Chuck Schumer

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I have spent decades watching the International Criminal Court with a critical eye. From the beginning, even when I was in Congress, I was certain that the ICC would display the same anti-Israel bias that permeated the U.N. and other international organizations. Unfortunately, I believe subsequent years have proven me correct. While the ICC has undeniably done some good work, including going after President Putin and addressing atrocities in Darfur, their anti- Israel bias has taken over and become too much to ignore. Last May, 7 months after Hamas's horrific attack on Israel, the ICC made a shocking announcement. Instead of going after terrorist organizations who ordered the murder, rape, and abduction of innocent Israelis, the ICC's prosecutor chose to equate those ungodly actions with the justifiable response of the Israeli government. I know that is hard to comprehend, so I will say it again. Last May, the ICC equated the Hamas terrorist organization with the Israeli government, betraying an anti-Israel bias that cannot be ignored; a bias that is deeply rooted, sinister, and which fuels the anti-Semitism resurging across the globe including here in America, the country I love. It is hard for me to comprehend even today. And that false equivalence, I believe, is the reason we are here on the Senate floor considering an ICC sanctions bill. The ICC bill is one I largely support and would like to see become law. However, as much as I oppose the ICC's deep bias against Israel and as much as I want to see that institution drastically reformed and reshaped, the bill before us is poorly drafted and deeply problematic. It will have many unintended consequences that undermine its primary goal. The bill, as drafted, would enable sanctions against American companies who have contracts to support the ICC's technology functions. These American companies do not make investigative or prosecutorial decisions. These American companies' employees do not recommend nor bring cases. These American companies do not demonstrate the same anti- Semitic bias that the ICC does. But the work of those companies does defend the ICC's computer network against Russian hackers who would like to expose witnesses who have shared information about Russian atrocities. A small fix--a small fix--could have been made to protect the work of those companies, but the Republican majority refused to make such a fix. The bill, as drafted, would also allow President Trump to arbitrarily sanction the heads of state of our allies. They all called and complained about that part because their countries are members of the ICC. During this time of world tumult, that is an unnecessary burden to place on our allies. By sanctioning our allies, this bill, as drafted, would hamstring the ICC's ability to go after Putin for his war crimes, giving him the best gift possible. Again, a small fix, which Senator Shaheen tried to get, would easily have addressed this concern. These fixes could have easily been made and, Lord knows, Senator Shaheen tried to fix them. You see, once Leader Thune brought this to the floor, I asked Senator Shaheen, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to try to work with our Republican colleagues to address some of the drafting errors--not changing in any way the way the ICC should be taken to task for the way they go after Israel, but these other changes unrelated to Israel. She and her staff worked tirelessly to find a way forward, but the Republican majority, the Senator from Arkansas, refused to make these simple changes. Therefore, because they have chosen this partisan, nonconsultative path, I will oppose cloture on the motion to proceed, with the fervent hope that the other side will realize their error and their careless drafting and resume real conversations with us. A bipartisan agreement is still very possible, and we hope and urge our Republican colleagues to sit down with us and come up with a bill that addresses the very real problems at the ICC without adversely affecting American companies and our allies.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Let me thank Patty Murray for her leadership on this issue. It is becoming clear--it has become clear already, but it is even clearer today--a pattern is emerging from Donald Trump's Presidency, a pattern of lawlessness. He has pardoned insurrectionists. He has fired many of the government's independent watchdogs. And today--or last night--he froze billions, perhaps trillions, of Federal grant funding to hospitals and fire fighters and seniors and Head Start. Under Donald Trump, it is already clear: It is a golden age--a golden age for lawlessness. Today, Democrats will seek passage of a resolution that talks about one aspect of this lawlessness: We simply condemn pardoning rioters who attacked our Capitol Police officers on January 6. My colleague Patty Murray, who has done such a great job on this, read the whole resolution. How the heck can anyone object to a resolution that says we should condemn pardoning those who assaulted police officers? Where is the law-and-order crowd? Where are the people who talked about defunding the police? How do you think every police officer feels when one of their brethren is assaulted and then they are pardoned, and their own Senators, who represent thousands and thousands of police officers each in their States, won't even stand up for their fellow officer? I just hope our Republican colleagues don't block this resolution. All of us, every one of us--it doesn't matter if you are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative--every one of us should be able to agree that people who attack police officers don't deserve Presidential pardons. If Republicans stand in the way of this resolution, what an awful message it sends to our own Capitol Police whom we see every day, who work so hard to keep us safe. Let's be clear. The people who invaded the Capitol on January 6, whether engaged in violence or not, committed a very serious crime. I saw them. I was within 20, 30 feet of them. Now, because of fear of President Trump, the party on the other side says: Never mind. One of the worst days in American history. There is no gray area here, particularly when it comes to people who attack police officers. By handing out these pardons to convicted criminals, President Trump is effectively saying: You want to attack our brave police officers? That is OK. Pardoning lawless rioters is not, not, not what Americans want the President to be prioritizing. They want to see answers to problems that impact them: inflation, good-paying jobs, a better future. They sure as hell don't want to see OMB taking away monies that have been lawfully allocated that they desperately need in so many aspects of their lives. Our Capitol Police deserve nothing less than our full and steadfast support for everything they do to keep us safe. The very least--the very least--we can do for them as Senators is to come together and declare that those convicted of attacking Capitol Police officers--we say clearly with one voice, let's hope--that these people do not--do not--deserve a pardon. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last night, incredibly and lawlessly, the Trump administration announced the virtual halt to all forms of Federal financial assistance. In an instant--one instant, one blink of the eye--in the dark of night, Donald Trump has shut off billions--perhaps trillions--of dollars that support small businesses, that support families, that support police officers and firefighters, that support hospitals and rural hospitals in particular, that support our localities, our States and cities, our schools, and so much more. Why? Why did Donald Trump do this? Simple: to fund tax cuts for the ultrawealthy. This decision is lawless, destructive, cruel. The President must rescind this order at once, and Congress must act if he refuses. Make no mistake, this is Project 2025--Project 2025--by another name, and the danger of having someone like Russell Vought, the chief cook and bottle washer of 2025, in charge of OMB is frightening-- frightening--to just about every American family in terms of what it could do to them. When Project 2025 came out, it was so ridiculed that Donald Trump had to say: Oh, I don't know much about it. And now he is putting one of the main authors of Project 2025 in the place where he can implement all of these horrible, discredited, unpopular findings. That is where they are headed, folk. That is where they are going. Again, why are they doing it? So they can pay for tax cuts for the ultrarich by making these cuts on average American families. This morning, I think every Senator's phone has been ringing off the hook--certainly, mine has--with nonstop calls from hospitals and police departments, volunteer firefighters, food pantries, drug treatment centers, on and on and on. If someone is going to say they are getting no calls, then they are just out of touch because it affects almost everything. People are worried. People are scrambling. People are in panic mode, trying to figure out how this order is going to affect them. Hospitals with people on life support, food pantries that feed the hungry, police departments that patrol our streets--every one of them is worried because so many of them get Federal aid. If Federal funding is shut off, so many groups and institutions will be worried. Can they pay the rent? Can they pay their staffs? Can they keep their operations running? Virtually, any organization--and there are millions--that depends on Federal grant money to run its day-to-day operations is now in danger. Nonprofits that help disabled veterans are now in danger thanks to Donald Trump. Funding that supports our Nation's mass transit, from one end of the country to another, is now in danger thanks to Donald Trump. Hospitals, particularly rural hospitals and community health centers, are now in danger thanks to Donald Trump. Meals on Wheels, in danger thanks to Donald Trump. Even smaller programs--and I am very proud of something I passed called the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which protects synagogues and religious institutions from anti-Semitic attacks. We just had one in our neighborhood on Sunday. They are now in danger thanks to Donald Trump. Senior centers, law enforcement, firefighters, water districts, food pantries--all in danger because of Donald Trump. Again, their master plan: to hurt average folks from one end of the country to the another--in red States, in blue States, in suburbs, in cities, in rural areas. To take money out of their hides--all to pay for tax cuts for the ultrawealthy--is now becoming clear. It is now becoming clear. The blast radius of this terrible decision is virtually limitless. It is American families who are going to suffer most. American families should make no mistake: The money being stolen from them will be spent--just not on them. It is going to be spent on tax cuts for the ultrawealthy and the biggest corporations. President Trump must reverse this course immediately. The Budget Committee should slow down its hearings with Mr. Vought until it fully comes out what they all intend to do. The funding President Trump is halting is not optional. Congress has approved these funds, and they are law. The President does not, no matter what he thinks, have the authority to ignore the law and ignore Congress. Let me be clear. This is not an isolated act, unfortunately. It comes a week after Trump pardoned violent criminals who sought to overturn our election and days after Trump fired independent watchdogs across the government in a naked attempt to shroud his actions from the American people. I can assure every American that Democrats will pursue all available options, legal and otherwise, to halt this assault. I have talked to the attorney general of New York State, Tish James. She and her association--I believe she is the head of the State association, the State attorneys general association--are going to use all of their legal power to stop this illegal act. I implore my Republican colleagues, who know in their hearts and their minds that this is a reckless and unconstitutional action, to speak up, to join us as Americans in defense of the law, but most of all, to protect our communities and to protect the American people from this awful announcement.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from Rhode Island. He has been laser-like focused on corruption. Whether it is the Supreme Court, the executive branch, or anywhere else in the government, he has done a great job. Mr. President, I just finished doing a little TV taping to the people of New York to tell them how evil, how horrible this plan that Trump has put into effect will be. The plan will shut off billions of dollars, maybe trillions of dollars. For what? For things average working families need. They will be less safe because police will be cut and fire will be cut. Their kids will be less educated because schools will be cut. In places where there is a school tax, like Long Island and Westchester, it could make your taxes go up. They will be less safe because food inspectors who keep our food safe could be cut. It will go across the board. Housing will become more expensive. We desperately need housing. Everything. This is going to affect everything. The radius will expand and expand and expand of what Donald Trump can do. Make no mistake about it, Project 2025 proposed slashing everything-- cut, cut, cut--all to give one thing: tax breaks to very wealthy people. This is Project 2025 by another name. It is the same stuff. They couldn't call it Project 2025 because when the public found out about that, they were outraged. Well, make no mistake about this, President Trump. When the public finds out about this, they will be outraged. I got on TV tonight and asked my constituents--particularly those in Republican House and Senate districts--to call their Congressmen and Senators and tell President Trump to drop this evil plan, which will hurt them so badly. The fact that Mr. Vought will be head of OMB, which is the Agency that is in charge of all of this spending, is frightening. It is like putting the fox in the chicken house, and all the chickens, which are the average American taxpayers, are going to be susceptible to the sharp fangs of Mr. Vought. By the way, speaking of chickens, here is another little reason-- there are so many. Right now, the price of eggs is through the roof-- $5, $6 a dozen. It was $2 a year ago. It was $4 in November. Why? Because there is something called bird flu that is killing off millions of chickens. When you have fewer chickens, you have fewer eggs--fewer hens, fewer eggs--and fewer eggs means prices go up. But there is a program. We actually, when we were still in charge in November, put $300 million into the budget to help our farmers deal with bird flu, with avian flu. It helps them get the PPE they need. It helps them isolate the diseased chickens because you need to build different types of facilities. It helps them learn what to do. That could be cut. That could be cut, and the price of eggs will go up to $8 or $10. All of these things have an effect in one way or another on average working people. How about all the hundreds of thousands of workers who have now gotten jobs in clean energy? It is a great thing. For the first time-- good-paying jobs with a future for so many people could be gone out the window if this plan goes into effect. Now, I know that a court has stayed this until Monday. America, don't be fooled. Trump and his henchman Vought will keep at it and keep at it and keep at it until Project 2025 is implemented, even though they don't call it Project 2025. He will go to a different court, maybe in a very conservative, red district. They will do whatever they can to continue to squeeze the middle class, cut the things that the middle class needs, and then--and then--cut the taxes on the wealthiest people in America. Any organization--we have heard--I have heard hospitals are worried in not providing the care that they need. Head Start is going to close. What do the parents do? The Agencies that deal with mental illness, they depend on government funding. So much--so much--is at stake. In my State, we are getting thousands of calls: How is this going to affect us? And even if the cut hasn't come through yet, people are worried. And they say: We better save money for a rainy day and cut back on this and cut back on that. It has frightened people. Now, maybe that is what Trump likes doing: frightening average middle-class folks. But it is really a terrible thing to do. Meals on Wheels--that is a hot meal every day for people who don't have food--in danger. Rural hospitals and community health--in danger. New York subway maintenance and mass transit throughout the country--in danger. Money for housing--in danger. Everything. Everything. And so, Mr. President, we Senate Democrats are doing all we can to stop this--not just today, not just tomorrow, but in the long-range plan. But we are also urging Americans to call their Senators, call their Congressmen--particularly Republicans--and get them to tell President Trump to stop it--cut this out, cut out these cuts--because you are going to hurt us. The only people who will get hurt by this are average American middle-class families, and that is just about everybody. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Illinois for taking up the cudgels here.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I want to open with a few words on the announcement from China by DeepSeek. Today's announcement from China has been called AI's ``Sputnik moment'' for America. This announcement is precisely why I made AI a top priority in the last Congress and will continue to do so. Our competitors are going to use every single opportunity to overtake the United States' lead on the technologies of the future, particularly AI. And if Congress does not lead the way, we are going to fall behind. So I hope our bipartisan efforts on AI, which made some progress last year, will continue and even in a more robust way this year.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Maine (Mr. King), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Kristi Noem. I am voting no today. There are obvious and bipartisan solutions to fix the mess at our border and to greatly improve our immigration system. Those solutions include the bipartisan border security bill we introduced last year with Senators Lankford, Murphy, and Sinema; and, even better, a comprehensive reform package along the lines of the bipartisan compromise of the Gang of 8 from 2013. These are real solutions that would solve our immigration problem, and Kristi Noem seems headed in the wrong direction. I will vote no.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Well, Mr. President, yesterday, 51 Republican Senators voted to advance one of the most erratic, unqualified, and unfit Cabinet nominees we have ever seen in modern times. Pete Hegseth is possibly just a few hours away from becoming the next Secretary of Defense, overseeing the greatest military in the world. He has neither the character, the experience, or the judgment required by the job. If there is one word that should never describe a Secretary of Defense in this important position, it is ``erratic,'' but that is the one word that describes Mr. Hegseth best. Before we vote today, I hope my Republican colleagues think carefully, one last time, about the risks to the American people and, particularly, to the men and women in our Armed Forces, of confirming somebody like Mr. Hegseth. I hope my Republican colleagues understand the danger of entrusting our military to someone whose background has not been fully vetted. We know much of his past remains uninvestigated. We know Mr. Hegseth refused to meet with Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, save for the ranking member. How can that be? It is such an important job and he is afraid to meet with Democrats on the committee? He is going to have much tougher adversaries than that in places like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. How could he avoid that? We know that new allegations keep coming up--as recently as last night--compounding the word ``erratic'' when it describes his behavior. This is not the way to vet a nominee in such an important position as Secretary of Defense. When you are the one responsible for leading our Armed Forces, erratic behavior isn't just a character flaw. It could mean the difference between entering or avoiding a military conflict, between life and death for our troops. We all want what is best for our troops. We all know that voting for Secretary of Defense is one of the most important votes we are going to take all year. It mystifies me that of all the people President Trump could have nominated as Secretary of Defense, he picked someone as flawed--as deeply flawed--as Mr. Hegseth. Is Pete Hegseth really the best we have to lead the greatest military in the world? Is this man with a history of excessive drinking really the guy you want on the other end of the phone at 2 a.m. in a crisis in control of the nuclear codes? Is this man with a mile-long list of allegations of abusing, degrading, and harassing women the one we want leading our men and women into battle? Is this man who failed to manage the finances of veterans' nonprofit groups, who drove his organizations into debt to the point where he could not even pay creditors, the person we want in charge of the Pentagon's budget? I want this last point to sink in. DOD is a colossal organization. It is a workforce of 3 million people, an annual budget of over $850 billion. Is Pete Hegseth really the person we want overseeing an organization as complex as DOD? A man who couldn't even manage the finances of a small nonprofit, yet they pick him. It is unbelievable. He was pressured to resign from these small nonprofits. And now he is supposed to run the Department of Defense with its millions of people under his jurisdiction and billions and billions of dollars. The odds are not low that he would mismanage the Pentagon's budget if he mismanaged small organizations. Worst of all, his erratic behavior can rear its ugly head because we know when people who have a history of erratic behavior go into high- pressure situations, it often makes them more, not less, erratic. I refuse to believe that Pete Hegseth is the best the Republicans can come up with for Secretary of Defense. There are surely other individuals--plenty of others--the President could nominate that would be conservative voices. We would disagree with their views, but at least we would have to admit they are qualified. I can think of some Republican Senators who would certainly make a much stronger candidate than Mr. Hegseth. I hope my Republican colleagues think carefully today about the consequences of this vote. I hope they do the right thing and recognize there are much, much better choices for Secretary of Defense than Hegseth. The credibility of the Senate--I think the credibility of the Republican majority--is on the line with today's vote. The well-being of our troops stationed around the world is on the line with today's vote. The very security of the American people, of our kids and families and neighbors and friends, is on the line with today's vote. In short, we should not, cannot, must not elevate someone as erratic as Pete Hegseth to Secretary of Defense. We can and must--must--do better. I urge my colleagues to vote no. Finally, I want to turn briefly to the subject of Mr. Vought. No nominee is more threatening or antithetical to the needs of working people than this godfather of the ultraright--Russell Vought is the godfather of the ultraright--chief cook and bottle washer of Project 2025. When Americans voted for Donald Trump, they were very clear they want inflation to go down. They want more affordable prescription drugs. They do not want Project 2025 running the show. But that is precisely what will happen when the vote comes to Director of OMB. If you are one of the tens of billions who benefits from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Russell Vought is a nightmare scenario. If you want lower drug prices, you can forget about it if Russell Vought is running the show at OMB. If you want lower energy costs, if you want the U.S. to stand up to China, if you want America to create better clean jobs, Russell Vought is very, very bad news. If you are part of the ultrarich in this country, if you are an oil executive or own a drug company, Russell Vought is your golden ticket. If there is any golden age coming under Donald Trump, Russell Vought proves it is only a golden age for those at the very, very top. As for everyone else, Donald Trump and Russell Vought say you are on your own. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, the Senate will hold votes on two pivotal Cabinet nominees. First, we will vote to advance the nomination of John Ratcliffe to serve as CIA Director. I will respectfully vote no, not because of our political difference, which, of course, exists, but because I am deeply worried that Mr. Ratcliffe will be unable to stand up to people like Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, who are known to falsify intelligence. As CIA Director, Mr. Ratcliffe will have to make decisions based on intelligence and fact. There may be no Agency more important than the CIA that has to be fact based. Sometimes, these facts will lead to inconvenient conclusions for his superiors and the President. It is in those cases where truth--not fiction, not ideology--must prevail, and I have my doubts that Mr. Ratcliffe will be able to hold firm. Most troubling about Mr. Ratcliffe were the answers I got from him about Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump's nominee to serve as Director of National Intelligence. If confirmed, Ms. Gabbard would oversee the CIA and our entire intelligence community, and I think she would be colossally disruptive for American security. If there is anyone who hasn't been fact based as you have listened to her statements over the years, it is Tulsi Gabbard. She seems to make things up out of thin air. No one could be worse in a position of DNI than someone who doesn't believe in facts. So I told Mr. Ratcliffe he should urge President Trump to drop her nomination. If he really cares about the CIA and its integrity, he couldn't report to somebody like Tulsi Gabbard in good conscience. She is simply too risky. Ms. Gabbard has a whole history of spreading falsities, cheering America's adversaries, and, if confirmed, I am worried she will push false intelligence for political ends. Those are precisely the moments Mr. Ratcliffe will have to hold firm, reject what she says, and go to the President and speak truth to power. His answers to my questions about that were unsatisfying. So I am voting no because it is such an important position. Now, on the Hegseth vote, today the Senate will vote to advance one of the most unqualified, erratic nominees for a major position we have ever seen in America. No position in the Cabinet carries the weight, the responsibility of Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is in charge of keeping us safe and keeping the men and women in our Armed Forces and the civilians safe. So you need someone who has a steady hand. You need someone who has had experience in this kind of stuff. You need someone who, when he shows up to a meeting, you are sure that he knows all the facts and is going to be able to conduct himself properly. If there is any Cabinet that should be universally trusted and uncontroversial, it is the Secretary of Defense. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth is neither. He is neither trusted nor free of controversy, and I will strongly vote no. I want my colleagues to think about how absurd it is that this nominee has even made it to the floor. It is a shame that that has happened. We are being tasked to trust our Armed Forces to a man with a history of erratic behavior. One of the kindest words that might be used to describe Mr. Hegseth is ``erratic,'' and that is a quality you don't want as head of DOD. He has a history of excessive drinking, of alleged domestic abuse, and zero experience leading a large organization of any kind. The new allegations that came out yesterday are even more troubling. And people say: Well, how do we know they are true? Well, first, the person who did it has no strike against her; but, second, it just corroborates in an even worse way of what we have known about Hegseth in the past. He has a clear problem of judgment, as you have seen by his statements. It is like saying your heart surgeon has twitchy hands, but I will let him do surgery on me. No one would do that. How on Earth can America entrust our safety and security to a man who has allegedly shown up to work and other events inebriated? What if he shows up inebriated during a crisis? What is going to happen? This is dangerous. If confirmed, he would be in charge of a workforce of over 3 million people, a budget of 850 billion. Where in his history does it show he is capable of doing that? And what if his erratic behavior spills over to his job at the Pentagon, a high-pressure job? And when people are having this behavior, usually high-pressure jobs make them more, not less, erratic. What mystifies me so much about Mr. Hegseth's nomination is that there are so many other conservative defense leaders that President Trump could have nominated--people I wouldn't agree with, maybe, ideologically, on some of the issues that affect Secretary of Defense but people who would be capable of running the department. I know there are plenty of Republican Senators who would instantly make a better option than Mr. Hegseth. Is Pete Hegseth really the best the Republicans have to offer? How low--how low--has this party come in making him the nominee? I don't believe he is the best. I don't believe he is close to the best. I would be voting, with complete conviction, no. Given his history confirming Mr. Hegseth is, simply put, a risky roll of the dice that Americans cannot afford, especially in such an important position. Another of these pantheon of just awful nominees--not all of them are awful at all, but some are, too many are--is Russell Vought. With his nomination to be OMB Director, Donald Trump has made it official: Project 2025 is coming to the White House. The man who was the chief cook and bottle washer for 2025, who pushed it, who endorsed it, is now in one of the most powerful and sensitive positions in the government, OMB, which has a say over all government programs. Golden age? It is sure not going to be a golden age for the American people if Mr. Vought becomes the head of OMB. It is one of the most important Agencies in the government. They oversee every Federal Agency, every town, every locality. Every family is going to be affected. You want to get your drug prices lowered? Vought doesn't like that; look at 2025. You want to feed hungry kids? Vought doesn't like that; look at 2025. You want to preserve and expand $35 insulin? Vought doesn't like that. You want to make the tax system fairer and not have tax cuts for the very wealthy but help the middle class with tax breaks? Vought doesn't like that. He wants it to go to the wealthy. I asked him--he was in my office yesterday--I asked him: What part of 2025 would he disagree with? He couldn't point to a single one. In this panoply of awful proposals, he couldn't name a single one he didn't like. He is also a proponent of impoundment of funds. It may be unconstitutional, but it could cause real damages as the cases would go through the courts when he sued for it. And that means he can pick what he doesn't like and just end it, even if Congress has lawfully voted for it in a bipartisan way. So this man would be devastating to the families of America if he got into office. I hope my Republican colleagues will look at his record and vote against him. Nobody can claim to be pro-worker and then vote for Russell Vought. Executive Orders Mr. President, on the EOs and the GOP agenda, the more people look at President Trump's Executive orders, the more obvious it becomes that no golden age is coming to America, unless, of course, you are very rich, well-connected, or own a drug or oil company. With the ferocity of a bulldozer, Donald Trump has spent his first few days in office dismantling decades of progress that help working people, help middle- class families, help people afford healthcare. There are many Executive orders signed by the President that have flown under the radar but, nonetheless, also have proved devastating. He has halted, for one, leasing for wind energy projects in the outer continental shelf, putting at risk billions of dollars of investments and killing good paying jobs in the United States, in my State of New York out on Long Island, particularly. He thinks he can cut them off. Of course, we are going to fight that, and people will fight it in the courts. But President Trump yesterday was out there touting a new program, a new proposal, by some foreign investor to create more energy because we need it. But in his EOs he says: No clean energy, no offshore wind. Is that ridiculous? It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is talking out of both sides of your mouth. It is one hand doing one thing, and another hand doing the opposite. It is devastating--devastating--and we are going to fight that proposal tooth and nail because it is so important to New York, to Long Island, to America. He has repealed the Biden-era policies that make it easier for Americans to enroll in the ACA; 20 million Americans pay less for healthcare. That is in the Executive orders; get rid of it. And in his first week in office, he has killed policies that provide a year of postpartum care for low-income moms in Medicaid. How is that the idea of a golden age? Here in Congress, it is the same story with our congressional Republicans. They continue to dedicate the lion's share of their energy into fighting the best ways to pass their multitrillion-dollar tax cuts for the ultrarich. But I want to leave my Republican colleagues, who are now talking about budget and debt ceiling and all of that, with a thought, food for thought. All this planning and agonizing about one bill or two bills is a side show. Eventually, it is going to be clear they can't pass anything without Democratic help. Republicans have spent their entire time talking among themselves about tax breaks and radical budget cuts when they should be spending more time with Democrats talking about bipartisan policies that do not prioritize the ultrawealthy. Thus far, at least, Republicans haven't even pretended to be bipartisan. Instead of indulging their hard-right ideology of tax cuts for the ultrawealthy, Republicans should put the needs of ordinary Americans first. Make it a golden era indeed, but for the middle class and working people, not for the powerful and privileged. We look forward to them coming and working with us on these issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if there was one word--one word--that should never, ever describe a Secretary of Defense, it is ``erratic,'' but that is the one word that describes Mr. Hegseth best. Advancing a Secretary of Defense is one of the most important votes Senators are going to take all year. This man has lives in his hands--the lives of citizens, the lives of people of the world, and the lives of the brave men and women in our Armed Forces. So I want my colleagues to think carefully. Of all of the people we could have as Secretary of Defense, is Pete Hegseth really the best one we have got? Come on. You know he isn't. You know he is not even close. Is this the best man we have to lead the greatest military in the world? Is this man with a known history of excessive drinking the guy you want at the other end of the phone at 2 a.m., in a crisis, in control of the nuclear codes? Who are we kidding? Who are we kidding? Is this the man--with a mile-long list of allegations of abusing, degrading, and harassing women--you want to be leading our men and women in battle? Is this the man, with a track record of erratic behavior, the best you think the members of our military deserve as a leader? Is this the man, with a truly horrific and devastating lack of judgment, the best you think our country and our fighting men and women deserve? Pete Hegseth has proven to lack the necessary morality, sense, judgment. So I plead--I plead--with some of my Republican colleagues just to answer me this: Do you think this is the best person for the job? Do you think this is the best person we have to lead the best military in the world? I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on January 8, Dr. Nancy Leftenant-Colon, one of the original Tuskegee Airmen, and the first Black woman to serve in the U.S. Army Nurse Corps after its desegregation, passed away at the age of 104 in Amityville, NY. Known affectionately by those who loved her as ``Lefty,'' Dr. Leftenant-Colon always dreamed of being a nurse. Her family came to New York from South Carolina during the Great Migration with virtually nothing in their pockets. But they worked hard to make a living that provided Nancy and her siblings with opportunity. Dr. Leftenant-Colon graduated in 1941 from New York's Lincoln School of Nursing in the Bronx, the first school in the country to train Black women to become nurses. But when she tried to sign up for the Armed Forces, she was told that the military was not accepting Black nurses. Nevertheless, Dr. Leftenant-Colon persevered. In January 1945, she volunteered and was accepted into the Army Nurse Corps as a Reservist. She was given the rank of second lieutenant, and her first assignment was to Lowell General Hospital, Fort Devens, MA, where she treated wounded soldiers of World War II. In 1946, Dr. Leftenant-Colon was assigned to the 332nd Station Medical Group, Lockbourne Army Air Base-- now Rickenbacker Air Force Base--in Ohio. There, she teamed up with legendary flight surgeon and Tuskegee Airman Vance H. Marchbanks, Jr., where once they delivered and saved the life of a premature baby girl nobody thought would survive. Dr. Leftenant-Colon made history becoming the first Black woman integrated into the regular Army Nurse Corps. She was assigned at Lockbourne Army Air Field when President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, abolishing segregation in the U.S. military. In July 1948, Leftenant-Colon was granted regular status in the Army Nurse Corps. Four years later, she became a flight nurse with the U.S. Air Force. It was in the Air Force that she married Reserve Captain Bayard Colon, who passed away in 1972. From 1953-1955, Major Leftenant-Colon was a flight nurse with the 6481st Medical Air Evacuation Group, Tachikawa, Japan. During this time, she set up hospital wards in Japan and in active war zones. She was credited with saving many lives during the wars. She had to wait five years for her certification as a flight nurse. Major Leftenant- Colon went on to an assignment as a flight nurse, evacuating French Legionnaires from the Dien Bien Pu Province, Vietnam. She was aboard the first medical evacuation flight into the defeated French outpost in Dien Bien Phu. Her final assignment was to McGuire Air Force Base, NJ, where Major Leftenant-Colon retired as chief nurse in 1965. Upon her retirement, Major Leftenant-Colon returned home, to her alma mater, Amityville High School, as the school nurse. She held that position from for 13 years. In 2018, Amityville High School authorities announced that a new media center was being constructed to commemorate the life and military service of Major Leftenant-Colon. Dr. Nancy Leftenant-Colon was a great American, and an outstanding, committed U.S. Army nurse who overcame unfair barriers and prejudice to help change the course of history. Here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I extend my sincerest condolences to the family of Dr. Leftenant-Colon. We grieve for her passing. And we share in her family's enormous pride at everything that was accomplished by this great New Yorker and great American.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, well, Donald Trump made a lot of promises on what he would get done on day one. Well, today is day three of Donald Trump's Presidency. Nothing Donald Trump has done will help lower grocery prices. Nothing Donald Trump has done will lower prescription drug costs. Instead, President Trump's biggest accomplishment to date has been to issue unconditional pardons to 1,500 lawless rioters who attacked police officers and invaded the Capitol. Why on Earth is the President already spending so much time focused on the past, focused on his grievances, instead of focused on costs and jobs and improving healthcare for the American people? The American people have to wonder, how on Earth will pardoning January 6 rioters help me pay for food at the grocery store, help me get a lower cost for buying a home, or help me save more money for my retirement? How on Earth will Americans feel safer if the President rewards lawbreakers who assault police officers by setting these criminals free? So much for focusing on lowering prices. Pardoning lawless rioters is not what the American people signed up for when they voted for Donald Trump. They wanted the President to get to work quickly on issues that impact them--costs, safety, healthcare. The first 3 days of Donald Trump's ``golden age'' has been golden for everyone but working Americans. It is a golden age for big corporations. It is a golden age for pharmaceutical companies. It is a golden age for polluters. It is a golden age for lawlessness. It is not--not--a golden age for hard-working Americans who want their costs reduced. Cabinet Nominations Mr. President, on nominations, yesterday, I met with President Trump's nominee to serve as Director of OMB, Russell Vought. I walked into my meeting with Mr. Vought, of course, skeptical. Then I walked out of the meeting even more deeply troubled. Of all the extremists President Trump could have picked for OMB, he picked the godfather of the ultraright. Mr. Vought's goal is clear and simple: He wants to dismantle the social safety net and starve America with the most radical budget cuts in living memory. In the past, he has called for gutting Social Security, gutting Medicare and Medicaid. He wants to eliminate the Department of Education. He has proposed cuts to disability payments for retired veterans. He wants to cut SNAP benefits, raise drug prices--all in the name of an ultraright, extremist ideology that prioritizes the needs for the wealthy few. They want to cut the daylights out of everything else so they can give tax cuts to the very wealthiest in our society, who are doing quite well. When I asked him which parts of Project 2025 he disagreed with, he was unable to give me a single answer. I am also deeply worried that Mr. Vought will disobey the law when it comes to following through on congressional spending. President Trump has already begun issuing Executive orders that jeopardize billions upon billions in bipartisan infrastructure projects across the country. They say this is temporary, but we all know how Washington works--temporary trial balloons turn into permanent anchors. Congress has already approved these investments. President Biden has signed them into law. These projects help red States and blue States and support families, help parents raise kids, and lead to stronger communities. If Donald Trump does, in fact, freeze these funds now so he can resume them and take credit down the line, people's jobs and livelihoods would be at risk. Mr. Vought, I fear, would only enable this unlawful behavior. In fact, Vought is one of the leading proponents of impoundment of funds, which should be frightening not only to those who represent blue States but also those who represent red States where so many of the investments are going. Mr. Vought is testifying right now before the Senate Committee on the Budget. It is important that we build a record about the deeply harmful plans he has for the country. It is an opportunity for Americans to see for themselves how truly radical President Trump's second term could well be. Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act Mr. President, under President Trump, it will be a golden age for the anti-choice--the extreme anti-choice--movement. The bill we are voting on today, the Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill, is as pernicious as they come. It attacks women's healthcare using false narratives and outright fearmongering, and it adds more legal risk for doctors on something that is already illegal. So much of the hard right's anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by people who have little or no understanding of what women go through when they are pregnant. The situation targeted by this bill is one of the most heartbreaking moments a woman could ever encounter--the agonizing choice of having to end care when serious and rare complications arise in pregnancy. It is moments like this where we should support women and doctors most, not use them as political football, as this bill does so heartlessly. Remember when Republicans claimed they would leave the issue of choice to the States? Remember that? That is out the window. This bill is a metaphor for what is to come: an emboldened, extremist anti-choice resurgence far, far further to the right than the American people are. Here is a message to my Republican colleagues: Today would be a great day for Senate Republicans to do something lowering the cost of groceries instead of attacking women's reproductive care. It would be a great day for Senate Republicans to do something to make prescription drugs more affordable. It would be a great day for Republicans to help do something to help Americans trying to buy a home. Instead of lowering costs, Senate Republicans are putting their energy into controlling women's healthcare. This is not what the American people signed up for. Artificial Intelligence Mr. President, finally, on AI, yesterday, a group of AI and tech companies announced their pledge to invest as much as $500 billion to ramp up our Nation's AI and data center infrastructure. Of course, if AI becomes one of the central technologies of our lives, as is expected, we must build the capacity to support that demand, no question about it. But already President Trump is tying himself into knots and talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he goes on about how we need more power, we need more electricity to meet the demands of AI, and then on the other hand, he spent his first day in office proposing Executive orders that cut clean energy investments, halting wind and solar and putting those jobs at risk. These AI data centers will depend on more clean energy production and transmission, and cutting clean energy will cut a good chunk of the new energy that is about to come on board. So for President Trump to cut clean energy investments is tantamount to cutting AI's potential. One hand doesn't seem to know what the other hand is doing. If President Trump wants to help AI's growth instead of hurt it, he should revoke his promise to kill the clean energy jobs we are going to need to support America's energy needs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Murray, a great champion of women's health, for adding her eloquence and expertise to the debate. When it comes to the issue of choice, women's rights, women's health, there is no greater spokesperson than she. So I thank her. We will hear from her shortly. Now, today's vote on the Senate Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill makes one thing very clear: Under President Trump, it will be a golden age but for the extreme anti-choice movement. The bill is the very definition of pernicious. It attacks women's healthcare using false narratives and outright fear-mongering, and it adds more legal risks for doctors on something that is already illegal. So much of the hard-right's anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by people who have little to no understanding of what women go through when they are pregnant. The scenario targeted by this bill is one of the most heartbreaking moments that a woman could ever encounter: the agonizing choice of having to end care when serious and rare complications arise in pregnancy. And at that moment of agony, this bill cruelly substitutes the judgment of qualified medical professionals and the wishes of millions of families and allows the ultraright ideology to dictate what they do. Women should be supported and trusted when faced with serious pregnancy complications. This is when male politicians should step up and support women, not use them as political footballs, as this bill so heartlessly does. And, if anything, this bill is a metaphor for what is to come: an emboldened extremist, anti-choice resurgence, further to the right than the American people are, even than most Republicans are. Remember when Republicans said this issue would be left to the States. Both President Trump and our Republican colleagues said: Don't worry; we are going to leave this to the States. That is not what this bill does. It doesn't leave it to the States. And I think that we are going to see this over and over again where promises made during the campaign are just broken. This one: 2 days after Donald Trump is inaugurated as President, it is no longer left to the States. And any promise that people made that we are going to leave things to the women and their doctors, that is out the window with this bill. And again, we are going to see that repeated over and over again--not left to the States, imposed by some politicians here in Washington on women across America, and not respecting the rights of women and their doctors and their families. Here is my message to my Republican colleagues: Instead of attacking reproductive care, today would be a great day for Senate Republicans to do something to lower the cost of groceries or prescription drugs or helping Americans buy a home. It would also be a great day for Senate Republicans to trust women and leave their healthcare choices up to them, but they are not doing that. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this morning I have some amazingly great news. After more than 2 years of being unjustly detained by the Taliban, Ryan Corbett from Dansville, NY, is finally free and on his way home. In just a few hours--praise God--Ryan will be back on American soil and will be able to hug his wife Anna and his beautiful children, Miriam and Caleb and Ketsie. They represent the very best of Upstate New York--hard-working, God-fearing, persistent, and humble. Soon, Ryan will be back home in Western New York in the community he loved so much and that waited so desperately for his return. I met with the Corbett family repeatedly. Every time I met with them, his wonderful wife Anna--strong but quiet--never gave up; and his beautiful children who so miss their dad, you could just feel it. And every time I met with them, just my heart went out, and I said ``I have to do more and more and more.'' It is a moment we have all prayed for and hoped for. And thank God this day has finally come. What a blessing. What an amazing day. When I heard Ryan's story from his family and listened to them as they pushed and pushed for his release, I saw that even in the darkest moment, even when hope seemed lost, the Corbett family never, never gave up, and they never got angry. They never pointed fingers or called names. They just kept persisting and persisting and persisting. And their beautiful, hard, unrelenting, patient persistence has paid off. I worked very closely with the Corbett family to build bipartisan support for Ryan's release. We brought attention to his imprisonment and made dozens of calls to elevate his case to the very highest levels of government. I want to thank President Biden and his administration's negotiating team as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for helping bring Ryan back. We can finally, finally say these five amazing words: Ryan Corbett is coming home. He is coming home to New York. He is coming home to Dansville. I can't wait to see him and welcome him back very, very soon. Trump Administration Mr. President, now on the first day of President Trump's presidency, moments after taking the oath of office, President Trump declared that it was the dawning of a golden age here in America. But on day one into his presidency, it is clear that Donald Trump's golden age is not for the working and middle class. His golden age, rather, is for the special interests, the wealthy elite, and the corporate insiders he promised to take on as President. Just look at his first day in the White House, which shows exactly what I am saying. On day one, President Trump, in his Executive orders, made it harder for Americans to save on prescription drug costs. President Trump cleared the way for Big Oil and polluters and halted leasing of offshore wind farms. He took steps to make it harder to enroll in the ACA and made Medicaid less generous. He removed the United States from the Paris Climate Accords. Nothing the President did on day one lowered grocery prices. Nothing helped Americans achieve their dream of owning a home. Nothing will help working families earn more and save more. Their drug costs will go up. The cost of buying and maintaining a home will go up. The cost of healthcare will go up. The cost of energy will go up. So who is exactly Donald Trump's golden age for? Not for working Americans; that is for sure. President Trump's golden age is one for America's biggest drug companies, who can now worry less about lowering their prices. It is a golden age for America's richest oil executives, who want nothing more than to kill clean jobs and deepen America's dependence on fossil fuels. It is a golden age for America's top 1 percent, who want another trillion-dollar tax break, paid for on the backs of workers in the middle class. And, sadly, it is a golden age for lawlessness and lawbreakers who were pardoned yesterday by President Trump. There is no other way to describe President Trump's pardon of January 6 offenders than un- American. Let's be clear. President Trump didn't just pardon protesters; he pardoned some people convicted of assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy. It is a betrayal of the highest order of our Capitol police officers who risked their lives to keep us safe. When President Trump talks about a golden age, he is talking about a golden age for drug companies, powerful oil executives, and rioters who attack our police and attack our democracy. That is not the golden age Americans want. Nominations Mr. President, nominations, this week the Senate will continue exercising its constitutional duty to offer advice and consent on the President's nominees. Last night, the Senate unanimously confirmed our former colleague, Senator Rubio, as Secretary of State. Even though Senator Rubio and Democrats differ on many issues, it was clear he was very well- qualified for the job and deserved confirmation. Now, if every one of President Trump's nominees were as qualified and experienced as Senator Rubio, they would sail through the Senate with bipartisan support. But, sadly, too many of the President's nominees do not match Senator Rubio's caliber, too many have troubling backgrounds, too many seem unprepared for the job and proved so during testimony, too many nominees have been rushed through before their paperwork has been submitted. Senator Rubio was thorough and quick with his background checks and documentation. He did it the right way. But too many other nominees have delayed and dragged their feet. So it is wrong to try and rush them through. And too many of the President's nominees seem more interested in pushing the ultraright's extremist agenda than in fighting for working- and middle-class families. Later today, I will meet with President Trump's nominee for OMB Director, Russell Vought. Mr. Vought is one of the most troubling nominees that President Trump has selected. He is about as ultraright as they come. So during our meeting, I hope to get a clarity on a simple question: Who will Mr. Vought fight for if confirmed? Is it the American people, or is it Project 2025, which Americans have already rejected? I look forward to our conversation because I believe it is important both sides hear directly and candidly from the President's nominees before we are asked to vote on their nomination. After all, the debate over President Trump's nominees is not just about senior-level positions in the administration; the debate on nominees is a debate about the President's very agenda and about who will benefit. Whose side are these nominees on? President Trump promised an agenda that will fight for the working and middle class. He promised a golden age for the country, but actions speak louder than words. And so far, the President's nominees suggest that if there is any golden age coming, it is only one for the very, very elite. So Democrats will continue to get the President's nominees on the record on very important questions. Will Donald Trump's nominees focus on cutting costs, or will they be more interested in cutting sweetheart deals for big businesses? Will they protect our communities, or will they focus more on protecting special interests? Will they serve middle-class and working families, or will they serve the swamp? That is what the American people want to know. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I really want to thank my friend, our great leader on women's issues and on choice issues, Senator Murray, for leading this floor block. She has been indomitable on this issue. I can't think of a person who has done more to protect the rights of women than Patty Murray. So thank you for your great leadership. I want to thank all my other colleagues who will join me as well. Look, it is Donald Trump's first week as President, and Republicans are already escalating their war on women's reproductive freedoms. They didn't wait long. And the Republicans' desire to impose politicians' and their views on women's health and substitute their judgment for the judgment of the woman, her family, and her doctor continues. There are many different permutations and combinations of this, but it is always: Take the women's rights away. Let some politician for some ideological reason decide. This week, Senate Republicans will advance their so-called Born-Alive bill, a bill we have all seen before, which the Senate squarely rejected in the past. The bill is deeply pernicious because it attacks women's healthcare through false narratives and outright fearmongering. It seeks to make something illegal that is already illegal. In essence, the Republican bill would substitute the judgment of qualified medical professionals and the wishes of millions of women and their families with an ultraright ideology. It is the long hand of injustice reaching down and hurting women from afar. And so much of the legislation is passed, frankly, by men who have, really, no understanding of what women go through when they are through difficult situations like the one my colleague from Washington State has outlined. This would harm the ability of medical professionals to provide healthcare based on evidence and on science. It would expose medical professionals to the risk of punishment and prosecution if they don't comply with the hard right. So we are here because we need to expose this bill exactly for what it is: myth-based fearmongering. It is an attack on reproductive care. The anti-choice movement keeps trying to come up with these scenarios to try and scare people, but they misstate the facts and misstate the evidence. This bill is clear. It is an attack on reproductive care. It is anti- women, anti-family, anti-science. I will tell my Republican colleagues this: Democrats will oppose any attempt to erode access to high-quality and safe reproductive care. Democrats will continue to fight for America's women, America's doctors, and America's families who sometimes have to make heartbreaking, difficult decisions when serious complications arise during pregnancy. That is what makes this bill so, so horrible. It basically takes a woman who is in a very serious, difficult situation and tries to use her as a political football. That is a bad, bad thing. So we should resoundingly reject this deeply partisan bill when it comes to the floor later this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER

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

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, a few hours ago, beneath the dome of the U.S. Capitol, with the eyes of the world upon us, the United States carried out, yet again, a peaceful transfer of power. We fulfilled the sacred commandment handed down to us by the Framers nearly two and a half centuries ago. We observed the inauguration of Donald Trump, the 47th President of the United States. I congratulate President Trump. I congratulate Vice President Vance. The prayers of the American people are with them. Today, let me also thank one more time our Nation's 46th President, Joe Biden. History will look kindly on President Biden's 4 years in office. He lifted America out of the abyss of crisis. He restored decency and integrity to the White House. His bold agenda, made possible by Democrats in Congress and particularly in the Senate, will stand the test of time. When Americans drive on better roads, breathe cleaner air, enjoy good-paying manufacturing jobs, and save on prescription drugs, it will be because of the things we accomplished under President Biden's watch. So I thank President Biden and I thank Vice President Harris for their service to our Nation. The peaceful transfer of power is the defining feature of a free society. It is what separates nations like the United States from the wastelands of despotism and autocracy. As we have seen recently, the peaceful transfer of power can never be taken for granted. It requires all sides to accept the will of the people and affirm the results of the democratic process, no matter the outcome. That is what Democrats firmly believe in. Democrats believe in the peaceful transfer of power, and we showed it today. Democrats are loyal, above all, to our Constitution and to our democratic principles, and today we practiced what we preached: the democratic transfer of power. I hope that today's inauguration shows the world that the chaos of 4 years ago was an unfortunate aberration and not the norm. It is now time to look to the future. The challenges that face America are many and great. The Senate must respond with resolve, bipartisanship, and fidelity to the working and middle class of this country. While President Trump and I often disagree, I stand ready to work with him and with anyone, regardless of party, to advance the Nation's well-being. The American people want us to work together to make their lives better. Democrats are ready to do just that. We have been and always will be. Martin Luther King, Jr., Day Mr. President, finally, today, of course, is not just Inauguration Day but Martin Luther King, Jr., Day too. Today, we remember that the march of justice may sometimes feel slow and halting, but if we persist and persist and persist, then one day we, too, shall reach the Promised Land. I like to say that Dr. King hoisted a giant mirror on his shoulders and, with his brilliance, his eloquence, and his faith, he forced America to look into that mirror. And America didn't like what it saw, and that began us on a real road, a real path to greater equality, and we still have a long way to go. But King was an amazing man, and it is fitting that his holiday is the only holiday on the calendar named for just one person. We have Mother's Day for the mothers, Father's Day for the fathers, Presidents Day for the Presidents, Veterans Day for the veterans, but only one holiday for one man. That is because Dr. King was so unique and so amazing. Now, the work of justice--we all know, and Dr. King taught us--does not happen overnight. Sometimes progress rushes forth like a mighty stream. Other times it may feel as if progress flows in reverse and moves backward. Either way, Dr. King's hopeful message is the same: No matter the odds, we shall overcome. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHUMER

Mr. SCHUMER. Well, tonight, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Senator Rubio to serve as the next Secretary of State. Democrats have been very clear about our approach to President Trump's nominees. We will neither rubberstamp nominees we feel are grossly unqualified, nor will we reflexively oppose nominees that deserve serious consideration. Senator Rubio is an example of a qualified nominee we think should be confirmed quickly. Earlier today, he was unanimously reported out of committee with full support from Democrats, and he should be quickly confirmed here on the floor. So today, I will vote yes on Senator Rubio. While I certainly do not agree with many of Senator Rubio's positions, in this instance, it is important for the new administration to have a Senate-confirmed Secretary of State as soon as possible. So I will vote yes. Republicans did the same with Secretary Clinton during the first Obama administration. It was appropriate then; it is appropriate now. I will vote yes.

Mr. SCHUMER

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