Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in his first 3 weeks in office, Donald Trump has waged a scorched-earth campaign against the rule of law.

We all know that Donald Trump, of course, won the election last November, and as we all know, he campaigned on a platform to cut back large parts of the government. But nothing--nothing--in the Constitution, nothing in our grand tradition of American separation of powers allows Donald Trump to break the law in order to achieve those goals.

Let me repeat that. Donald Trump campaigned on cutting back the government. That is true. But he is not allowed--not allowed--to break the law to achieve those goals.

That is not how America works. You campaign. You put your ideas forward. In this case, Donald Trump won. But he did not campaign on breaking the law, and the American people don't want him to break the law.

The reason we have a system of checks and balances is so that even when one side wins an election, there is a check, there is a balance. That is what America has been all about for over 200 years. At this point, Donald Trump is trying to break that tradition in area after area after area. So the courts have begun to speak, and their message is very simple: The law is not optional, not even for a President of the United States.

Yesterday, at least five rulings were handed down in Federal courts against the President's brazen conduct in office: court rulings against his attempt to freeze trillions in Federal funding at OMB; court decisions against his heartless, cruel decision to stop billions in medical research funding through the NIH. Courts have ruled against his unlawful attempt to hollow out the Federal workforce regardless of the job they do.

To be sure, these decisions--these five decisions and many others like it; I think there are over 50--are all temporary, preliminary, and it is one step in a long process that will play out in Federal court. But the trend is clear: Donald Trump is not free to bulldoze his way through the rule of law. Donald Trump is not free to bulldoze his way through the rule of law. He is an executive, not a monarch. He swore an oath faithfully to execute the duties of his office, and when the courts speak, Donald Trump must accept their judgments and honor the Constitution.

Now, there are some on the hard right who think Donald Trump should ignore the courts. Even the Vice President seems to suggest the courts can't ``control the powers of the executive.'' With respect to the Vice President, the issue here isn't the courts trying to control the President; it is the President trying to control the law. He

wants to decide for himself what the laws are, which ones should be applied, which ones shouldn't, and what they mean.

Congress makes the law. Courts interpret the law. We all learned that in grade school. That is how checks and balances work in a constitutional republic. Donald Trump does not reign supreme. When the courts speak, the President must adhere to their judgments. That is what his oath demands.

The courts will be an important venue for holding Donald Trump accountable whenever he breaks the law and breaks his promise to the American people. It is one tool in the toolkit for how Democrats and all Americans who care about the rule of law will make sure that Donald Trump does not break the law and do just what he wants. Our courts will be just one resource of several, but they will be among the most important, and as we have already seen, they are a critical front in the struggle to uphold the rule of law and prevent America from sliding into utter lawlessness.

Mr. President, on the shutdown, in 5 weeks, funding for the Federal Government will run out.

Let us remember, when there is talk about a shutdown, Trump and Republicans are already shutting down large parts of the government. Democrats do not want a government shutdown. It is the Republicans who are in charge. It is their responsibility to avoid a shutdown.

The idea that Democrats want a shutdown is laughable. Republicans who say this should look in the mirror. Let me repeat. Let me repeat: When there is talk about a shutdown, Republicans are already shutting down large parts of the government. Democrats do not want to shut the government down. It is the Republicans who are in charge; it is their responsibility to avoid a government shutdown.

Since the inauguration, unfortunately, President Trump and Republicans have been actively working to shut down parts of the government entirely on their own. They have shut down funding to CHCs. They shut down funding for research institutions; shut down exports for farmers; shut down protections for consumers; fired government watchdogs. Republicans are making plans to force Medicaid work requirements on Americans who even have disabilities and can't work. They are making plans to harm Social Security recipients. They are trying to cut any sort of oversight so that corporations can run rampant.

Nobody--nobody--unfortunately, is working harder right now to shut down the government than Donald Trump and congressional Republicans. Nobody is working harder to shut down the government than Donald Trump and congressional Republicans.

Madam President, this week, Senate Republicans will force a pair of nominees through the Senate they know perfectly well do not merit confirmation. But Republicans will confirm them anyway because Donald Trump is strong-arming them into submission.

Today, Senate Democrats are here on the floor to oppose one of those two nominees, Tulsi Gabbard. She has been nominated by the President to serve as Director of National Intelligence, the No. 1 intelligence officer of the entire Federal Government.

By now, there is no question about whether or not Ms. Gabbard is qualified to lead America's intelligence Agencies because by any objective measure and by every objective measure as well, she is not qualified.

From the moment she was nominated, both Democrats and Republicans were puzzled by this choice. Of all people Donald Trump could have picked to oversee national intelligence, he picked someone known for repeating Russian propaganda and getting duped by conspiracy theories. Do Republicans honestly think this is the best person for the job of all the other so many qualified people?

Fifty-two Republicans voted last night to advance her, but I know both sides of the aisle still remain troubled by this nominee. I hope-- I pray--for the sake of our country, of our security, Republican colleagues think very carefully before casting their vote. I hope they think about the safety of our people, the concerns of our allies, and the threats--the threats--posed by the likes of Putin and Xi and others before casting their vote.

Every single Democrat, I am proud to say, will oppose the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard 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 alarmingly dangerous--dangerous-- not just bad but dangerous--to trust someone like that. The job of national intelligence is a matter of life and death. The job is to oversee all 18 of the Nation's intelligence Agencies.

DNI would be the top intelligence adviser to the President of the United States. It would be their job to decide what intelligence reaches the President's desk and what does not. Few positions in government carry the burden that DNI will carry every single day.

The person who serves as DNI, therefore, cannot be someone controversial; they cannot be someone who has to literally convince Senators to ignore their checkered past, to ignore their conspiratorial views, and, essentially, ask Senators to hold their nose while they support her. And that is what Tulsi Gabbard has had to do with so many Senate Republicans.

Who is kidding who? Who are our Republican colleagues kidding when they talk about that she is a good choice? It is incredible. It is incredible given her long list of frailties and dishonesty and conspiracies. There should never--never--be a shred of doubt that the DNI is qualified, informed, and shows sound judgment. Tulsi fails to meet--she wouldn't meet a low bar, but this job has a very high bar because it is so important to our security.

The Director of National Intelligence must be fluent in the truth-- fluent in the truth. But Ms. Gabbard speaks the language of falsities and conspiracy theories.

Shortly after--listen to this, America. This is who they want to put in. This is who Donald Trump wants to put in, someone who, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, Gabbard infamously spread a false conspiracy theory. She suggested that the U.S. was supporting bioweapon laboratories in Ukraine without a shred of evidence.

You know where this myth came from, Donald Trump? From Russia. It was spread to justify Putin's invasion. That alone is more than enough to be disqualified for anyone seeking to become the top intelligent adviser to the President of the United States.

But the world is inside-out, turned topsy-turvy, upside down by Donald Trump. And it is confounding that America is at this point and even more confounding that our Republican colleagues at this point are going along with someone they know is so patently bad for this Agency. They should be ashamed of themselves. There are certain times when you have to buck up. And with Ms. Gabbard, this is one of them.

The Director of National Intelligence must be strong against America's adversaries. But Ms. Gabbard has spent years sympathizing not with America's allies--oh, no--but with the likes of Putin and Bashar al-Assad. Nobody who plans a secret face-to-face meeting with Bashar al-Assad while in the middle of slaughtering his own people should be in this job. You can't possibly claim to be strong against America's adversaries after Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. This list goes on and on. It is almost fictional, it is so bad.

After Assad used chemical weapons against his own people in 2017 and 2018, Tulsi Gabbard turned against U.S. intelligence and sided with fringe conspiracy theorists to cast doubt on these two specific incidents.

I want to be clear on how strange and troubling this episode was. On the one side, you had the entire U.S. intelligence ecosystem and the intelligence of the French Government and the organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons all saying the same thing: Assad used chemical weapons against his own people in both 2017 and 2018. These findings were not just conjecture; they were based on satellite imaginary, witness accounts, medical experts. In other words, the kind of intelligence data that Ms. Gabbard would be responsible for evaluating on this important job.

And then on the other side, on the other side of all these intelligence experts and all this evidence, you have Tulsi Gabbard relying on the judgment of an individual who had appeared on Russian- funded propaganda outlets. That is who she relied on, someone who appears on Russian-funded propaganda outlets, puts out this crazy theory against all evidence of every intelligence Agency in the U.S. and other countries. And Gabbard goes for it.

She was trying to shield Assad for his inhumane conduct because she met with him. She supported Assad.

I have to say, I have never heard--never heard--of a nominee for any intelligence Agency who was so ready and willing to question the findings of America's own intelligence operations, yet accepts Russian disinformation so easily without the same kind of skepticism.

And, of course, I am deeply troubled by Ms. Gabbard's long record showing weakness against Russia when it comes to Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

On the night Russia invaded Ukraine--a horrible night--and launched the first full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation in Europe since World War II, what was Ms. Gabbard doing? She was on Twitter at 11:30 blaming NATO and the U.S. for starting the war.

This is the head of national intelligence? Give me a break.

She was saying that the war could have been avoided had NATO and the U.S. just accommodated Putin. That is who we are going to have as the head of DNI when we deal with our adversary Vladimir Putin. Russian TV, of course, aired Tulsi Gabbard's comments shortly thereafter.

And now--and now--with all this evidence, Republicans want to make this person the top U.S. intel chief. Who could believe it? Where is all our rightwing friends in the hawkish community? Where are the editorial pages of these rightwing newspapers?

When Ms. Gabbard had the opportunity to repair her image before the Senate Intel Committee and ease the deep worries Senators from both sides of the aisle had about her, she only exacerbated the worries. She refused to state the very obvious truth about Edward Snowden: that he is a traitor--a traitor--who stole sensitive intelligence and now lives in Russia under the watchful eye of Russian security services. We had so many of our Republican colleagues denounce Snowden, and now they vote for Ms. Gabbard. Incredible.

I can't imagine what our allies were thinking, watching Tulsi Gabbard testifying, refusing to do something as simple as condemning Edward Snowden. I fear the great erosion of trust between the United States and our allies, whose intelligence we rely on to keep America safe. We have a good sharing arrangement with them. I fear that erosion should Gabbard be confirmed.

Senate Republicans know very well that Gabbard has no business advising the President on matters of classified intelligence. They know her judgment is way off the mark--way off the mark. They know her troubling history of pushing conspiracy theories and repeating Russian propaganda.

So deep down, this nominee is about one very simple question: What do Senate Republicans care more about? Doing the right thing for national security, making sure a known conspiracy theorist, a believer in false information, someone who has no fact-based analysis of anything--do they care more about doing the right thing for national security? Do Republicans care more about doing the right thing for national security? Or doing whatever is necessary to keep Donald Trump happy? The American people will know the answer tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I just got back from Albany and Syracuse, where I visited two of our community health centers--the Syracuse Community Health Center and the Hometown Health Center in Schenectady. These community health centers do amazing work--amazing work. They provide good, effective, efficient healthcare for so many people. In New York State, about 2.4 million people get help from the community health centers. In Central New York that I visited in Syracuse, about 80,000, and in the Capital Region, where Albany is, 110,000.

Let me say that when President Trump instituted his freeze, his funding freeze, it sent shock waves through these two centers and hundreds of others across the country. All of a sudden, payments frozen, funding frozen--no reasoning, no logic, nothing. They wondered: Do they have to lay off people? Could they pay the rent?

They wondered if they could give healthcare, you know, for someone who had a 2-week plan. Maybe the doctor shouldn't prescribe it in week 1 because money wouldn't be around in week 2.

They depend on Federal funding. They get somewhere between 15 to 20 percent of their funding. They have been going on since the 1960s and delivering great, efficient healthcare. And,

all of a sudden, this funding freeze drops on them like a ton of bricks.

And it wasn't just community health centers--veterans organizations, mental health, organizations that provide mental help for people, Head Start.

In Western New York, two of our Head Starts in rural America, in rural Western New York, closed, and 200 families--200 families--had to struggle to find what to do, because when you are a single mom or a single dad or even a mom and dad, a two-parent family, and there is nobody there watching the kids--there is no Head Start--what are you going to do? Should I stay home from work--maybe risk salary being docked, even losing my job?

It was horrible. This occurred across the country.

Now, thank God, people rebelled. Thank God, people made their voices heard, and the funding freeze was rescinded. But the damage still is there.

There is a healthcare center, where I visited in Syracuse--this one was in the Mohawk Valley--that funding of $71,000 on a thing they were building stopped. Five centers in Virginia closed. And funding is still intermittent in healthcare centers throughout New York State and throughout the country.

Cruel, unfair, awful. These programs help people. No, they don't help the billionaires. I get it. But they help average folks and poorer people get the healthcare they need. They help them see a doctor so that preventive care can happen, which we all know saves us money. They are a shining example of public service that does enormous good for millions of families.

And to anyone who says that these are examples of inefficiency or waste, visit one. Visit some of the scores of them that are in New York. They are the most efficient, effective deliverers of healthcare in the country. They serve people who need it the most, and they are effective.

Let's say you have 3 kids. You are a single mom. And your kid has 104 fever, with probably strep, and you have to see a doctor before it gets worse. You go to a community health center, and you don't sit in a waiting room for 6 hours and have to file endless papers, like you do in a hospital. They take care of you right away. It makes it a lot easier for people to get healthcare, and it makes people want to get that healthcare that their kid might need.

And yet we are still hearing it: these great healthcare centers-- funding delayed, funding not coming, funding late. And they depend on this funding. They don't have a 6-month plan. They get funds from the Federal Government every 2 weeks. That pays the rent. That pays the salaries. That buys these supplies they need. You shut it off for a week, and the whole thing could face a real problem.

And so I went to Syracuse and Albany and demanded that, No. 1, this administration say they are no longer fooling around with the money that these community health centers need, that they get it right away; 2, that they give an explanation as to why it was cut off. What did they do wrong? Help people get healthcare that they need?

And, third, we Senate Democrats are demanding that the funding for these centers, overall, which runs out on March 14, because, as you know, Madam President, there was a bipartisan agreement to fund them fully for the year--Democrats and Republicans--and Donald Trump and Elon Musk said, even before they were in office--Musk is not in office; but before Trump was in office and Musk was working with him--they told the Republicans: Don't fund it. Don't fund this healthcare package.

And so now we are waiting until March 14, but that is a CHC, community healthcare center, cliff. If we don't renew that funding, many, many will close. Millions of people in America who are getting good healthcare--often preventive, often dealing with the immediate problems--will not get it at all.

So those are the three things: Stop fooling around with the funding; keep the flow going. No. 2, explain what anyone did. Why did they stop this funding? And, third, fund us so we don't go over the healthcare cliff.

This was bipartisan. My guess is you, Madam President, probably supported it. But when Donald Trump and Elon Musk said, ``Get that funding out; kill the deal,'' that is what Republicans did.

I made it clear in Syracuse and in Albany that this cannot happen. It is infuriating, and it has nothing to do with inefficiency.

Our hospitals, by the way--our big hospitals--like CHCs because that means their emergency rooms are not overflowed with people who could be taken care of in a much more effective, efficient way.

So I want to make a final point here. We hear from Donald Trump, JD Vance, Elon Musk, and DOGE that all they want to do is get rid of waste and inefficiency. When you look at community health centers, that is utter nonsense--utter, utter nonsense. There isn't very much inefficiency at them. No one ever said it was, that they were inefficient. In fact, most people who look at it say they are the most efficient providers at a lower cost, with less to do in healthcare, less paperwork, less all of this than other places.

So anyone who thinks that this DOGE experiment is simply getting rid of waste, baloney--baloney. We know what it is about: cut. DOGE is using a meat ax and cutting things that are vital to people.

Why? Why is all this happening? Because a careful look at inefficiency in government, even with a new administration that might want to look at it a little differently, would not just cut everything--not just cut everything.

And the bottom line is, it is all to cut $2.5 trillion, $2 trillion. We know what they are doing. And, unfortunately, too many of our Republican colleagues are going along. They are making these cuts so they can give the very wealthiest people in America a bigger tax break--take a working-class family that is getting healthcare and say: You don't get it anymore so Mr. Ultrabillionaire can get more tax breaks.

Come on. That is what is going on here, and it is across the board.

We saw what they did with AID. Well, one program AID is working on, as I understand it, is dealing with Ebola in the middle of Africa. Cut out the program? What if Ebola spreads around Africa and even here? Most people think that is a very good program.

Most people thought PEPFAR did a lot of good, but they cut it all. They didn't point out and say: This is inefficient, and that is inefficient. And cut it, but let's keep the good stuff. Uh-uh, cut it all. And we know why, once again. It is because the billionaires want even a bigger tax break.

So my visits to CHCs--the two CHCs I visited, Hometown in Schenectady and Syracuse healthcare in Syracuse--were very moving to me. I saw dedicated people who want to help people. I saw patients come in and get decent healthcare.

And yet it is on the chopping block. That is not what America voted for, Madam President. That is not what America voted for.

So I hope we will have a bipartisan coalition to fund our health centers, and I also hope that this administration, whether it comes to community health centers or so many other good programs across the board, will not freeze their funding, will not just say, ``We are cutting you,'' and will look at things carefully. There is inefficiency; use a scalpel. Get rid of it, but don't cut everything.

And, again, it seems the logic is very simple. They are really not interested in making the government more efficient. They just want to cut a certain huge amount of money. They don't care where it comes from--2.5 trillion, 2 trillion, 1 trillion--regardless of the consequences for working families. It is a shame. It is a shame.

Now, on our whistleblower portal, so today, we Senate Democrats have a very simple message to the American people and that is: If Donald Trump won't stand up for the rule of law and Senate Republicans won't lift a finger to hold him accountable, Senate Democrats will. So today I joined with a number of my colleagues to announce a new Senate Democratic whistleblower portal to help fill the void that Donald Trump created by firing the government's independent watchdogs.

The whistleblower portal will give civil servants and people of good will the chance to report on potential wrongdoing in government, abuse of power, threats to public safety.

Donald Trump has tried to wipe the government clean of all transparency

and accountability. That is why they got rid of so many of the IGs, for instance.

But Senate Democrats won't let him. We believe in transparency. We believe in accountability.

Donald Trump has tried to reshape our entire democracy to fit his unlawful impulses and serve his personal political interests. Senate Democrats won't let him. And so we have the whistleblower portal.

We are urging Americans who see some real wrongdoing being created by this DOGE thing to report it. I think all Americans want government to be transparent. We all agree that ensuring accountability is vital. But thus far, this new administration has done the opposite.

Today, with the whistleblower portal, we Senate Democrats are taking one step to help keep accountability and transparency alive.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, Leader Jeffries and I announced legislation to stop unlawful meddling by DOGE or other entities in the Treasury Department's payments system. Our bill will deny access to the payment system by anyone designated as a ``special government employee''--in other words, people who aren't required to disclose conflicts of interest.

Our bill will deny access to anyone with conflicts of interest or lack of appropriate clearance. Imagine where all the Federal funds are going out and someone has a conflict of interest and has access to those funds and can do something with them. That is a formula for waste; that is a formula that makes sure that money isn't spent wisely but is spent to accommodate the needs of a special few.

And our bill will ensure that Treasury payments can only be accessed by those with proper clearance. Everyone should agree that making the government more efficient and more effective is a good thing. But DOGE's scorched-earth policies are dangerous and unlawful. That is their approach.

History shows that when this kind of stuff is done in the dark of night with no guardrails by a limited group of people who don't really know the programs they are dealing with, it leads to bad results. If Treasury payments were ever intentionally or even accidentally halted or manipulated, it could paralyze the economy.

DOGE has said they want to cut $2 trillion, $2.5 trillion from the budget--well, that is going to be massive cuts done, again, by people who don't know the programs, don't know the whole extent of what the government is doing. Some of it might be wasteful. Get rid of it. But much of it is good and needed. One mistake and people's Social Security benefits could freeze. One mistake and disability payments to veterans, loans to small businesses could all be in danger.

If DOGE's meddling caused us to default, it could compromise the full faith and credit of the United States, and that would hurt everybody because interest rates would go up on everything--cars, homes, you name it.

The OMB funding freeze last week was disastrous enough, but a DOGE funding freeze would be far worse if guardrails are totally thrown out the window. And that seems to be what is happening. We don't know any guardrails. They sure haven't been made public.

We should talk about reform here in the open, in the Halls of Congress, in the public forums of the people's government. That is how it has been done by Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative for centuries because we all know--the Founding Fathers knew, historians know--democracy doesn't work in the shadows--autocracy does, not democracy.

Democracy does not skirt the rule of law. The American people deserve to have a seat at the table when these important decisions are made. But so far, DOGE is operating entirely in the dark.

Our legislation would correct it. We are going to do anything and everything we can legislatively to try and get this done. And maybe, at some point, we will get some help from the other side of the aisle if they see how bad DOGE's actions are.

OMB and Vought. If you want to understand the risks of letting DOGE take over the Treasury Department, all you have to do is look at what happened last week at OMB. OMB unilaterally froze trillions in potential spending, and it unleashed chaos. That is

why today, I will join every single Democrat in opposing the nomination of Russell Vought. All 47 Democrats are opposed to Vought's nomination, and we will take the floor early this afternoon and spend the whole night discussing how bad this nomination is, how badly it affects working families.

His confirmation would be a disaster for working families and a godsend to billionaires who don't pay their fair share in taxes. All they want, these billionaires: Cut any program. We don't care what they are; we don't care what the consequences are; we don't care how it hurts people as long as we, the ultrawealthy, can get a deeper tax break--even though they are doing very well right now.

So we will come to the floor and sound the alarm on Russell Vought through the night. We will expose his ultraright record as the chief architect of Project 2025. We will expose how he is turning Project 2025 into the White House agenda.

When Donald Trump was running for President and 2025 was made public, it was regarded so horrifically by the American people that Donald Trump had to say: I don't know anything about it. But right now, with Vought, who is one of the chief architects of Project 2025, as head of OMB, all of it, much of it--damaging and dangerous for the American people--will be implemented.

That is why Americans do not want Russell Vought, the author of 2025, to head such an all-powerful, all-encompassing Agency as OMB. We will hold firm in standing against Russell Vought because of all the ways he stands against the working people of America.

Mr. President, now on Head Start and the effect of the funding freeze--even a week after Donald Trump backed off his ill-designed funding freeze, the collateral damage still lingers for millions across the country. He was forced by public pressure, by Senate Democrats and by others, to back off on the funding freeze. But that doesn't mean the harm all went away. It is still being done.

And a painful example is the damage done to Head Start programs everywhere. Every single Head Start program was halted last week, despite White House claims they were exempt. And that is a fact. Just go ask your Head Start program in your State.

Does Donald Trump realize what Head Start does? It is childcare for kids, dental care for kids, adult education. Does he realize that most families in America are either single-parent families or families who have two parents but both are working? And if there is no Head Start, the families can get in a panic almost: Who is going to watch the kids? Do I have to take off from work? Will my boss dock me in pay? Will my boss fire me? How do I get good care for the kids if Head Start isn't working?

It is a nightmare for people throughout the middle class in America. That is why childcare is so important.

Why then?

With that kind of trauma people would face, that daily worry about how you find childcare if Head Start is gone, it is supremely cruel and it is going to make life more difficult, more expensive for working families.

Do you want to know where the idea to eliminate Head Start comes from? Russell Vought and Project 2025.

When we are talking about how bad 2025 is and they say we just want to get rid of waste--oh, no, they want to eliminate the whole thing. They explicitly want to eliminate the program all together. ``Who cares,'' they say, ``what it does to help kids and parents?''

That is another reason why Democrats will never, never support someone like Russell Vought to lead the OMB. We will all oppose him on the floor and speak about it, as I said, through the night.

Even in a week after the funding freeze supposedly ended, I am still getting calls from Head Start programs throughout New York. They are missing funds, suffering technical issues, or unable to operate at all. There is no one to answer the phone.

You are a Head Start program. You get money every 2 weeks. You have to pay the rent. You have to pay the workers and you call up and say: I haven't gotten my check. You say the freeze is over. There is no one at the other end of the line. No one to answer.

It is chaos--cruel chaos.

In Upstate New York, the Head Start program that serves Cattaraugus and Wyoming Counties--very conservative areas; Republican areas--they haven't received funding in over a week and have been forced to temporarily close. Two hundred kids have lost out on childcare from this one incident. Every single staffer has been laid off.

This is the handiwork, my fellow Americans, of Russell Vought and Project 2025. Put him in OMB, and you are going to see a lot more of this--a lot more damage to average working families. And this is not just happening in New York. It is happening across the country, in States like Washington, Michigan, Connecticut, Wisconsin. All of this chaos with Head Start is precisely what Russell Vought and Project 2025 want.

I am writing to HHS and demanding they take immediate action to fix the problems with Head Start. First, we need HHS to fix the payment system and get out the money that is now overdue, and we need them to do it now. Second, the Trump administration must stop the disruptions and fix every glitch preventing Head Start from accessing funding. And, third, we need HHS to stop leaving our childcare providers in the dark. They need to explain what went wrong and how they will fix it and how quickly they will fix it and when people will be getting the dollars they were promised to pay the rent, to pay the workers, to care for the kids.

I object.

I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for her passion for representing the people of Minnesota and showing how terrible this nominee is.

We are going to be speaking all night. We want Americans, every hour--whether it is 8 p.m. or 3 a.m.--to hear how bad Russell Vought is and the danger he poses to them in their daily lives if he were put as head of OMB. We want to sound the alarm--sound the alarm--on the reckless and lawless things that Russell Vought will do to American families; to sound the alarm on the chief architect of Project 2025; to sound the alarm on Russell Vought because Russell Vought--sadly, alarmingly, outrageously--stands on the brink of confirmation as Director of OMB, thanks to Senate Republicans who have fallen in line one right after the other behind Donald Trump and have rubberstamped his nominees, no matter how unqualified, no matter how harmful to the American people.

And of all of the nominees, of all of the extremists that Donald Trump elevated, of all the hard right ideologues who have come before the Senate, none of them hold a candle to Russell Vought. He is far and away the one most dangerous to the American people.

Most people have never heard of Russell Vought before. But make no mistake about it, my fellow Americans, he is the most important piece of the puzzle in Donald Trump's second term. He will be the quarterback of White House policy.

For all intents, he will run the command center of the Trump administration. And his decisions will reverberate from one end of America to the other, every city and every town and every household and every rural area.

And of all the people--of all the people--Donald Trump could have picked to lead the White House policy, he chose the godfather of the ultraright. And make no mistake about it, Russell Vought is Project 2025 incarnate. Russell Vought is the chief architect of 2025, its intellectual inspiration. And now he will have the ability, as head of OMB, to put these awful ideas into effect. And who will suffer? Not the billionaires who seem to be running the Trump administration, but the average American--the tens of millions, the hundreds of millions of average Americans.

Let me say this: There can be no worse proposal for the American people than Project 2025. There can be no position more able to implement this terrible proposal than Director of OMB, and there could be no person who would be worse for running 2025 from OMB than Russell Vought.

It is a triple loser--the worst program, the worst place to put it because it does the most danger, and the worst person to run it all rolled up into one in this vote.

Remember during the campaign, Russell Vought put together 2025 with a bunch of other rightwing ideologues. Their goal: slash the government, smash the government, break the government--not just eliminate waste. Oh, no, that is not what they wanted to do. They are so, so deeply anti-anything government does--whether it is Social Security or helping our veterans or defending our country--that they are against it.

Why? Well, their ideas really started with this small group of hard- right people who felt they didn't want to pay any taxes and they didn't want any regulation: We don't need a government. And they gained strength on the hard-right side of the Republican Party that became the MAGA part of the Republican Party. And Donald Trump embraced it.

He hid it during the campaign. When Project 2025 became public, Donald Trump said ``I don't know anything about it'' because he knew that he would lose the election if he embraced 2025; that an overwhelming majority of Americans would be against 2025. He knew that, and so he said he knew nothing about it. But the minute he won the election, Russell Vought started to take over and the pieces of Project 2025, already, we have seen, are begun to be implemented.

It is such hypocrisy for Donald Trump to say he didn't know what 2025 was during the campaign and now is putting its chief architect in the most important position where it can be implemented to the great harm of America and the American people.

Americans don't want to see Social Security or Medicare cut. They certainly don't want to see Medicaid cut.

They certainly don't want to see help to veterans and hospitals and to help people pay for healthcare and to afford housing--there are so many bad things in 2025. Some of them are pretty obvious--just slash government programs. Some are a little less obvious.

One that really bugs me: We have so many people who need housing in America. It is one of the greatest needs. And over the years, the wisdom of the American people, administrations--Democratic and Republican--said: Let's give a little help by having the Federal Government back mortgage loans, Fannie and Freddie. And it made interest rates be lower than they normally would have been for a young family that is looking to buy their first home. They are having their second little baby and they are so happy and they can have a home for their children.

And they want to get rid of it--in part, maybe, so some private sector people can make some money doing it themselves. But mainly because they just are so viciously anti-government that they will just slash anything no matter the consequence, no matter who is hurt. That is what we are on the brink of happening here.

We had hoped on this side of the aisle--because we know how our colleagues feel. If you asked the 53 Senators on that side of the aisle to vote yes or no on Project 2025, my guess is of the 53, probably 50-- at least 45--would vote no. But they are actually voting to implement Project 2025 when they vote yes for Russell Vought.

Remember, he is the architect, and they are putting him in a position where he can take that plan and implement it--basically, shove it down America's throat.

So here we are. We have already begun to see the chaos that the Russell Vought philosophy, the Project 2025 philosophy, engenders: A freeze--freeze--on funding of all programs.

They didn't look at which programs were good, which programs were bad. No, no, no. They froze them all. Chaos erupted. Daycare centers were not funded, Medicaid hospitals were not funded, veterans' programs were not funded, mental health--so much that they had to back off, at least for a period of time.

But that is Project 2025 at work.

And now, the Treasury payment system--which in one sense is a lifeblood of how government works, of how we help people because we are giving money to things that people need--is being infiltrated by DOGE.

What is DOGE's view? Let's cut $2.5 trillion. They don't say how. They don't really care, as long as they can just slash government and hurt Americans so that their billionaire friends can pay even less taxes than they do now, despite the fact that income inequality in America is getting worse and worse. That is one of the main things that bothers average working-class Americans.

His fingerprints are all over this past week's disaster--whether it is at Treasury, whether it is with Federal workers, whether it is at AID, whether it is hurting Justice Department people, prosecutors--all of that is Russell Vought at work. He is working to hurt you, Mr. and Mrs. America, even before he gets into office. Imagine how much more harm he will do should he become the head of OMB.

I want to ask Mr. Vought some questions.

Mr. Vought, how is freezing all these funds supposed to lower people's costs?

Yeah, it may lower the taxes on your wealthy friends, but how is it going to help the average American? You never explained it. The fanatical hatred of government without rhyme or reason, without looking at its effect, without distinguishing between programs just permeates everything.

So, Mr. Vought, explain how freezing all these funds is going to lower people's costs? How is privatizing Fannie and Freddie going to lower their housing costs? How is getting rid of--I mean an example we talked about, it is small but it is indicative, it is knowledge-- cutting the programs that help us eliminate bird flu and lower the price of eggs. They raised it. People hate that. The price of eggs are so high, I don't blame them--6 bucks, 5 bucks--wow.

So imagine this, folks. Imagine a world where Russell Vought and the DOGE team, team up, and it is a team that can do such, such harm and pain for America. They team up to eradicate the funding they allege is wasteful.

What would it mean for kids at school who struggle to get a good meal? They will say it is wasteful. Or parents who struggle to pay for groceries and the things we do to try to keep food costs down? They will say it is wasteful. A couple seeking a loan to build a starter home; they will say it is wasteful.

Getting rid of Head Start. Right now--right now--in my State, even though the funding freeze has been rescinded, there are Head Start programs that are getting no money. Two hundred kids in rural Cattaraugus and Wyoming Counties had to be left out of Head Start; 200 families struggling during the week because so many of them have either one parent who is working or two parents who are working. What are they going to do? Who is going to watch the kids? Will they have to quit work for a few days? Will they get fired? Will they get demoted?

All painful, really painful.

Head Start provides dental and medical care for little kids. What a waste, Vought would say. When we know that when kids have bad teeth at a young age, it hurts their learning, it hurts their ability to become productive citizens. There is nothing more cost-effective than something like that.

Folks, bad news--bad news. What we saw this past week with the beginning of Russell Vought's ideas and programs and philosophy and ideology to be implemented is just the beginning, just a preview. I hate to say this, but, unfortunately, we ain't seen nothing yet should Vought get into office in this powerful OMB position.

Let me just say it again so people hear it: Why does Vought want to do this, the average person would ask? Why does he want to hurt so many people? Why is he being so mean and cruel and heartless and uncaring?

Very simple: So Republicans can give tax cuts to Donald Trump's billionaire friends and supporters. Of course, it is cloaked in some kind of ridiculous ideology that was paid for by the hard right. They set up think tanks for 30 years to come up with this libertarian-type philosophy. But it has no basis in reality. Where it comes from is not what would make America better but, rather, would make a few rich people richer. And the harm is amazing. Everything we see happening today--the flurry of Executive orders, all of the awful things happening at the Treasury Department and at OMB and elsewhere--all boils down to one endgame: a broken, paralyzed government that breeds corruption and self-dealing and self-interest; that ignores the public and caters to the ultra-ultrawealthy. That is the entire ball game of Trump 2.0.

The only solace I can take is we are a democracy, and it will catch up with them all--with President Trump, with Russell Vought, with all of the Republicans who vote for these things. That happens. The roots of democracy are deep. We saw little sprouts of it this week when President Trump had to back off tariffs and back off a funding freeze because so many people were going to be hurt.

But it will--it will--be rejected by the American people, and I am confident that it will change the political fortunes of both parties as it is implemented. For those who support it on the Republican side, the American people will like them a lot less. And for those who oppose it on our side, the American people will understand we are on their side.

But the damage--the damage--that will be done in the interim is enormous. The number of the millions--of the tens of millions, probably of the hundreds of millions--of people who will be hurt and hurt in real, severe ways will be horrible. So there is no solace.

I do believe that the political system, with all its infirmities-- with all the big money, with having so much power with Donald Trump and his Republican friends--that even with all of that, I believe, ultimately, our democracy's roots are deep. Ultimately, I believe those who support Russell Vought--he himself, the President, who put him in, the Republicans who voted for him--will be rejected by the American people for doing it. But the damage in the interim will be enormous-- worse than almost anything we have seen.

So I say to my colleagues on the Republican side: Maybe, it is not too late. Maybe, somehow, you will realize how damaging Russell Vought is. Maybe, you will say to yourselves: Despite the fact that I might have Trump angry with me, I am doing the best thing for him by voting down Russell Vought, ultimately--ultimately politically. Maybe. Unlikely. A forlorn hope. I always try to be an optimist--but maybe.

This is a very, very important vote. The way it is looking now, it is a very awful and sad vote--one of the worst, if it passes, that I will have seen in this body in the many years I have been here.

For those who think Russell Vought won't be so bad, read his book. See what he has done. I mean, read his Project 2025. It is a project, not a book, I don't think. Maybe, maybe, maybe we will realize--it is unlikely, highly unlikely; it is a forlorn wish--when things are so bad if Vought gets in, and we will cling to that forlorn, highly unlikely hope.

Twenty years ago, it would be hard to believe that somebody as hard right, as narrow-minded, as vicious in his philosophy as Vought would get a single vote on the floor of the Senate. But, now, he may get a majority.

We are warning the American people how bad this is. We will see the consequences in the weeks and months ahead. There are very few votes I have cast with greater fervor than this ``no'' vote for Russell Vought.

He is, as I said, a danger to working people, a danger to America's beliefs and ideals, and a danger to the unity, cohesiveness, and beauty of this great America. I proudly, strongly, and with complete conviction will vote no on this awful, awful nominee.

I yield the floor.

I yield 120 minutes of my postcloture debate time on the vote nomination to Senator Murphy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire who cares so much about this issue and has done a great job. And I will just be brief on that because I want to talk about Russell Vought.

As is clear, we Democrats--I, certainly--I hate the ICC. I have hated it for 40 years. We have to come to--we have to get something done, but there has got to be a fair compromise. And the compromise has nothing to do with weakening any efforts that the ICC will be punished for what they do to Israel, which I think is anti-Semitic.

But there are other things in that bill that would sanction other people--other countries, other leaders, other businesses, American businesses--that have nothing to do with Israel.

Jeanne Shaheen, our Senator from New Hampshire, made a valiant effort to compromise, and we could have had it done, because there was problems with the rest of the bill. It was poorly drafted and went way beyond what it was supposed to do.

We are ready to compromise. We are ready to sit down and get this bill done.

The Israeli Ambassador said, at our meeting, he wanted a bipartisan compromise, and I told him we are ready to sit down and do just that.