a new fiscal path that will not be an easy job.

In addition to reining in spending, Mr. Vought understands the need to cut redtape. For too long, overzealous and unelected bureaucracies have sought to use regulation to stretch the meaning of laws beyond congressional intent. The Supreme Court's recent decision, last year, in Loper Bright should be used by OMB to place a check on out-of- control rulemaking.

Mr. Vought and I also had a good discussion on the importance of responding to congressional letters and respecting whistleblowers. He not only agreed with me but expressed an interest in helping ensure timely responses to Congress and respect for whistleblowers as the norm across government Agencies. I look forward to working with Mr. Vought to right-size the Federal Government.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the enclosed rules of procedure for the committee on the Judiciary for the 119th Congress printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the nominee for Secretary of Veterans Affairs that we will be voting on in a couple of hours.

I have long considered myself a friend of veterans. The men and women who have put themselves in harm's way to serve our country, they deserve our full support, and they have mine. Too often, I hear from veterans in Iowa that the Department of Veterans Affairs makes it difficult for them to access healthcare and the services that we honor them with because they have defended our country.

Whether this is expecting them to drive an unnecessary distance for their initial disability exam or making it more difficult to seek the care that they choose outside of the VA system, our veterans deserve much better. The VA needs to do better, which brings me to former Representative Doug Collins, President Trump's nominee to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Representative Collins, a veteran himself, recognizes the challenges veterans face with the VA.

During his time in the House of Representatives, he was a supporter of giving veterans the choice on where to seek healthcare. He and I agree that the VA needs to do better by our veterans and taxpayers alike.

This became more obvious to the public last year when the VA misled Congress by claiming the Department was going to face a shortfall in funding but, in fact, ended the fiscal year with a surplus--can you believe this?--in the billions.

When I heard about this alleged shortfall, I joined my colleagues, led by the junior Senator from Alaska, to work to bring more transparency to the VA budget process. As I shared with Representative Collins, I will continue to do so.

When we first met in my office, I gave Representative Collins my advice that I give to every nominee coming to the office because these people come before the committee, and one of the questions they are asked: Will you answer our letters? And they all say yes. But we know, as a matter of fact, that doesn't happen as often as it should.

So I suggested to him that maybe instead of saying ``yes,'' he say ``maybe'' so he wouldn't turn out to be a liar ever, unlike the former Secretary of VA who did not feel the need to respond to even a bipartisan letter that I sent in October of 2024, alongside three of my colleagues, before that Secretary departed from his post. Now, Representative Collins understands the importance of being accountable and forthcoming to Congress because he has been a Member of Congress.

So I thank Representative Collins for his service to our country, and I will look forward to voting positively on his nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in a few minutes--probably shortly, I should say--we will vote to confirm Pam Bondi as the Attorney General of the United States. Before we do, I would like to speak in support of her nomination and, in doing that, urge my colleagues to vote for her, hopefully in a bipartisan way like we did for Garland under the Biden administration.

Ms. Bondi has been nominated to one of the most important offices in our country, and she has shown that she is up to that task. Her impressive record and presentation at her hearing are proof that she is ready to take the helm of the Justice Department.

Ms. Bondi made history in 2010 as the first woman elected to be Florida's attorney general. She held this role for 8 years after she was comfortably reelected by the people of Florida to that second term. Eight years of service as attorney general of the third largest State in this Union is excellent preparation for the role of Attorney General of the United States.

As Florida's attorney general, Ms. Bondi was a member of the Florida cabinet, its chief legal officer, and led a very large agency. She handled many issues at the State level that she will be handling at the Federal level, and by all accounts, she has handled those jobs expertly.

As attorney general, Ms. Bondi didn't shy away from hard work or complicated problems. She engaged in an aggressive campaign to eliminate pill mills, took a leading role in securing a $3\1/4\ billion settlement following the Deepwater Horizon oilspill, and eliminated the backlog of rape kits. She also stood for law and order and sought justice for victims of violent criminals. Her record shows that she is highly qualified to be Attorney General of the United States.

During her confirmation hearing, Ms. Bondi answered questions for more than 5 hours. What we learned during her hearing reinforced what we knew from her existing record as attorney general of Florida: She is a tough, fair, career prosecutor who built her reputation by enforcing the rule of law--pretty simple.

We also heard from witnesses who praised Ms. Bondi's character, fairness, and willingness to work with members of both parties to solve the problems in Florida, and we are sure she is going to work the same way as Attorney General of the United States.

What did we hear from these witnesses? We heard from an elected Democrat who never voted for President Trump. He said Ms. Bondi was fair, tethered to the rule of law, and could work with both Democrats and Republicans to serve the American people.

We heard from Florida's statewide prosecutor, who praised her competence running the legal department, as I have said, of the third largest State in the Union.

We heard from a Florida sheriff, who testified about her commitment to law and order and to her partnership with law enforcement to keep Floridians safe.

These witnesses have worked with Ms. Bondi for decades, and they all vouch for her capability and character.

Ms. Bondi's nomination has also received a flood of support from all across America. I have a group of people here that have expressed their view through letters to the committee. Law enforcement groups representing more than 650,000 officers wrote to urge us to support Ms. Bondi's nomination. A few of these groups include the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, Major County Sheriffs, National Narcotic Officers' Associations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and still some others. This support is a testament to Ms. Bondi's history of backing the blue.

We should all be backing the blue. I just met with some law enforcement people just before coming over here, and I tell every one of them, I am not for defunding the police, and thank you for keeping the peace.

We have also received letters of support from more than 100 former senior Department of Justice officials, scores of former U.S. attorneys, dozens of State attorneys general, women's rights groups, Second Amendment groups, and, of course, others.

Between her record, her presentation in committee, and the support she has received from across the country, I am convinced that Ms. Bondi is the right choice.

When confirmed, Ms. Bondi will take the helm of what we all know is a turbulent time and also a Justice Department infected with political decision making and its leaders refusing to acknowledge that reality; in other words, political decision making at least on the seventh floor of the Hoover Building overtaking the major role of the FBI, and the FBI is part of the Justice Department. They aren't putting first things first.

Here are a few examples of political decision making and infection in the Department: Crossfire Hurricane; secondly, the Justice Department's targeting my staff--yes, that is right, my investigative staff--who at the time was investigating, at my direction, the government's abuse in Crossfire Hurricane; thirdly, coverup of the Hunter Biden laptop story and sweetheart plea deals offered by the Department of Justice to Hunter Biden; fourth, the FBI's inappropriate briefing to me and Senator Johnson during our Biden family investigation that was later leaked, and nothing is supposed to be leaked from what we call the SCIF; fifth, Special Counsel Jack Smith's lawfare operation--in other words, trying to put now-President Trump in jail; sixth, the targeting of traditional Catholics, concerned parents, and abortion protesters as security threats; and, seventh, the coordination of censorship of political speeches.

I don't have an eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, but they exist. I am not going to take your time on that.

All of these things that I mentioned, plus things I haven't mentioned, are very serious breaches of the public trust, and we can't tolerate that sort of breach.

I am confident Ms. Bondi will not tolerate that breach, and I am looking forward to working with her to shed sunlight on these abuses. And sunlight, as some Supreme Court Justice said, is the best attack against--oh, my gosh, I forgot exactly what it was. But sunshine coming in will really solve a lot of problems. This is the way I put it.

I say we need more transparency in government, and transparency brings accountability. I have already released new FBI records, in fact, just last week, with Senator Johnson that show even more political bias within the Justice Department and the FBI. These records prove that former FBI Special Agent in Charge Thibault, a known anti- Trump agent, authored the initial language for what ultimately became Jack Smith's Federal case against Trump regarding the 2020 Presidential election. That case was code-named ``Arctic Frost.'' I don't know where they get the name ``Arctic Frost,'' but that is what the case was called.

These records that we released last week showed a scheme in place between the Justice Department and FBI officials to get Trump. I had to rely on brave whistleblowers to uncover the truth because I was stonewalled by the Justice Department and the FBI, and I was stonewalled even after they promised, at their own confirmation hearing, that they would answer the letters that Congressmen wrote them.

We never got any answers. In fact, there are 58 questions, in the last 4 years, that I have written to the FBI on my investigations that I have not gotten answers to.

So if you wonder why I am so passionate about Pam Bondi, I am confident that she is going to take a different approach and when she says ``yes'' for answering her letters, it will be yes, instead of what the other people should have said as the answer to that question, which is ``maybe.''

As the recent terrorist attacks in New Orleans and around the world have shown, we are faced with very serious threats to our national security. The President needs his team in place to protect our country, and the American people deserve a secure homeland and borders, safe streets, and orderly markets. We need to swiftly confirm a capable and serious Attorney General to get to work.

I am disappointed that none of my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee voted for Ms. Bondi in committee. I hope it will be different when we get to the full Senate. We had a bipartisan vote, as I have said previously, for Attorney General Garland. Maybe, in hindsight, we shouldn't have had, but we did.

There is no doubt that Ms. Bondi is highly qualified. In committee, several of my Democratic colleagues even acknowledged as much. She is qualified for the job. She represents mainstream views shared by at least the 77 million Americans who voted for change on November 5. This should earn her the same bipartisan support this body gave Attorney General Garland. That is the third time I have said that.

If my colleagues will not cross the aisle to vote for this qualified nominee, they will show that Senate Democrats are intent on opposing President Trump's Cabinet picks for purely partisan reasons, even at the same time they admit how fully qualified she is to do the job.

So ending now, I say once again, I proudly support Ms. Bondi. I look forward to confirming her. She is ready and able to serve our country well and I know she will work with President Trump to restore faith in the Justice Department. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in confirming Ms. Bondi.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 10 a.m., to consider a nomination.

committee on judiciary

The Committee on Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

select committee on intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 2:20 p.m., to conduct a closed business meeting.

select committee on intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sam Ruhe and Ivy Benjenk, two detailees in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. President, January is National Blood Donor Month. Every two seconds someone in the United States needs blood. Yet less than 10 percent of the eligible population donates blood annually.

Blood donations are especially critical for patients receiving an organ transplant, having surgery, premature infants, and those involved in car accidents. Regular blood donations can help your neighbor or a stranger.

Following a natural disaster, we often hear the call for blood donations. Yet we often forget about it when those events pass.

Blood donations are needed all the time. I encourage Iowans--I suppose I should encourage all Americans--who can donate blood to find their local blood center and donate today.

Mr. President, later today, we are going to have the first set of votes on the nomination of Pam Bondi to serve as Attorney General of the United States. Before we do, I would like to speak in support of her nomination.

Ms. Bondi made history as the first woman elected as Florida attorney general. She served for 8 years and was easily reelected to a second term because she did such a great job.

She fought against pill mills, eliminated the backlog of rape test kits, and stood for law and order.

There is no doubt that Ms. Bondi is highly qualified. She is capable of doing the job well, and she represents mainstream views shared by at least 77 million Americans who voted for change in the 2024 election. This should earn her the same bipartisan support this body gave to Attorney General Garland, including this Senator.

I am disappointed that none of my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee voted for Ms. Bondi, and I hope the full Senate takes a different approach. If my colleagues won't cross the aisle for this qualified nominee, they will show that their intent on opposing President Trump's picks are for purely partisan reasons.

Ms. Bondi is ready and able to serve our country, and she will work with President Trump to restore faith in the Justice Department. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Ms. Bondi.

Later today, we will be working on the nomination of Christopher Wright of Colorado to be Secretary of Energy. I rise now to speak in support of that nomination.

In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Wright affirmed that he would testify before Congress when called upon. And I would also expect him to answer any questions from me and my colleagues here in the Congress.

I did not have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Wright, but if I had met with him, I would have told him about the importance of whistleblowers and the need to listen to whistleblowers--any of them-- in the Department of Energy.

Mr. Wright has spoken of the need to build out domestic energy through the use of multiple sources. I subscribe to an ``all of the above'' energy philosophy.

Some people only like all of the above the ground--wind and solar, as an example. Others only like all below the ground, like oil and gas. But when I say ``all of the above,'' I mean all of the above the ground and all the energy that can come from below the ground.

Iowa fits into this philosophy as a leader in alternative energy production. Over 60 percent of Iowa's electricity comes from wind turbines, which also sustains over 4,000 jobs across the State. Iowa is the No. 1 State for biofuel production. Ethanol and biodiesel contribute nearly $5 billion to the Iowa economy, often supporting rural communities.

Renewable natural gas is also a growing industry in Iowa, and I am hopeful to have nuclear energy join the generation mix once again as well.

I look forward to working with Mr. Wright to continue supporting America's energy dominance through an ``all of the above'' approach.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.