Mr. President, now, on cost of living, if Donald Trump refuses to focus on the one thing Americans want most, which is to lower the cost of living, Democrats are happy to do it for them. As we begin 2026, Democrats enter the new year on our front foot. The cost of living will remain the No. 1 focus for this week, this month, this year, and beyond. The tip of the spear for so many people when it comes to costs, of course, is healthcare. It is now January 5, 2026. For tens of millions of people, the reality of sky-high premiums has now been locked in, thanks to Republicans who let the ACA premium tax credits expire last year. Millions more no longer have healthcare at all. Many others have switched to lower quality plans and can no longer see the doctors they have gone to for years and years and years or afford the medicines that their children have been taking to cure deadly diseases. Parents without insurance now don't know what to do if their kids get sick. Every Democrat in the Senate voted to extend the premium tax credits at the end of last year. And a number of Republicans--a small number, unfortunately, of Republicans--in both Chambers say they want to do it. But instead of listening to the vast majority of Americans who want these tax credits rendered, Leader Thune and Speaker Johnson have sided with rightwing extremists who are happy to see these credits die. The result: higher premiums, more uninsured Americans, greater uncertainty for the people back home--especially people, actually, in the red States. Democrats will not relent on the issue of the cost of living, of how difficult it is for Americans to pay the bills for things they need. The topic is not going to go away anytime soon. In fact, it will only grow in intensity over the year. But, as everyone knows, healthcare is not the only part of the story when it comes to lowering the cost of living. In the coming weeks and months, Democrats will lay out cleanly and comprehensively how we can lower costs for the American people on a number of different topics-- from health to housing, to groceries, to childcare, to energy costs, and beyond. In the coming weeks, for example, I will work with a number of my colleagues, including Senator Warren, on the many options we have to help Americans pay for housing. We also need to look at lowering grocery costs. We need to end Donald Trump's destructive tariffs. We need to help families afford daycare. These are the things that Americans care about, not invading Venezuela, not attacking Colombia, or dreaming of invading Greenland. The Democrats are focused on the things that matter to the American people, and we will focus on these like a laser--the high cost of living; affordability. Just like Democrats are dialed in on healthcare and brought the Nation's attention to this important issue, we are also focusing on costs as they relate to housing and groceries and energy and childcare and so much more. We show the contrast that, while Donald Trump and Republicans are spending all of their time on foreign wars, on ballrooms, on private jets, Democrats are the ones focused on helping people pay the bills for the things they need every day to live their lives decently. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Britt). Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, today, on nominations, Republicans will move forward with a Trojan horse of a nominee package, confirming in one fell swoop a slew of horribly unqualified, shockingly radical nominees. All year long, Senate Republicans have bent the knee to Donald Trump, giving him every nominee he has asked for, no matter how unqualified, no matter how unfit they are, no matter how bad this nominee package is. It is much different than any nominee package we have seen. Democrats oppose these people, as you will see in a minute, because they are just totally unqualified to be in the important positions he is trying to place them in. No wonder the Republicans didn't want to have votes on these people, didn't want to have discussion, because when the American people learn who they are, they are aghast that these types of people would be appointed. So, yes, Democrats want votes. We want least an hour or two of discussion to fill these important positions. Leader Thune said, oh, we are just doing this for partisan political reasons. Here is what he said exactly. He said: Democrats must be doing one of two things. Thune said: Either the President has been nominating historically bad nominees, or Democrats are simply being partisan. Well, Speaker Thune, Leader Thune, that is obvious, Leader Thune: It is that Donald Trump is nominating historically bad nominees. That is why we are doing this. I mean, there are so many. I could spend hours on the floor talking about them. But let me mention a few, just a few, and when you hear what is going on, America, you will be aghast. Look at the nomination of Sara Bailey to serve as Director of National Drug Control Policy. They are trying to sneak this one through. Of course they would be afraid of a discussion or a vote or who she is coming to light. Bailey has no background in medicine, no background in public health, no background in law enforcement. She is so radical--Bailey is--that even FOX News's news shows banned her. But do you know what she has going for her? why she was nominated for an important position with no experience? She said the January 6 rioters were ``good Americans.'' That was her ticket to getting this job. All you have to do is tell Donald Trump he was right about January 6, even though he was so obviously wrong and dangerous in what he did then. But all you have to do is tell him ``Oh, they were good Americans,'' and that is good enough for Donald Trump. And now Senate Republicans have gone down to his level, and it is good enough for them. Republicans are also trying to sneak through people like Anthony D'Esposito to be the inspector general--the watchdog--of the Department of Labor. This is a former Member of the House who put his mistress on his congressional payroll and has faced a slew of misconduct allegations as a police officer. That is not anyone's definition of a good watchdog--unless you are Senate Republicans. Someone who faced misconduct allegations and put his mistress on the payroll is now the watchdog at the Department of Labor? Give me a break. Of course they want to hide these nominees. They are embarrassed about them. They know that Donald Trump has the lowest standard of any President we have ever seen for qualifications to important positions. There is John Bartrum, who Republicans want to appoint as Under Secretary for Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs. What is his claim to fame? He was instrumental in firing VA staff, tearing up VA contracts, and politicizing VA research. That is just three. There are so many more that are just appalling. Yeah, we Democrats of course want to see votes on these nominees. We don't want to allow them to just be all voted yes in a big package so their lack of qualification, their lack of honor, their lack of honesty, their past records can be hidden. But Republicans are ashamed--ashamed--of who they have to vote for. They should vote against these nominees, but they are afraid of Donald Trump. It is very clear what Republicans are doing. They are trying to pull a fast one on the American people and sneak through an entire henhouse of bad nominees without giving them the scrutiny that the American people demand. You know, when you choose bad nominees, you pay a price. Trump picked Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, whom I talked about a few minutes ago. He had no qualifications to be Secretary of Defense. The only way he got through was arm-twisting from some Republicans who knew he shouldn't be in that position, and now Trump and the administration and Senate Republicans who voted for him are paying a price because it is so obvious he is screwing up left and right. When you put in these bad nominees, you sneak them through or bludgeon them through, the administration and, unfortunately, the American people pay a very significant price. This nominee package is a perfect symbol of what this majority has been about from day one: bowing to Donald Trump, rubberstamping his unqualified loyalists, and chipping away at the Senate's role as a check on a highly abusive Executive. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 203 (Thursday, December 4, 2025) 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

Mr. President, on healthcare, let me start with a shockingly candid quote from a senior House Republican on their plan to fix healthcare. This senior House Republican, when it came to healthcare, said about the Republicans in the House: We're nowhere on healthcare. That is what a senior House Republican said. It is a grim thing to say, but it is the truth. There has never been a clearer divide on what Democrats want on healthcare and what Republicans want on healthcare. Democrats want to lower healthcare costs for families. We want to make healthcare cheaper, more effective, more accessible. We are united on that issue from one end of the party to the other. Republicans, meanwhile, are a total mess when it comes to healthcare. Republicans don't know what to do. One day Trump floats a so-called healthcare plan. The next day, Speaker Johnson forces him to shoot it down. Some Republicans say they want to dismantle the ACA--probably a majority of them in the House and a large number in the Senate--just dismantle it altogether. Other Republicans seem more focused on eradicating reproductive care in every State than helping people afford healthcare. The bottom line is, Republicans are in total disarray on healthcare. And while Republicans continue the infighting, who is paying the price? The American people, the people whose premiums are going up by $500 to $1,000 a month. These people know that Trump and the Republicans are to blame. America, we all know, is in a healthcare crisis, and Republicans are only adding fuel to the fire. Democrats have been clear from the start: The first step--the first step--to solve this crisis is extending the ACA tax credits. Democrats are ready to do so. We are united, and we are committed to lowering the cost of healthcare. Republicans, however, by their own admission, are nowhere on healthcare, and that is a disastrous message to send to the American people who are suffering from skyrocketing healthcare costs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 201 (Tuesday, December 2, 2025) BIDEN ADMINISTRATION

Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2882. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The motion was agreed to. Motion to Reconsider

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2882. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 161 (Wednesday, October 1, 2025) CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. President, finally, on the nomination of Bedford to the FAA, later this evening, Senate Republicans will vote to advance Donald Trump's nominee to lead the FAA, Bryan Bedford. To say that Mr. Bedford is a deeply flawed nominee would be putting it mildly. Throughout his career as an airline executive and during his hearing, Mr. Bedford has shown a callous disregard for the 1,500-hour rule and even refused to commit to protecting the rule if confirmed. I worked long and hard with the families of Flight 3407, years ago, to establish the 1,500-hour rule after they lost all their loved ones on a tragic plane crash that occurred on a winter's night in Western New York. They have worked so hard, and they are so proud of their accomplishments. In the face of unspeakable loss, they worked relentlessly to change America's aviation laws to prevent a tragedy like that that happened to their families. Today, the 1,500-hour rule is the gold standard for pilot training. So affirming the 1,500-hour rule should be the easiest thing in the world for someone nominated to oversee the FAA, but Mr. Bedford failed again and again to do so. Weakening the 1,500-hour rule is dangerous and could cost lives. With aviation safety top of mind, Americans don't want pilots with less training, which would happen if the 1,500-hour rule were not extended, were repealed or not enforced. Americans don't want the FAA weakening safety standards, but I fear that is precisely what Mr. Bedford will do: weaken the 1,500-hour rule, weaken safety standards, and prioritize profits over passenger safety. The American people deserve far better than an FAA Administrator who isn't fully committed to their safety. The Senate should reject Mr. Bedford's nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Democratic whip. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 117 (Tuesday, July 8, 2025) WHISTLEBLOWERS

Mr. President, is it true that the Parliamentarian advised leadership offices that the joint resolutions of disapproval regarding the California waivers at issue does not qualify for expedited consideration under the Congressional Review Act? The PRESIDING OFFICER. While the chair has no personal knowledge of those circumstances, the Parliamentarian has advised me that such advice was given. Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. Before I yield, I want everyone to understand what the essence of my question was. This week, the Republicans want to use a legislative tool known as the CRA in an unprecedented way: to repeal emissions waivers that the fossil fuel industry has long detested. The CRA has never been used to go after emission waivers like the ones in question today. The waiver is so important to the health of our country, and particularly to our children, to go nuclear on something as significant as this and to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry is outrageous. And we just heard in response to my inquiry just now that the Parliamentarian affirmed this, that these California waivers are not-- not--eligible for the expedited procedures that the CRA affords. That means that legislation to repeal these waivers should be subject to a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. To use the CRA in the way that Republicans propose is going nuclear--no ands, ifs, or buts. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. Clean Air Act

Mr. President, before my colleagues vote on the next vote, Linda McMahon's nomination for Secretary of Education, they should remember that a vote for Mrs. McMahon is a vote for draconian cuts to education and rising property taxes for middle-class and suburban American families. That is why I am so proud that every Democrat will vote no to stand up for our schools, for our kids, for our teachers, for public education, and to prevent property taxes from going up further. Donald Trump is clear. He wants to eliminate the Department and push never-before-seen cuts to public schools. Mrs. McMahon will make that happen. Her whole background is anti-public schools. When you slash Federal funding for education, it leads to higher taxes back home. So many of our school districts--they could be urban, suburban, or rural--depend on Federal funding, and when you cut that, it leads to higher property taxes to make up for the loss of money. Communities will also be forced to slash other programs, including helping disabled kids, for funding for the schools. This is not what the American people want. This is not what they bargained for. The Senate should reject Mrs. McMahon because funding cuts for schools, students, parents, and teachers all for the sake of billionaire tax breaks--whose kids probably don't go to public schools--is an awful idea. I am proud every Democrat will vote no. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 40 (Monday, March 3, 2025) EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville). The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.] YEAS--51 Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cornyn Cotton Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Mullin Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Wicker Young NAYS--47 Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden NOT VOTING--2 Cramer Tuberville The motion was agreed to. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2025) Mauritius and Chagos Islands Mr. President, I want to spend 5 minutes talking about another subject because President Trump tomorrow has a very important meeting with Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom. This is the Indian Ocean. You have heard me talk about this. A group of islands right here are the Chagos Islands. This is China over here. Down here is another group of islands called Mauritius that I will talk about in a second. Why do I talk about the Chagos Islands? Well, from 1715 to 1810, the Chagos Islands were owned by France. In 1814, France gave the Chagos Islands to the United Kingdom. At the time, the United Kingdom--after France gave the islands to them--not only owned the Chagos Islands, but the United Kingdom also owned Mauritius. The United Kingdom administered both the Chagos Islands and Mauritius from headquarters in Mauritius. Mauritius never owned the Chagos Islands--never. They were always owned either by France or by the United Kingdom, which owns them today. The only connection Mauritius had with the Chagos Islands was that the United Kingdom owned both at the same time and administered the two groups of islands from headquarters in Mauritius. After the United Kingdom acquired the Chagos Islands here, the United States of America built one of the most important military bases in the world on one of the islands called the Diego Garcia--hugely important. The United Kingdom helped, but we put up most of the money. Now, Mr. Starmer, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has decided that he wants to give the Chagos Islands, with our military base, to Mauritius. He wants to give it to them. We said: Wait a minute. We have a military base here. What about our military base? Mr. Starmer says: Well, I am going to give all of the islands, including the military base, to Mauritius--even though Mauritius never owned them. Now that Mauritius owns them, we are going to pay Mauritius $9 billion over time--I want to be fair, over time--for a military base that we built. What? Why? Well, I will tell you why. Prime Minister Starmer feels guilty because the United Nations--actually, it is not the United Nations; rather, a group called the International Court of Justice, which is loosely affiliated with the United Nations, issued a ruling that criticized the United Kingdom for actually owning the Chagos Islands. They said: United Kingdom, you are an anti-colonialist. You should feel guilty, you should feel bad, and you need give the Chagos Islands away. You need to give them to Mauritius even though Mauritius never owned them. That is what is going on. That is all that is going on. Now, how did this get started? The Prime Minister of Mauritius--his name was Prime Minister Jugnauth--sued in the International Court of Justice--he sued the United Kingdom. He said: Give me Mauritius and the military base. He filed a lawsuit. The International Court of Justice, based in the Netherlands, issued a ruling in Mauritius's favor. It is an advisory opinion. It is not binding on anybody. But Mr. Jugnauth got what he wanted on behalf of Mauritius. A few weeks later, Prime Minister Jugnauth got beat, and he was replaced by a new Prime Minister, whose name is Prime Minister Ramgoolam. Prime Minister Ramgoolam said: Not only do I want the Mauritius Islands, you are not paying us enough, United Kingdom and America. According to news reports, he wants not only 9 billion, he wants 18 billion for our own military base. He said: We will lease you the base that you built, which we, Mauritius, now own, back to you, but you have to give us between $9 and $18 billion. Isn't that special? Isn't that special? That is what is going on. Now, there is one other thing you need to know. Mauritius is very close to China. Mauritius has a very lucrative trade agreement with China, and you might be surprised to learn that after all of this has been developing, China all of a sudden is Mauritius's best friend. Do you know why? Because if Prime Minister Starmer does this, Mauritius is going to own the base. They are going to own the base. Now, Prime Minister Starmer is going to meet with President Trump tomorrow to try to talk President Trump into agreeing to this. The Prime Minister of the U.K. has already said: If President Trump is not comfortable with me giving away an American military base--I want to giggle when I say that--if President Trump is not comfortable, I won't do it. Here is what the Prime Minister is going to tell President Trump tomorrow. He is going to say, No. 1: Mr. President, we need to do this because it is the right thing to do. The United Nations' International Court of Justice, which is comprised of a bunch of weeny wokers, has issued an advisory opinion saying that we and the United Kingdom should feel guilty because we used to own Colonies. Prime Minister Starmer is going to say: Mr. President, we need to give these islands away and your military base, Mr. President, because it is the right thing to do. The second thing he is going to tell the President is that if we don't do it, China is going to get really mad. He is going to say: China is going to get really mad if we don't do this. The third thing he is going to tell the President is that if we don't do this, the United Nations could cut off the telecommunications for our military base--like the United Nations is going to all a sudden, out of the blue, cut off the spectrum and the telecommunications for an American military base. They have no jurisdiction to do that, and they also don't have the oranges to do that. There is one other thing I want to mention. I didn't mean to go on this long, but this is an important meeting the President is having. Remember I told you about the Prime Minister who started all this, Prime Minister Jugnauth? He got beat--you will recall me saying it--in 2024. A few weeks ago, former Prime Minister Jugnauth was arrested. He was arrested for money laundering. The Mauritius authorities searched his house and the home of one of his closest associates, and do you know what they found? They found $25 million in cash in various currencies. They found Rolex watches, they found Cartier watches, and they found United Kingdom visas. I am not saying that they are connected, but it is mighty interesting. Here is what one of the generals who formerly worked for President Trump has said about this deal that stinks to high heavens--GEN Herbert McMaster: Mr. President, it would put us, the United States, at a significant strategic disadvantage, especially at a time when China is trying to gain control of critical terrain and chokepoints around the world in this effort to create new spheres of influence. So to President Trump, my President, tonight I say: Don't do it, Mr. President. Please don't do it. I don't care what Prime Minister Starmer promises you. The only reason he is doing this is because he feels guilty because the United Nations has said that the United Kingdom should be ashamed of its history and ashamed that it at one time owned Colonies. People of the United Kingdom can feel what they want. That is none of my business. But we have an American military base there, and it is very important to defend the Indian Ocean against China. Please, Mr. President--please, President Trump--don't let Prime Minister Starmer talk you into giving away an American military base that we need to combat China to another country that never owned it just because Prime Minister Starmer feels guilty. I am sorry he feels guilty. He needs to go buy an emotional support pony. But he doesn't need to give away an American military base. Mr. Trump, President Trump, please don't agree to this. That is it. I am out of gas. My work here is done. This is important, this meeting with Prime Minister Starmer tomorrow. I don't want to lose a military base we need. So I appreciate your indulgence. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2025) LEGISLATIVE SESSION ______ MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. President, I know I spoke a little while ago on Tulsi Gabbard, but I feel so strongly, I just wanted to make one last plea to my Republican colleagues. In a moment, the Senate will vote to confirm Tulsi Gabbard as the next Director of National Intelligence. Every single Democrat, I am really proud to say, will oppose this awful nomination because we simply cannot, in good conscience, trust our most classified secrets to someone who echoes Russian propaganda and falls for conspiracy theories. It is hard to believe, of all the talented and capable people, that this is the person nominated. It is a person who has said things like: The Ukraine invasion was caused by the United States, not by Putin. It is somebody who has denied Assad's use of chemical weapons, despite all of the intelligence. It is someone who echoes Russian propaganda and falls for crazy conspiracy theories. I say to my Republican colleagues, please think once again about this nomination. This endangers our security. And my guess is, if a secret ballot were cast on Tulsi Gabbard, maybe she would get 10 votes. You all know how bad she is. And so I know that people feel they want to please the President in his nomination, but there are certain times you have to buck and stand up and say: No, this is just a very bad choice for America. And the nomination of Ms. Gabbard is simply one of those. I plead with my colleagues--I know it is the last minute--to think twice, to vote no, as we all will vote, because this is such an awful nomination, who will endanger our national security and our intelligence operations throughout the country and the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz). Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) is necessarily absent. The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.] YEAS--52 Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Collins Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McConnell McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Mullin Murkowski Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Wicker Young NAYS--46 Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey Merkley Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden NOT VOTING--2 Cruz Fetterman The motion was agreed to. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2025) EXECUTIVE CALENDAR