Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Age 21 Act, a vital piece of legislation aimed at reducing gun violence and enhancing the safety of all Americans.

The Age 21 Act would prohibit the sale of assault weapons, large- capacity ammunition, and related items to individuals under the age of 21.

However, this bill includes reasonable exceptions to allow temporary transfer or possession of assault weapons for specific activities, such as recreational use or work-related responsibilities, including Active military service.

Every American has the right to live free from the fear of gun violence. Yet this epidemic continues to devastate our communities, claiming over 46,000 lives in 2023 alone, the third-highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded. This ongoing crisis demands urgent and meaningful action.

Assault weapons--engineered for military purposes--are designed to inflict maximum damage in the shortest amount of time. Unsurprisingly, they are frequently chosen by those who perpetrate mass violence. Their deadly impact is tragically evident in many of our Nation's darkest moments.

In 2022, an 18-year-old gunman in Uvalde, TX, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 19 children and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School. In 2018, a 19-year-old gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, murdered 17 students and staff members with an AR-15 rifle. And in 2012, a 20-year-old gunman used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 20 children and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

These are not isolated incidents but part of devastating pattern. Data shows that more than 85 percent of fatalities in public mass shootings involving four or more deaths are caused by assault rifles. The evidence is clear: These weapons amplify the scale of violence and loss of life.

Scientific research supports raising the minimum age for accessing such destructive weapons. Studies show that the human brain continues to develop into a person's mid-20s, particularly in areas related to impulse control, judgment, and long-term planning. Recognizing this, Federal law already restricts the purchase of alcohol and tobacco to individuals over 21, commonsense measures to protect public safety. Assault weapons, with their unparalleled potential for destruction, deserve no less consideration.

Americans deserve to feel safe in their schools, places of worship, and neighborhoods. By passing the Age 21 Act, we can take a meaningful step to reduce the availability of these deadly weapons to young individuals, helping to save lives and prevent future tragedies.

Public safety is a shared responsibility, and this bill represents an important measure to strengthen our collective efforts to combat gun violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working to pass the Age 21 Act as swiftly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act. This legislation aims to advance research into the use of hooved animal grazing as a tool for wildfire prevention, mitigation, and recovery.

Wildfires in the U.S. are becoming more frequent, intense, and destructive, posing significant threats to lives, ecosystems, and property. The economic and ecological costs of these fires are devastating. To mitigate future risks and support postfire recovery, we must adopt effective land management strategies. One promising and natural method is ungulate grazing, which has proven effective in reducing the fuel loads that exacerbate fire spread.

However, we still lack sufficient scientific understanding of how to optimize grazing practices for wildfire mitigation while avoiding potential environmental harms. Supporting this research will allow the Federal Government, as well as private landowners, to make grazing a core, cost-effective tool in wildfire prevention, working alongside other mitigation strategies to protect our landscapes, our communities, and our way of life.

Our bipartisan bill would add the Grazing for Wildfire Mitigation Initiative to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) High-Priority Research List. Specifically, this initiative would support research and development of ungulate grazing land management techniques that promote wildfire mitigation, fuels reduction, and postfire recovery. In addition, it would support information dissemination of ungulate grazing land management techniques that support wildfire mitigation to public and private landowners, land managers, and livestock owners.

I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Moran, Hirono, and Lankford for their leadership in introducing this bipartisan legislation with me. I urge my colleagues to support the Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act, and I look forward to working together to ensure our communities are better prepared to face the challenges posed by increasingly frequent and severe wildfires.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Age 21 Act, a vital piece of legislation aimed at reducing gun violence and enhancing the safety of all Americans.

The Age 21 Act would prohibit the sale of assault weapons, large- capacity ammunition, and related items to individuals under the age of 21.

However, this bill includes reasonable exceptions to allow temporary transfer or possession of assault weapons for specific activities, such as recreational use or work-related responsibilities, including Active military service.

Every American has the right to live free from the fear of gun violence. Yet this epidemic continues to devastate our communities, claiming over 46,000 lives in 2023 alone, the third-highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded. This ongoing crisis demands urgent and meaningful action.

Assault weapons--engineered for military purposes--are designed to inflict maximum damage in the shortest amount of time. Unsurprisingly, they are frequently chosen by those who perpetrate mass violence. Their deadly impact is tragically evident in many of our Nation's darkest moments.

In 2022, an 18-year-old gunman in Uvalde, TX, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 19 children and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School. In 2018, a 19-year-old gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, murdered 17 students and staff members with an AR-15 rifle. And in 2012, a 20-year-old gunman used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 20 children and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.

These are not isolated incidents but part of devastating pattern. Data shows that more than 85 percent of fatalities in public mass shootings involving four or more deaths are caused by assault rifles. The evidence is clear: These weapons amplify the scale of violence and loss of life.

Scientific research supports raising the minimum age for accessing such destructive weapons. Studies show that the human brain continues to develop into a person's mid-20s, particularly in areas related to impulse control, judgment, and long-term planning. Recognizing this, Federal law already restricts the purchase of alcohol and tobacco to individuals over 21, commonsense measures to protect public safety. Assault weapons, with their unparalleled potential for destruction, deserve no less consideration.

Americans deserve to feel safe in their schools, places of worship, and neighborhoods. By passing the Age 21 Act, we can take a meaningful step to reduce the availability of these deadly weapons to young individuals, helping to save lives and prevent future tragedies.

Public safety is a shared responsibility, and this bill represents an important measure to strengthen our collective efforts to combat gun violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working to pass the Age 21 Act as swiftly as possible.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act. This legislation aims to advance research into the use of hooved animal grazing as a tool for wildfire prevention, mitigation, and recovery.

Wildfires in the U.S. are becoming more frequent, intense, and destructive, posing significant threats to lives, ecosystems, and property. The economic and ecological costs of these fires are devastating. To mitigate future risks and support postfire recovery, we must adopt effective land management strategies. One promising and natural method is ungulate grazing, which has proven effective in reducing the fuel loads that exacerbate fire spread.

However, we still lack sufficient scientific understanding of how to optimize grazing practices for wildfire mitigation while avoiding potential environmental harms. Supporting this research will allow the Federal Government, as well as private landowners, to make grazing a core, cost-effective tool in wildfire prevention, working alongside other mitigation strategies to protect our landscapes, our communities, and our way of life.

Our bipartisan bill would add the Grazing for Wildfire Mitigation Initiative to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) High-Priority Research List. Specifically, this initiative would support research and development of ungulate grazing land management techniques that promote wildfire mitigation, fuels reduction, and postfire recovery. In addition, it would support information dissemination of ungulate grazing land management techniques that support wildfire mitigation to public and private landowners, land managers, and livestock owners.

I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Moran, Hirono, and Lankford for their leadership in introducing this bipartisan legislation with me. I urge my colleagues to support the Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act, and I look forward to working together to ensure our communities are better prepared to face the challenges posed by increasingly frequent and severe wildfires.

Mr. President, I, too, rise to oppose the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I can only hope that I am half as eloquent and moving as Senator Hassan has been not just here on the floor today but in committee during the confirmation hearing.

I oppose this nomination for his wildly misinformed beliefs and his utter lack of experience. I believe he is fundamentally unfit and unprepared, and Americans will be less healthy if he is confirmed.

Let's begin with, for years, he has made conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation his calling card, from false accusations that vaccines cause autism to lies that the COVID-19 virus targets specific racial groups. He has founded his own anti-vax organization, authored several books pushing public health conspiracies, and has made millions off anti-vax lawsuits. It all points to a dangerous principle at the core of Mr. Kennedy's beliefs: ``There's no vaccine that is safe and effective.''

As the Presiding Officer knows, my background is in engineering. I am not a scientist, but I am an engineer. As an engineer, I trust the experts who have spent their lives researching, conducting clinical trials, and collecting data.

Through the decades of life-changing discoveries and scientific breakthroughs, one thing has become increasingly, undeniably clear: The single best way to protect the Nation from viral disease is to get vaccinated. It is the reason why, today, hundreds of millions of Americans can live freely without having serious concerns of contracting polio, of contracting smallpox, or of contracting hepatitis.

That used to be a source of pride for the Nation, but in the face of all of the proven science--proven again and again science--Mr. Kennedy has chosen to profit off of fear, and countless parents are being misled into making dangerous decisions for their children.

Look, I get the fear. I am proud to represent California in the Senate, and I am proud to have an engineering background, but I, too, am a parent of three boys. I remember what it was like to hold a baby in your arms and to worry every time there was a sniffle and a cough. I would do anything to protect my children, just as you would do anything to protect yours. But where families have reasonable questions on everything from doctors to diets, Mr. Kennedy simply sees dollar signs.

Now, today, we find ourselves in yet another viral outbreak. A bird flu has shown some early signs of transmission to humans.

I can't think of a worse idea than to install an anti-vaxxer as Secretary of Health and Human Services. His beliefs alone make him unfit to lead HHS, but in addition to that, he is simply unprepared to lead.

Nearly 16 months ago, I was proud to cofound the bipartisan Senate Mental Health Caucus.

Thank you, Senator Tillis; thank you, Senator Ernst; and thank you, Senator Smith, for being cofounders of this caucus.

In the time since then, we have made some significant strides. But before Americans can ever reach out for help in a time of crisis, they have to know that they can access help. So that is on us to make sure that the support, the services, the programs are there for Americans when they need them. We know that Medicaid is the single largest payer of behavioral health services in the Nation.

So at a time when Republicans are looking to cut funding for lifesaving services, I would rather see a fierce defender of Medicaid at HHS. Yet, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Kennedy failed to show even a basic understanding of Medicaid--not the sources of funding, not the benefits. At one point, he even seemed to confuse Medicaid and Medicare.

Colleagues, I shouldn't have to say this: This is not a ``learn on the job'' nomination.

Well, President Trump knows just how unprepared Mr. Kennedy is for this job. Reporting from Semafor just a few days ago tells us that during Mr. Kennedy's confirmation hearing, President Trump was watching. He saw just how poorly the confirmation hearing was going for Mr. Kennedy. So what did President Trump do? He does what he does best. He leapt into action to distract and divide. He held a press conference simply to throw out the latest controversy to reporters, and it took the attention off and the pressure off of this dangerous nominee.

That is what we are up against, colleagues. Over the next several months, our Nation will face a critical test for some of the most important public health systems in our country.

In the House, Republicans are already floating cuts to Medicaid to pay for even more tax breaks for the rich.

In the White House, President Trump and his shadow president Musk have proven they will shutter any Agency that stands in their way.

Today, we are left wondering who will speak up to protect the health of millions of Americans? Unfortunately, Mr. Kennedy has already shown he is not up to the task.

So, colleagues, I urge you to join me in fighting to protect the health of our constituents and oppose the confirmation of Mr. Kennedy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in the strongest terms to oppose the nomination of Russell Vought to serve as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I do so not just for his poor performance and lack of transparency before the Senate Budget Committee during his confirmation hearing but because of his truly dangerous and damaging vision for the future of our country.

I will be very clear. If Russell Vought is confirmed to lead the Office of Management and Budget, it will be working families in America that pay the price. If he is confirmed, he will work to slash the social safety net, threaten Medicaid and SNAP benefits, and to balance the budget on the backs of our most vulnerable neighbors--all in service of cutting taxes for billionaires and for large corporations.

Let me start this morning by saying that if we were hoping for some sort of clarity or some commitment, some reassurance from Russell Vought during his confirmation process, we certainly weren't given much to work with.

During the confirmation hearing--and, yes, I am a member of the Budget Committee--at best, he was not responsive to our questions and inquiries. In fact, he was actually pretty evasive when asked some of the more pointed questions.

As I reflected on his testimony, I observed that it was what he didn't say that spoke volumes. It told us everything that we needed to know about the dangers of reinstating him to this hugely important and consequential position.

Other Trump nominees at other confirmation hearings in other committees that I have been a part of, at a minimum, they committed--at least they uttered the words--that they would respect the Constitution and abide by the law. That should be the bare minimum for someone seeking Senate confirmation for any position that is to serve the American people. That is the minimum. But Mr. Vought couldn't even do that. He refused to commit to follow the law as it pertains to implementing the spending plan and priorities established by Congress-- including us, colleagues. We are the U.S. Senate.

Why would he refuse to commit to that fundamental premise? Because if he were to do that, he would be lying under oath. He made it abundantly clear that, as Director of OMB, he has every intention of ignoring the laws passed by Congress, including the spending plans. He has been very explicit about that.

Now, if this was any other nominee by any other President and he refused to make such a commitment, we might be left wondering about what his true priorities are, what his true agenda is. But, for better and for worse, Russell Vought has already shown us exactly what he intends to do. We don't need to deal in hypothetical scenarios when it comes to him.

For starters, he has served as head of the Office of Management and Budget before, you will recall, during the first Trump administration. In that time, in that capacity, on multiple occasions, he illegally froze congressionally appropriated funds and withheld taxpayer dollars in order to obey President Trump's political demands.

And, even today, Russell Vought has already restarted this effort, as unlawful as it is--restarted this effort even though he hasn't even yet been confirmed by the Senate. He has already played a central role in OMB's attempt to withhold funding these last couple of weeks--funding for programs including Head Start that so many families across the country rely on, withhold funding for job assistance programs for our veterans--yes, veterans, the very women and men that we honor for their willingness to serve, their willingness to pay the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country, who need our assistance. And when they return home from service, that is who he is going after?

He has withheld funds from countless other programs that working families across the country rely on. His actions in these last couple of weeks have plunged not just the Federal Government but, frankly, the country and our financial markets into chaos and confusion. And like I said, he hasn't even been confirmed yet, and this is what is already happening.

But, colleagues, if these early signals weren't enough for you to grasp what he is capable of, what he is hell-bent on doing, if you are wondering what else he may have in mind and in store for the OMB, I guess you are in luck because he literally wrote a playbook for what he intends to do. I invite you all and folks watching at home, if you haven't done so already, to go to project2025.org. And as you call up this playbook, as you call up this agenda, you will see that he is one of the key authors.

And while President Trump claims he hasn't had a chance to review his Budget Director's vision for the administration, and while many Members of this body might have been a little too busy these last several months to read it for themselves, let me try to help by giving you just a very, very brief summary, some of the key points, because when you boil it down, the main goals of Project 2025--as the authors, including Mr. Vought, have expressed--are this: No. 1, give the office of the President of the United States unprecedented power; No. 2: to use that power to slash the rest of government in order to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations.

It is that simple. That is their goal. That is their objective. That is their agenda. They want an unchecked President to gut investments-- investments that Congress directs to help working families--in order to give even bigger tax breaks for big corporations and billionaires-- billionaires, by the way, just like the ones he surrounded himself with in his inauguration.

It is not a secret. It is not a veiled attempt. It is blatant. It is out in the open. They are literally working to steal from the poor to give more to the rich. That is the Trump agenda, and that is all that Russell Vought is working toward.

But again, colleagues, don't just take my word for it. Let's look at the record. It is easy to chalk up these first couple of weeks of the second Trump administration just to chaos. That is how they operate. We have known this. We have seen it coming.

Well, it certainly has been chaotic. Some of that chaos may be due to incompetence. I think a lot of it is very, very intentional, and clearly a lot of it is due to an utter lack of empathy. But what is intentional is chaos by design. You have heard these terms. They are proud of it: Flood the zone. Traumatize Federal workers.

Yes, they said it. I will come back to that in a couple of minutes. But they have sought distractions from the scale of what they are trying to do. So, through it all, to my colleagues and to the Nation, I urge us all to keep our eyes on the ball. See the Trump administration exactly for what it is and who they are. To understand this administration, you simply have to understand their single biggest objective: huge handouts to the largest corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

President Trump is trying to one-up his first term. His signature legislative accomplishment wasn't infrastructure improvements, as much as he tried to talk about that. It wasn't increasing access to healthcare or quality of healthcare. In fact, they worked so hard to try to take it away. The single biggest accomplishment of President Trump's first administration was record deficits brought to you by record tax breaks for the wealthy and by cutting the corporate tax rate by 14 percent, from 35 percent down to 21 percent. That is right; he was giving huge tax breaks to corporations to increase their profit margins. And it is not that they weren't making money. They were making plenty of money. Who wasn't making plenty of money were the workers who made those profits possible. The wage growth wasn't what American workers deserved it to be.

Now, that was the first Trump administration. We have just begun the second Trump administration, where you would think that maybe, just maybe, they would work hard on making good on their campaign theme or campaign pledge--whatever you want to call it--of putting ``America first.''

I would love to see it. They could put America first if they chose to invest in our education system and to help educate and train our future workforce in ways that would grow our economy in the years and decades ahead. Or they could put America first by tackling the high cost of housing and grocery prices.

But no, that is not what they are doing. They are right back to focusing on tax breaks for corporations by hundreds of billions of dollars. It is the only thing that President Trump is about, frankly. Look at his record. Look at his life. He wants to make life even easier for himself, for his family, for his wealthy friends, for the top not just 1 percent but the top 0.1 percent of America.

But you can't just give these tax breaks away for free. You have got to pay for them somehow. Somebody has got to fund them. So in order to pay for these tax breaks, the administration is determined to cut as much spending from our communities and our most vulnerable as they can. Like I said, they are not even hiding it anymore.

On the campaign trail, President Trump enjoyed playing dress-up at McDonald's and staging photo ops with garbage trucks, but on day one of his administration, who did he surround himself with? Not a fast-food worker, not a sanitation worker, not an autoworker, whom he claimed to reach out to in recent years, or a steelworker, as much as he wants to champion blue-collar workers in the Midwest. No, he chose to surround himself with the richest men in the country--some of the richest men in the world.

Remember his inauguration? They were right there in the front row. You recognize the names: Zuckerberg, Bezos, Musk.

To hard-working Americans who may have voted for him in November, I am sorry to tell you, he used you. He used you for your votes. He got what he needed from you, and now he and Russell Vought are about to make you pay.

For an idea of what the next 4 years with Russell Vought and Donald Trump in charge will mean, let's review again these last couple of weeks. It has been decision after decision after decision following Russell Vought and Project 2025's playbook: Empower the President, and then enrich themselves and their wealthy friends.

Now, we have long known that this President could not care less about the guardrails put in place in our Constitution. Since when has he cared about what is constitutional or not?

But after the Supreme Court granted him blanket immunity, he is using his newfound powers to eliminate any opposition or dissent around him.

From day one in the second administration, President Trump has used his powers to seek retribution against anyone he perceives as a political enemy. And he sought to undermine and threaten any potential opposition. On day one, he issued 1,500 pardons for the January 6 rioters, if you want to call them that. Insurrectionists is what I call them. Folks who desecrated this U.S. Capitol, who attacked law enforcement officers in an attempt to overthrow an election.

The last couple of weeks, he has begun to investigate and fire professional career prosecutors at the Department of Justice who did their duty when asked to investigate the crimes committed on January 6 of 2021, prosecutors who were required--when assigned to--required to investigate insurrection, sedition, violence against law enforcement personnel. Serious crimes, folks, serious crimes.

President Trump's team even sent out a survey to members of the FBI regarding their involvement in January 6 investigations. Now, just this week, CNN reported:

FBI turns over details of 5,000 employees who worked on

January 6 cases to Trump Justice Department, as agents sue.

And:

President Trump has illegally fired 18 inspectors general

and over a dozen career prosecutors from the special

counsel's office who worked under Jack Smith to investigate

and prosecute criminal actions from his first term in office.

It is still early in the second administration, but the message is already crystal clear. President Trump will threaten anyone who might show a willingness to hold him accountable for his actions. It is the same reason why he is not just firing folks, but he is installing loyalists at the Department of Justice, especially at the FBI, so that no one will dare tell him no.

Now, how do we know these are loyalists? The newly sworn in Attorney General of the United States has served as President Trump's personal attorney. Well, people say there is a conflict there, just delegate it to the Deputy Attorney General. So who might that be? Oh, surprise, surprise, another former personal attorney. Where will the conflicts end?

But, of course, there is still dedicated public servants out there willing to do what is right, even if that means standing up to Trump. But it is, indeed, getting harder and harder.

Now, earlier this week, the New York Times reported that the head of the FBI's New York office wrote to his colleagues and vowed to dig in-- that is what he wrote, ``dig in,'' in the face of this assault. Not just on law enforcement personnel but Justice.

He wrote:

Today, we find ourselves in the middle of a battle of our

own, as good people are being walked out of the FBI, and

others are being targeted because they did their jobs in

accordance with the law and FBI policy.

That is what is happening, retribution for folks who were doing their job, just because President Trump doesn't like it, fears the consequences and accountability. And even if it was just at the FBI, even if it was just at the Department of Justice, it would be cause for alarm; but a similar trend is happening across Departments and Agencies not involved in our Nation's law enforcement.

When President Nixon fired just a fraction of these numbers, it was called the Saturday Night Massacre, and it led to his resignation. In comparison, I can't help but note that what President Trump is doing is not a Saturday Night Massacre; it was a January massacre.

And as astonished as I am, about what President Trump is trying to do, I am equally astonished at Senate Republicans who are standing by and watching it happen, letting it happen--letting it unfold as if you have no choice, as if you have no power.

They are unlike their Republican predecessors who had the courage and the moral compass to recognize the harm that a President could do to the country and to tell President Nixon that enough was enough.

The Trump administration is hoping to force out thousands of experienced career Federal workers who have served both Democratic and Republican administrations, so that he can replace them with people whose only qualification is blind loyalty.

We have heard about the loyalty tests, right, that he required of folks who wanted to be considered for appointments. President Trump is attempting to twist the U.S. Code to redefine what nonpolitical career workers are, to give him even more power to fire and torment our Federal Government workforce. One of the ways he has initiated this effort is by trying to offer a buyout or a severance to nearly all Federal workers, hoping that nonloyalists would choose to leave rather than stay and be tormented.

He is doing this, by the way, with absolutely no authority to do so. I focus on this point because it truly hits home for us in California. For Federal firefighters who have spent the first month of this year working 24-hour shifts battling life-threatening fires in Los Angeles County, they returned home--not just Federal firefighters from California, but from a number of States. They returned home to find a message from President Trump.

Now, you would think after weeks of 24-hour shifts fighting these life-threatening fires, that they would come home to a thank you message from the President of their country.

That wasn't the case. The message they came home to was a request for their resignation. How outrageous. How insulting. How offensive. So much so that I think it is worth repeating just a couple of the messages that I received from Federal firefighters who reached out after these buyout offers went out.

The first:

It's hard to put into words just how disrespectful this

feels to any civil servant, but especially to someone who has

given so much. Sacrificing precious time away from family,

risking everything for the greater good.

Another reads:

Today I returned home after a two-week fire assignment in

California. A slew of executive orders over this past week

have put myself and a lot of others on edge. I am worried for

my livelihood and my future. A purge of Federal wildlife

firefighters will have catastrophic outcomes. Our fire

seasons are only getting longer. Neighbors continue to expand

well into wild landscapes. We cannot control when a fire will

choose to wreak havoc on a community, but we will show up. We

want to show up.

Can't help but see it the way they see it. This is a slap in the face to Federal firefighters, and it is a gut punch to the confidence and the pride that so many dedicated Federal workers have in the job that they do.

But I will remind us again that that is exactly what Russell Vought wants. He has said--and I will quote him:

We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When

they wake up in the morning, we want them to not go to work

because they are increasingly viewed as the villains.

And:

We want to put them in trauma.

Let me repeat that last sentence.

We want to put them in trauma.

This is Russell Vought, on behalf of President Trump, speaking:

We want to put them in trauma.

Let that sink in. What kind of person says that about the people that they are preparing to work with and about the workers who they will be responsible for?

We want to put them in trauma.

What kind of person wants to inflict trauma on anybody else? Is that really the kind of person you put in charge of the Office of Management and Budget, the nerve center of our Federal Government?

Now, clearly, in Russell Vought and Donald Trump's governments, you are not rewarded for your love of country and service to country or for standing up for the Constitution; in fact, you are punished, and you will be made to suffer. And by purging the Federal Government to make way for loyalists, the Trump administration is trying to further protect a reckless President from any accountability for his actions.

President Trump's goal remains clear. He wants to destroy the founding principles of our country. He wants to eliminate the separation of powers, the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution, and to strip Congress--yes, one of the three coequal branches of government--of its power. That is not an exaggeration. Congress, particularly those involved with the appropriations process, know and respect the power of the purse. Congress, of course, has the power to create laws. And Congress has an important power to conduct meaningful oversight to serve as a check on a Presidency and an administration, just as the Founding Fathers intended.

After all, the United States was created fleeing a dictatorship. We chose better: a democracy where the power lies in the people and the Congress representatives of the people. And between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, checks and balances. Let's not let power become overly concentrated.

Well, despite President Trump's attempts and Russell Vought's enabling of further concentration of power, no matter what President Trump wants to believe, Congress, the President, and the courts are coequal branches of government.

Yet at the start of the President's second term, once again, we have also received calls from officials in our Nation's health Agencies because they had to abruptly cancel meetings. Now with every new administration, we might expect a temporary pause on some external communication, right? There is often some legitimate transition activity. So if there is a pause or a momentary stop to social media communications--FaceBook and Twitter, maybe--that is one thing. But to deny Congress and the American people important information on public health? That is truly dangerous.

But, sadly, again, it seems that our Republican colleagues are simply unwilling to exercise their constitutional authority.

I am 51. Now that may not be considered old by Senate standards, but I am old enough to remember when Republicans used to be concerned about Presidential overreach. And it wasn't that long ago. Like in 2017, when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions called former President Obama an emperor for his use of Executive actions--Jeff Sessions, former Member of this body, as attorney general using the word ``emperor'' in describing President Obama's use of Executive actions. Or when former Speaker Paul Ryan referred to President Obama's Executive orders on gun safety as ``a dangerous level of executive overreach.'' The Republican leader in the House, Speaker at the time, saying it was Executive overreach.

It wasn't that long ago. And so I can't help but ask: What has changed? What has changed?

Just 8 years later, in 2025, the Republican party is clearly the party of Donald Trump. And with more power in the hands of the President to gut the Federal Government, are Republicans willing to serve as accomplices in selling out hard-working Americans in order to pay for this big tax break for billionaires and large corporations? That is the question.

Now let's take a minute to look at who is running point for Donald Trump these days. Now, before he was sworn in for a second term as President, Trump happily handed over the keys to the government to the richest man in the world. Elon Musk paid nearly $300 million to help elect Donald Trump, and now that wager is paying off in spades. The richest President in history is now allowing the richest man in the world to find ways to cut funding from the American people. And they will lie to your face when they claim they are returning power to the people. Because if you were to ask ``Which people?'' they certainly don't mean average, everyday, hard-working Americans. They are putting power and wealth further and further into the billionaire class.

That is right. Trump has now handed shadow President Elon Musk control of

your Social Security payments, your Medicare benefits and Medicaid benefits, the government programs that you paid into to help you in retirement--the retirement that you earned. That is all at risk now.

And now Elon Musk has access to the sensitive data for hundreds of millions of Americans. He has your bank account information. He has your tax data. He has your Social Security number. He has your home address.

To be clear, no law has passed to create this so-called Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, and no law was passed, certainly, to give it any authority to make spending decisions, to shut down programs, or ignore Federal law. So we should all be concerned as Musk gives recent college graduates who now work for him full rein over Treasury's servers and payment programs.

If Treasury payments were ever intentionally or even unintentionally stopped, it could paralyze our economy, and it would stop people's Social Security benefits. Now, most people that I know truly rely on their Social Security to get by.

So let's be clear. For Donald Trump and Elon Musk, this has never really been about government efficiency. It is about a government takeover to steal from the American people and further enrich themselves and their friends.

It is the very same reason, by the way, that they are attacking USAID, illegally dismantling an Agency that Congress created, working to end humanitarian assistance. Dictators around the world are celebrating. China, opening its arms, as Trump forces our allies to look somewhere else for partnership and support.

Colleagues, USAID was created by Congress, has been annually invested in by Congress--including your votes.

President Trump, Russell Vought's philosophy: Who cares what they did. We are going to do what we want. Keep telling us over and over and over again. They are standing by, letting him do it.

Now we hear that the Department of Education might be in Elon Musk's crosshairs next, with Donald Trump promising to abolish the Department as a whole. Think about that. Threatening support for millions of our students and further holding back a generation of children who have already suffered interruptions through a pandemic and who can't afford more instability?

It all begs the question: Who is really in control here? Who is calling the shots? Is it Donald Trump? Or is it Elon Musk?

Well, today, I say to you that to working families, it doesn't matter. Neither one of them is looking out for them.

And, again, this is exactly what Russell Vought has envisioned: billionaires cutting support for American families to make room for even more benefits for the rich. And his fingerprints are already all over Donald Trump's earliest steps to cut funding.

Now, as I mentioned, even before he was confirmed--and he is still not confirmed--Vought had a hand in a constitutional crisis just last week when President Trump issued a governmentwide funding freeze. He hoped to withhold hundreds of billions of dollars from social safety net programs that Americans have paid into, all to lay the groundwork for his billionaire tax cuts.

These Federal programs might not mean much to the wealthiest people in the country, but they mean a lot--a lot--to hard-working families across the country.

In California alone, State agencies and local governments were blocked from accessing Medicaid and housing assistance grant portals. The director of a grant-funded program, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, supporting victims of violent crime--is that who we are trying to look out for? The local prosecutors working to protect victims of violent crime were concerned about the future of their work because Federal funding had been frozen--who knew for how long.

Funding for research on cures for childhood cancer was threatened. Colleagues, childhood cancer. We are trying to find a cure, not freeze them out of hope.

Local commuter rail officials in Sonoma raised concerns about their ability to continue to service the community if outstanding Federal funding was frozen. This is the kind of service that people rely on to get to work, keep our economy going. Funding freezes make it difficult to do that.

The city of Vacaville was worried about potential impacts to their housing authority and vouchers. Head Start grantees were frozen out of their Federal payment management systems. Health centers in San Francisco met to assess their ability to provide services if grant funding and Medicare reimbursements were frozen.

The Oakland Fire Department raised alarm bells about having to cut staff if an outstanding FEMA grant to support pay for 35 firefighters was paused. Northern California, Central California has seen what fires have done to Southern California. They don't want the same. Yet we are going to jeopardize firefighter staffing? Really?

Not to mention President Trump is still holding up hundreds of billions of dollars that were promised for key infrastructure projects in California, and communities are losing confidence that they will ever see that money. And I will cite just two examples: The city of Tracy was awarded $41 million for a key infrastructure grant that would create good-paying jobs, but now they may never see that money. The LOSSAN rail corridor that connects San Diego to Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo--I know you all love that part of the California coastline. The LOSSAN rail corridor was promised $27 million to help improve service along that route. Now that is in jeopardy. I know this one well, this corridor. There are great plans in the works, not just for efficiency, improved service, but improved safety. Imagine that--improving the safety of the rail lines in America. But no. You all are OK with stopping that work.

Now, although President Trump has threatened to block hundreds of billions of dollars to support families recovering from catastrophic fires, law enforcement agencies that we rely on to keep us safe, and the children and families who depend on Federal childcare and nutrition programs--that is what they are doing.

I know some of you have said: Well, that order has been frozen, so we shouldn't worry.

Technically, the OMB funding freeze order has been halted by the courts--not by choice, by the courts--for now. We know that the fight is far from over. This is just their first attempt in this administration, not their final attempt. And we know because this is exactly what President Trump and Russell Vought want--a constitutional crisis to give the President more power and to make way for those billionaire tax breaks that you guys are so hell-bent on. That is their plan for our families, for our Constitution, for our country.

Here is another tool they have. They will use immigration and other culture wars to divide us because if we are fighting amongst ourselves, Trump and his ultrawealthy friends will just be helping themselves to tax breaks. They will try to overwhelm the system to enrich themselves, whether it is legal or not, because they are banking on us being distracted by culture wars.

In fact, look at just how much has been struck down by Federal judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. This isn't a partisan deal. How much has been struck down already just weeks into this administration? One judge has already enjoined President Trump's blatantly unconstitutional Executive order on birthright citizenship. Not one but two judges have enjoined the OMB spending freeze. Two Federal judges also enjoined his Executive order on transgender prison inmates. And that is just in the last week. Multiple suits have also been brought challenging his illegal purge of the Federal workforce and his attempts to interfere with USAID.

So we know that President Trump and his billionaire friends are only in it for themselves. That has been well established. They have shown us exactly who they are for years now.

But colleagues, I have to admit that what surprises me most--what surprises me most--is that what I hear from my Republican colleagues one on one is: Well, we agree on more than you think. Let's just keep talking. Let's work to try to find this common ground. Let's do what is right for our country.

Call me an optimist, but I believe my Republican colleagues when they say they came to Washington to help their constituents.

Now, while I disagree with it, I understand that some of our colleagues are choosing to make political decisions with some of President Trump's nominees. You may be thinking about a potential reelection in 2026. Maybe you think it is just easier to stand up to Trump on an issue somewhere further down the road than right now.

But here is what surprises me: What is different with Russell Vought is that this is a nominee who embodies a larger vision about the Presidency and about the country that would fundamentally hurt your constituents too--not just our constituents, not just my constituents, all of our constituents. And it already has. This short-lived OMB funding freeze alone gave us a look at just some of the backlash from cutting a wildly popular social safety net.

So to my Republican colleagues, respectfully, I know you are getting the same calls as I am. I know you are hearing about the constituents whose lives have been made harder because of this. I know you are not blind to the real-world effects of Donald Trump and Russell Vought.

This week, I have had Californians come out in droves to my office encouraging me to oppose this nomination. They are demanding that the services they rely on be protected, and they are refusing to let Russell Vought pillage programs like Head Start, like Meals on Wheels, like so many others just so that the wealthiest Americans can get a bigger tax break.

So today, I will end with this: a question to my colleagues across the aisle. Who are you more loyal to--your own constituents or a reckless President? What are we doing in Washington if we are afraid to stand up for our States and for our constituents? Did any of you run for Senate to cut veterans' housing assistance? Did any of you run for Senate to slash school lunch programs and force kids to go hungry? Did any of you run for Senate to make it harder for communities to get support after a natural disaster and rebuild their home, to rebuild communities?

I may sound crazy when I suggest this, but I don't believe it is any political risk at all to stand up for your constituents. Even if you hesitate to speak out publicly against Trump's unprecedented power grab, at least join me in voting against Russell Vought and his dangerous world view. Don't let Trump's allegiance to billionaires crush your hard-working constituents because I won't stand for it as he attempts to crush mine.

I invite you, I encourage you, I implore you to do the right thing.

I yield the floor.

For California firefighters, I vote no.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildfire Intelligence Collaboration and Coordination Act of 2025.

This legislation would establish a joint wildfire intelligence center between the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of the Interior to foster

collaboration and increase wildfire response capabilities. The scale, size, and intensity for the wildfire crisis demands a singular, whole- of-government wildfire intelligence center. Such a center could compile comprehensive information on wildfires to better inform responses and inform wildfire recovery and streamline Federal wildfire response to ensure that States have a one-stop-shop within the federal government. This center would also increase monitoring and imaging capabilities that land management Agencies currently cannot achieve.

As we have seen with the destruction in Los Angeles, increasingly severe and frequent wildfires pose a significant to the whole Western United States. In recent years, huge wildfires have struck Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Hawaii, and my home State of California. Whether the fire was burning in your State or whether the smoke traveled and covered the skies of your State, the impacts of wildfires cannot be ignored.

As the West continues to suffer from devastating wildfires year after year, we must be proactive, and that includes coordinating across the Federal Government to meet the current challenge.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this necessary legislation to better coordinate fire responses and fire preparedness.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildfire Intelligence Collaboration and Coordination Act of 2025.

This legislation would establish a joint wildfire intelligence center between the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of the Interior to foster

collaboration and increase wildfire response capabilities. The scale, size, and intensity for the wildfire crisis demands a singular, whole- of-government wildfire intelligence center. Such a center could compile comprehensive information on wildfires to better inform responses and inform wildfire recovery and streamline Federal wildfire response to ensure that States have a one-stop-shop within the federal government. This center would also increase monitoring and imaging capabilities that land management Agencies currently cannot achieve.

As we have seen with the destruction in Los Angeles, increasingly severe and frequent wildfires pose a significant to the whole Western United States. In recent years, huge wildfires have struck Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Hawaii, and my home State of California. Whether the fire was burning in your State or whether the smoke traveled and covered the skies of your State, the impacts of wildfires cannot be ignored.

As the West continues to suffer from devastating wildfires year after year, we must be proactive, and that includes coordinating across the Federal Government to meet the current challenge.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this necessary legislation to better coordinate fire responses and fire preparedness.

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

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 26, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote aye.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, colleagues, I, too, rise today to oppose President Trump's nomination of Pamela Bondi to serve as Attorney General of the United States.

And I don't do it lightly.

After evaluating her record, as well as her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, it has sadly become clear to me that Ms. Bondi is either unwilling or unable to put her duty to the Constitution of the United States and her duty to the American people above her loyalty to President Trump. With a President now in office who has proven his complete disregard for the rule of law on numerous occasions, Pam Bondi is simply unfit to serve as our Nation's chief law enforcement officer.

Time and again, we have seen Ms. Bondi more than willing to go on national television and push President Trump's lies about the results of a free and fair election. Despite the facts, despite overwhelming evidence, she has chosen to lie to the American people in defense of Donald Trump.

Now, as I shared in committee during the confirmation hearing this very issue, offering her an opportunity to withdraw those statements that she made back in 2020, reminding my colleagues and anybody watching that the danger of her refusal isn't just that she is sticking to some political talking points--in fact, when it comes to the integrity of our elections, lies have become threats to our democracy, threats to voters, and threats to election workers who dedicate themselves to administering our free and fair elections.

To this day, she refuses to state the simple truth that Donald Trump lost in 2020. Colleagues, consider the fact that these same lies have led to her associate Rudy Giuliani being disbarred. Think about that contrast. Rudy Giuliani lied, and he is being disbarred for those actions. Pam Bondi--same lies--refuses to take them back, and now you want her to be the top law enforcement officer for the United States of America?

It is this very behavior that actually endears her to President Trump, and it

is the same reason why we cannot trust her to hold him accountable. If confirmed, Ms. Bondi will no doubt face far more daunting challenges to shield the Department of Justice and its professional civil servants from politics.

I mean, just look at President Trump's activities in the first couple of weeks in office. From his first day on the job--day one of his second term--he issued around 1,500 pardons for January 6 insurrectionists and commuted the sentences of 14 of his supporters, including those convicted of violence against police officers.

Let me say it again: The first day in office, Trump freed convicted violent criminals who pepper-sprayed and beat Capitol Police officers-- so much for ``Back the Blue.''

President Trump's appointees then proceeded to fire career Department of Justice lawyers involved in investigating and prosecuting him for his role in the January 6 insurrection and for his improper handling of classified documents. Now, the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has already promised to investigate the prosecutors who helped put violent insurrectionists behind bars.

None of this comes as a surprise. Before she was even selected, before the nomination was official, Ms. Bondi had already publicly promised to investigate the investigators, to prosecute the prosecutors.

And just this past Sunday, President Trump's Department of Justice demanded specific FBI staff fill out a questionnaire sharing what involvement they had in the January 6 cases. This is a tough environment for any Attorney General to walk into and to act independently, let alone someone who has already shown blind loyalty to President Trump over the rule of law.

But these past few weeks, I was struck most by the fact that, despite her having practiced law for decades, despite the fact that she served once as the attorney general for the State of Florida, Ms. Bondi was somehow unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and, specifically, its citizenship clause.

It shouldn't have come as a surprise. We talked about it in my office the day before the hearing. I let her know I was going to be asking her about it during the hearing. And when I gave her an opportunity during the hearing to discuss it, she simply refused to answer my questions, and now we know why.

In his very first day back in office, President Trump issued a blatantly unconstitutional Executive order seeking to strip birthright citizenship from American citizens--citizens born here in the United States.

Now, someone who still needs to study birthright citizenship surely won't be a champion in defending it. And I point that out because that is what Ms. Bondi said in response to my question that she would ``study'' it.

Think about that, colleagues. The top law enforcement officer in the United States needed to study the Constitution?

The American people need and deserve to be able to trust that the Department of Justice is enacting the law fairly, neutrally, and free from political interference. We need and deserve an Attorney General who will speak truth to power; push back against illegal, immoral, and unethical requests; someone who can be a credible messenger to the American people in a time of crisis; and someone who will defend not only the American people but the proud public servants who work within the Department and who are being purged in not a Saturday night massacre or a Monday massacre but a January massacre by President Trump.

To my colleagues today, I ask this: Do you believe Ms. Bondi will fight against retribution or enact it? Do you believe she will stand up to the administration's chaos or further enable it?

Colleagues, I don't believe Ms. Bondi is up to the task, and for that reason, I will oppose her nomination, and I urge all of you to join me.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Access to Counsel Act.

This legislation would ensure that all individuals with a legal right to be in the United States have access to legal counsel if they are held by Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry or at airports.

This legislation would ensure that individuals who have a legal right to be in the United States and are held by Customs and Border Protection in secondary inspection at airports or other points of entry for more than 1 hour are granted an opportunity to access legal counsel and an interested party. An interested party is defined as a family member, sponsor, or organization with a connection to the individual.

The bill creates no obligation for the Federal Government to pay for counsel and allows counsel the ability to advocate on behalf of the individual being held at a port of entry, including by providing information or documentation in support of the individual.

It also invalidates any effort by CBP to persuade a lawful permanent resident to relinquish their legal status if that person has been denied access to counsel or voluntarily waives in writing their right to counsel.

In 2017, under the first Trump administration, a Muslim ban was implemented, and thousands of U.S. citizens, green card holders, and others with valid visas were detained at airports for hours.

They were held by CBP officers without any ability to call a lawyer, relative, or advocate. Many Members of Congress rushed to the airports in an attempt to help these individuals and were barred from speaking to them or connecting them with attorneys.

In early 2020, for example, dozens of Iranian Americans were held at the northern border in Blaine, WA, for 12 hours without access to counsel.

Everyone who has valid travel documents and is seeking entry to the United States should be afforded due process. If CBP refers someone to secondary inspection, they should be able to call counsel, family, or someone to support them. It is imperative that we are prepared this time and ensure that Americans and those with a legal right to be here have access to representation if they are held at a port of entry.

With a second Trump administration beginning, we must be ready for similar policies to be implemented and be proactive about trying to place guardrails against these abuses.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Access to Counsel Act.

This legislation would ensure that all individuals with a legal right to be in the United States have access to legal counsel if they are held by Customs and Border Protection at ports of entry or at airports.

This legislation would ensure that individuals who have a legal right to be in the United States and are held by Customs and Border Protection in secondary inspection at airports or other points of entry for more than 1 hour are granted an opportunity to access legal counsel and an interested party. An interested party is defined as a family member, sponsor, or organization with a connection to the individual.

The bill creates no obligation for the Federal Government to pay for counsel and allows counsel the ability to advocate on behalf of the individual being held at a port of entry, including by providing information or documentation in support of the individual.

It also invalidates any effort by CBP to persuade a lawful permanent resident to relinquish their legal status if that person has been denied access to counsel or voluntarily waives in writing their right to counsel.

In 2017, under the first Trump administration, a Muslim ban was implemented, and thousands of U.S. citizens, green card holders, and others with valid visas were detained at airports for hours.

They were held by CBP officers without any ability to call a lawyer, relative, or advocate. Many Members of Congress rushed to the airports in an attempt to help these individuals and were barred from speaking to them or connecting them with attorneys.

In early 2020, for example, dozens of Iranian Americans were held at the northern border in Blaine, WA, for 12 hours without access to counsel.

Everyone who has valid travel documents and is seeking entry to the United States should be afforded due process. If CBP refers someone to secondary inspection, they should be able to call counsel, family, or someone to support them. It is imperative that we are prepared this time and ensure that Americans and those with a legal right to be here have access to representation if they are held at a port of entry.

With a second Trump administration beginning, we must be ready for similar policies to be implemented and be proactive about trying to place guardrails against these abuses.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Muhammad Ali Congressional Gold Medal Act, which I introduced today.

Muhammad Ali is often referred to as ``The Greatest,'' an appropriate title which he earned through his inspiring athletic achievements, dedication to ensuring that all Americans have equal rights, and advocacy for underserved communities around the world. Ali serves as an example of service and self-sacrifice for all generations.

Muhammad Ali was born in Louisville, KY, on January 17, 1942. From an early age, he excelled in boxing, going on to win a gold medal at the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome and becoming an undisputed heavyweight boxing champion. Throughout his career, he helped our Nation grow past the legacy of Jim Crow and segregation in sports. He worked tirelessly to support charitable organizations, including founding the Muhammad Ali Parkinson Center and raising over $50 million for Parkinson's research.

Ali's devotion to humanitarian causes and racial equality earned him many accolades, including being chosen as a United Nations Messenger of Peace and receiving an Amnesty International Lifetime Achievement Award. He was also chosen to light the Olympic flame at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, and in 2005, President George W. Bush awarded Ali the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Muhammad Ali also left a lasting impact on my home State of California. For nearly 10 years, Ali lived in Los Angeles, and five of his professional fights were held in southern California. Due to his courage and conviction, the 1987 California Bicentennial Foundation for the U.S. Constitution selected Ali to personify the vitality of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Congressional Gold Medal is a fitting award for an American who devoted his life and career to uplifting underserved communities in the U.S. and abroad. I want to thank Representative Carson for introducing this bill in the House, and I hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in awarding a posthumous Congressional Gold Medal to Muhammad Ali.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Muhammad Ali Congressional Gold Medal Act, which I introduced today.

Muhammad Ali is often referred to as ``The Greatest,'' an appropriate title which he earned through his inspiring athletic achievements, dedication to ensuring that all Americans have equal rights, and advocacy for underserved communities around the world. Ali serves as an example of service and self-sacrifice for all generations.

Muhammad Ali was born in Louisville, KY, on January 17, 1942. From an early age, he excelled in boxing, going on to win a gold medal at the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome and becoming an undisputed heavyweight boxing champion. Throughout his career, he helped our Nation grow past the legacy of Jim Crow and segregation in sports. He worked tirelessly to support charitable organizations, including founding the Muhammad Ali Parkinson Center and raising over $50 million for Parkinson's research.

Ali's devotion to humanitarian causes and racial equality earned him many accolades, including being chosen as a United Nations Messenger of Peace and receiving an Amnesty International Lifetime Achievement Award. He was also chosen to light the Olympic flame at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, and in 2005, President George W. Bush awarded Ali the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Muhammad Ali also left a lasting impact on my home State of California. For nearly 10 years, Ali lived in Los Angeles, and five of his professional fights were held in southern California. Due to his courage and conviction, the 1987 California Bicentennial Foundation for the U.S. Constitution selected Ali to personify the vitality of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Congressional Gold Medal is a fitting award for an American who devoted his life and career to uplifting underserved communities in the U.S. and abroad. I want to thank Representative Carson for introducing this bill in the House, and I hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in awarding a posthumous Congressional Gold Medal to Muhammad Ali.