[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 14 (Thursday, January 23, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S307-S310]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ILLEGITIMATE COURT COUNTERACTION ACT--Motion To Proceed
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 3, H.R.
23.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to Proceed to Calendar No. 3, H.R. 23, a bill to
impose sanctions with respect to the International Criminal
Court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain,
or prosecute any protected person of the United States and
its allies.
Cloture Motion
Mr. THUNE. I send a cloture motion to the desk for the motion to
proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 3, H.R. 23, a bill to impose
sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court
engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or
prosecute any protected person of the United States and its
allies.
John Thune, Tom Cotton, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Pete
Ricketts, Shelley Moore Capito, Deb Fischer, Markwayne
Mullin, Rick Scott of Florida, Tim Sheehy, Cindy Hyde-
Smith, John Boozman, Marsha Blackburn, Mike Rounds,
James Lankford, Ted Budd, John R. Curtis, Tommy
Tuberville.
Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Cabinet Nominations
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
[[Page S308]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. BARRASSO. First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin and
I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes each prior to the scheduled
rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent also that the
mandatory quorum call in relation to the Ratcliffe nomination be
waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cabinet Nominations
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today this Senate will confirm John
Ratcliffe to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. This
is a win for our national security. Frankly, this should have been done
2 day ago, but Democrats unnecessarily delayed this important vote.
John Ratcliffe is undeniably qualified for the job. He is going to
lead the
[[Page S309]]
CIA without bias and with the safety of the American people being his
top priority.
Once the Senate confirms John Ratcliffe, we will move to consider the
nomination of Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. America needs a
strong, intimidating, and lethal military. Our men and women in
uniform, they want to serve in that kind of a military. They didn't
join to be joining a safe space or a faculty lounge. They volunteered
to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, the greatest fighting force in human
history.
Our Nation is counting on President Trump and our military to defend
America and to restore peace through strength. The problem is our
servicemembers are trapped in a broken system with misguided values.
Today, we face the most serious significant recruiting and morale
crisis since the creation of the all-volunteer military. The military,
in 2023, missed its recruiting goals by almost 40,000 people. The
Pentagon says that they met their goals in 2024. You know how they did
that? They conveniently lowered the goals from the 2023 number. Easy to
make the mark when you lower the bar.
According to the Department of Defense, more than half of all young
Americans say they have never ever thought of serving in our Nation's
military.
In addition to the recruiting problem and the morale problem, we
also, at the Pentagon today, have an accountability problem. The
Department of Defense last month failed its seventh audit in a row. We
need to change course at the Pentagon. We need to get the Pentagon back
on track, and President Trump has selected Pete Hegseth to do just
that.
As Pete said at his hearing last week:
We don't need more bureaucracy at the top. We need more
warfighters empowered at the bottom.
As a decorated combat veteran, Pete brings a fresh set of eyes to the
Pentagon. He is confident. He is knowledgeable, and he is courageous.
He knows the cost of war, and he knows the price of weakness. He
clearly loves our Nation. He loves this country. He is a champion for
our servicemembers and their families, and he wants to continue serving
the country.
That is why I believe Pete Hegseth is the right choice to lead our
military.
At the Senate Armed Services Committee, Pete answered hard questions
with clarity and with resolve. Pete was clear about our mission and his
mission. It is, as he said, to make the Pentagon ``laser-focused on
lethality, meritocracy, warfighting, accountability and readiness.''
Ultimately, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of
Pete's nomination. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough for the Democrats.
No, no, they decided to then run their desperate playbook of distract
and delay so that they could try to search and destroy.
Senate Republicans are not going to be stopped by Democrats'
political games. We are moving forward.
Perhaps no other Cabinet position is more important to the safety and
security of our Nation than the Secretary of Defense. The American
people deserve to have a Secretary of Defense in place and on the job.
Now, Mr. President, on a related matter, on confirmation here, our
work in confirmation continues and it will continue later today. Senate
Republicans are readying votes on more of President Trump's nominees,
and it is a strong roster.
Kristi Noem is the nominee to be Secretary of Homeland Security. She
will secure our borders.
Scott Bessent is the nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury. He will
strengthen our economy and stop the Democrats' $4 trillion tax
increase.
Sean Duffy is the nominee to be Secretary of Transportation. He will
build our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. The Commerce Committee was
unanimous in support of his nomination.
In fact, all of these well-qualified nominees received bipartisan
support in committees. The Senate has an obligation to confirm them
quickly. To deny a President his Cabinet is wrong, especially when we
are talking about the national security team. Any delay denies our
Nation a Homeland Security Secretary when open borders endanger every
community in America. It denies the country a Treasury Secretary at a
time when painfully high prices are hurting families and hurting small
businesses. It denies the country a Secretary of Transportation when
our ports and our airlines need urgent attention.
The President deserves to have his team in place, and Senate
Republicans will overcome the roadblocks, and we will confirm them. The
choice for Democrats is simple: the easy way or the hard way.
Mr. President, we are going to get them confirmed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Nomination of Peter Hegseth
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the United States continues to face a host
of serious challenges around the world that demand serious leaders.
This is recognized by members of both political parties, where country
rises above party politics. In fact, over the last three decades alone,
every single Senate-confirmed Secretary of Defense, but one, has
received broad bipartisan support.
I would like to take a moment to share my reservations about the
nomination of Pete Hegseth to serve as our next Secretary of Defense.
From the outset, he has failed to position himself as someone with a
strategic plan to face the threats of our Nation, to equip our
warfighters with the technologies of the future, or to support them and
their families with the benefits they have earned and deserve.
Aside from serving in the National Guard for some years, Mr. Hegseth
lacks the necessary qualifications to lead the Department of Defense.
Imagine the size of that responsibility: more than 3.5 million
servicemembers and civilian employees, a budget of $900 billion a year,
and hundreds of thousands of platforms and assets.
He has, over the years and even during his confirmation hearing,
disparaged women serving in the military and questioned their right to
adequate healthcare. He advocated for pardons for war criminals and
questioned the rules of engagement that are designed to protect
civilians from harm. And he exhibited a stunning lack of basic
knowledge on the threats our country faces.
This is to say nothing of the numerous, troubling personal
allegations against him relating to the use of alcohol, personal
misconduct, financial mismanagement, and more--all of which raises
questions about his fitness and vulnerability to serve in this high
position.
This is an unusual situation. I would say the Armed Services
Committee and the Department of Defense are two of the most bipartisan
efforts I have seen in my time in Washington. It is customary to have
both political parties in lockstep together working for the defense of
this Nation, as they should.
But for some reason, Mr. Hegseth has decided that he would break with
tradition and not meet with the Democratic members of the Armed
Services Committee, aside from the ranking member, Jack Reed of the
State of Rhode Island. That is unfortunate. The bipartisanship should
be honored, even if it is difficult and challenging. Unfortunately, Mr.
Hegseth did not agree with that position.
It is for these reasons that every Democrat on the Senate Armed
Services Committee voted against advancing his nomination, and I will
oppose him on the floor.
(The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 229
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination
of Executive Calendar No. 1, John Ratcliffe, of Texas, to be
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
John Thune, Steve Daines, John Kennedy, Jim Justice,
James E. Risch, Mike Crapo, Tim Sheehy, Deb Fischer,
Tommy Tuberville, Rick Scott of Florida, Pete Ricketts,
Katie Britt, Ted
[[Page S310]]
Budd, Roger F. Wicker, Mike Rounds, Roger Marshall,
Eric Schmitt.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of John Ratcliffe, of Texas, to be Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO: The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Hagerty) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN: I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fetterman) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 72, nays 26, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]
YEAS--72
Alsobrooks
Banks
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Durbin
Ernst
Fischer
Gallego
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Hickenlooper
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Peters
Ricketts
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--26
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Cantwell
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Heinrich
Hirono
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Smith
Van Hollen
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Fetterman
Hagerty
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 72, the nays are
26.
The motion is agreed to.
____________________