Floor Statements

Mr. President, having just viewed a video of my friend and colleague Senator Alex Padilla being manhandled, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed after identifying himself as Senator Alex Padilla and attempting to ask a question of Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem in Los Angeles, I am shaken, I am angry, and I am gravely concerned about our path forward in this body and our Nation.

Democracy is a gift hard won and hard earned by the sacrifice of millions who have served, fought, and died, some in moments of tumult and challenge on the beaches of Normandy, on the fields of Gettysburg.

From the very beginning of our Nation until this moment, millions of Americans have stepped forward and said: I will risk it all so that my children and those I do not know can live free lives. Knowing the burdens of tyranny, knowing what it meant to live under the heel of a King, our forefathers risked everything.

In nations around the world that I have visited on your behalf as a Senator, people yearning for freedom and people recently free have come and spoken about how much the American example means to them.

Earlier this year, I was at a global security conference, concerned about what was happening in our Nation, about our division in the dialogue, and I heard three young parliamentarians from other countries talk about how hard they were working.

Part of our job as Senators is to ask hard questions. It is to pose challenges. It is to test the Cabinet of the President, to visit Federal facilities, to ask questions that are sometimes uncomfortable or unwelcome. Just this week, I was at three committee hearings and had three members of the Cabinet in front of me. Did they want to answer my questions? Probably not, but they did.

If a Senator of the United States who identifies himself as a Senator--in at least the video I just saw--gets handled this way, gets thrown to the ground and handcuffed, what is happening to those who have no such title or voice? If this gentle and decent and caring man is treated this way, what is happening along the margins in the dark spaces in the places we cannot see?

So I call on my Republican friends and colleagues to look hard at this moment and say: What comes next? What comes next? Are we to be at risk of arrest if we threaten to ask a question or deign to interrupt? Is our very service here as Senators hanging in the balance in this moment? As we all learn more of the facts of what happened in Los Angeles, the future of what will happen here in our country and in the world will wait on your answer.

Was this an overresponse? Was this a misuse of force? Was this a disrespect of the very Senate itself? Is this a moment when, as our Founders who wrote the Federalist Papers dreamed, my colleagues in the Senate will show their loyalty to the role, to the check and balance, to the independence of the Senate, more than they will show their loyalty to their party and their President and demand an answer, an apology, and a different path forward? Or is this a moment when all of us will watch this video of our friend--a member of the Judiciary Committee, a representative, a Senator of Los Angeles and the State of California--being roughly mishandled and say: Huh, too bad. At least it wasn't me.

If we answer this moment with silence, we will be damned, and our children and the world will say: They didn't really mean it.

The members of my family who served in the U.S. military knew that signing on that line meant being willing to give everything, and I believe and have been told that they understood that service to be in service of freedom--not in service of any particular President or party, any particular State or moment, but in service of democracy.

Democracy is a fragile flower, and around the world, people look to what we do to know what they should do. There are petty, tin-pot dictators, authoritarians, and strongmen around the world who will watch this video and be encouraged and think this is the way to silence their critics.

I can't image a Member of this Chamber who knows Alex Padilla, who has had the blessing of sitting with him in moments when he is asked questions or engaged in discourse, who thinks of him as anything other than a reasoned, reasonable, mild-mannered Senator. But even if he were not, even if he were outspoken, loud, aggressive, annoying, the title ``Senator'' and the role we have should entitle him to ask a question at a press conference. If the result is this mistreatment, heaven help us all, and heaven help our democracy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in 100 days, in 100 days, what can a President accomplish? In the last 100 days, President Trump has made Americans less safe, less prosperous, and less free. He has chosen to move us in a direction at home and abroad that is the opposite of what those who voted for him expected and that is aligned with what those of us who worked against him feared.

What I have heard my whole life, whether in business or in foreign policy, as a lawyer or in my community as a local elected official: Folks need trust, and they need predictability. Businesses say they need predictability in order to decide what to invest in, who to hire, where to grow. Other countries around the world say that they need to know they can trust us, that they can rely on us. And in the last 100 days, President Trump has shattered both of them.

I am going to speak for a few minutes about foreign policy because so many of my colleagues in my caucus have stood to talk about the disastrous cuts led by Elon Musk and DOGE and the ways they have impacted Americans all over the country. But if you think about our reputation globally, statement after statement and tweet after tweet by President Trump has puzzled, concerned, even alarmed our allies. He is going to invade Greenland, a NATO ally. He is going to take back the Panama Canal. He is going to take over the Gaza Strip and make it ``Mara-Gaza.'' He is going to turn Canada into the 51st State.

One of my Republican colleagues has said: Don't pay so much attention to what he says; look at what he does.

Well, lots of our partners and allies have looked at what he has done by imposing tariffs on trusted allies and partners and recoiled.

An election in Canada last night where Trump was the issue elected a new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, who ran on a platform of standing up to America, of standing up to Donald Trump.

Look, folks, the actions he has taken in slashing foreign aid, in abandoning decades-old, bipartisan programs around the world that save lives and that help other countries to trust us and rely on us, have weakened us abroad and created openings for our pacing threat, the People's Republic of China.

I was recently in the Philippines, a nation that faces more natural disasters every year than any other country on Earth--more typhoons, more earthquakes, more volcanos. For decades, they have relied on the United States and the help of USAID, volunteers, nonprofits coordinated through our government to respond to these disasters. It has built a long and close partnership of trust. Gone.

I was recently in Taiwan, a country looking to decide whether they can rely on us should China make real their threats to reunite Taiwan with the mainland by force. Can they trust us?

Well, what I am going to say is that in 100 days, President Trump has shown weakness in Europe and created openings for China.

We have long relied on a global network of allies and partners to keep us safe and strong, to make us prosperous, and to build our role in the world. China doesn't have that. They have nervous neighbors, client states, countries that can't count on them and view them as predatory. Yet now, through the actions of President Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE, and the silence and the collaboration of Republicans in this Chamber, even our closest, most trusted allies, like Canada, question whether they can count on us.

Back to the Reagan days, Republicans have talked about ``peace through strength.'' What we have seen from Donald Trump in 100 days is weakness through chaos.

One hundred days in, he is not stopping Putin; he is preparing to sell out Ukraine and Europe to Putin. One hundred days in, he is not deterring Xi Jinping; he is backing down every time he says he is going to stand up to him. At the end the day, these first 100 days have shown that we are weaker, the world is less stable, and Americans are less safe.

I have to say that 100 days is more than enough time for my Republican colleagues to have seen enough, to stand up to this President, and to restore the role of this Senate and return our position of strength to the world.

Madam President, I get a lot of questions from my constituents. Delawareans raise a lot of issues, whether they are stopping me at the Wawa, talking to me on the train, knocking on my door. They ask me about three things more than anything in the last few months.

They are concerned about Elon Musk having huge access to their personally identifying information. They are concerned about the richest man on Earth, whom they didn't elect, getting into their data. They are concerned about Trump's tariff tax and how the tariffs he has just imposed are yanking up prices for everything in our country. And they are also deeply concerned about Social Security.

I am going to focus for a few minutes about the alarm I am hearing from Delawareans that the Trump administration, Elon Musk, and Republicans in Congress are going after our Social Security net--the social safety net--the Social Security benefits that so many rely on for stability and security in their lives, as part of the bill that is moving on this floor tonight to help pay for tax cuts for billionaires that are buddies of Elon Musk.

Ask American seniors what they think of Social Security, and they will tell you it is an earned benefit. It is a vital lifeline. It is the thing that keeps them out of poverty, pays for their medication, helps them afford rent, helps them live decently and safely. Seventy million Americans get Social Security benefits every month. Four out of ten rely on it for the majority of their income.

A few quick examples. Arleen reached out to my office. Arleen is a Delawarean whose husband died in January, and she relies on Social Security to keep paying her bills.

Senator, what is going to happen?

Ian, a disabled adult who is able to work a few hours a week but requires assistance from his mother due to his intellectual disabilities, without Social Security and the disability benefits, his whole livelihood is at risk.

Kathleen reached out to tell me what she thinks of Social Security. She said:

I am a 64-year-old disabled woman. I'm concerned about my

Social Security disability. I am totally dependent on that

check and I'm terrified of what's going on with DOGE.

Cheryl Ann wrote my office saying:

I am 68 . . . and still work to keep from falling behind in

my bills. Since COVID, prices have [gone] up, and with all

these new tariffs [or] taxes, seniors [can't] make ends meet.

. . . I [want] to retire but [I am afraid that] with Trump

messing with Social Security and [Medicaid], how can I?

A simple question: What happens to Arleen, Ian, Kathleen, and Cheryl Ann if Republicans are successful in further undermining the stability and reliability of Social Security? What happens to millions like them for whom this program is what keeps them able to afford their medications, keeps food on the table, keeps a roof over their heads?

I told you what Delawareans think of Social Security, but if you ask Elon Musk, he will be clear. He has called it a Ponzi scheme. Maybe you don't know Mr. Ponzi. A Ponzi scheme is a fraud. It is something that is fake. It is a Jenga puzzle that comes tumbling down when you pull one of the key pieces. A Ponzi scheme is a fraud.

Already, the DOGE boys are slashing the workforce at Social Security. They are making it harder for seniors to get the benefits they earned. They are cutting the budget, firing employees, closing offices, and these needless cuts will just make it harder for seniors to get answers to their questions and to get their checks, forcing those seniors who live in rural areas or who are disabled like the few I just cited, to struggle to access what they earned.

Doing all of this in the name of cutting waste and fraud is compelling because where there is waste and fraud, we should go after it, but there are tiny amounts of fraud in this program. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Lee Dudek, the Trump administration's chosen Acting Social Security Commissioner.

Lee Dudek, the Trump administration's Acting Social Security Commissioner, at a press conference just last month, estimated that of all the Social Security payments every year 0.00625 percent, less than 1/10 of 1 percent, are fraudulent. That is actually--I am sorry--less than 1/100 of 1 percent.

To give you some context, if you think about the entire world, the landmass of the world that is covered by Delaware is 0.003 percent. Delaware is pretty small, and the world is pretty big. That gives you a sense just how small the fraud is in this program that is treasured by Americans.

DOGE's favorite talking point about dead people collecting Social Security has been debunked more times than I can count. They claim there are people 200, 300 years old still getting benefits. Trump even said--President Trump said the same thing right here in the Capitol in his address to Congress as he read out the names of folks 200, 250, 300 years old.

There is only one problem. It is not true that they are getting benefits.

The badly outdated Social Security computer system has a problem with birth dates, and it automatically adds a reference point in certain date errors that is 150 years ago. So, yes, there are names on a register of people who were born, allegedly, a long time ago. But for the last decade, the Social Security Administration automatically stops payments to anyone over 115 years old--automatically. The checks aren't going out to people whose birth date is reported as 200 or 250 years old.

An independent inspector general looked at this question and said ``almost none of the number-holders discussed in the report currently receive SSA payments.'' So if the fraud doesn't exist, why do they keep talking about it? Well, they have to find ways to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.

House Republicans have made plans. They want to cut $2 trillion in spending to pay for their massive reconciliation bill that we will soon turn to, and you can't do that without touching Medicaid and Social Security.

Let me conclude. Social Security is not a giveaway. It is not riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse, and Democrats are united in protecting Medicaid and Social Security. We need to strengthen Social Security, not cut it, and I stand with my colleagues and every Democrat in this body in saying: Hands off of Social Security, President Trump and Elon Musk.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I would like to talk about MG Michael R. Berry of the Delaware National Guard.

Major General Berry is recommended for the Army Distinguished Service Medal for his exemplary meritorious service as the Adjutant General (TAG) for the Delaware National Guard (DENG). As the 35th Adjutant General of Delaware, Major General Berry's steadfast leadership, expertise in strategic planning, and keen operational oversight have sustained and grown the DENG as a reliable and effective force ready to respond to both State and national challenges and emergencies.

Throughout his tenure, Major General Berry ensured that DENG members and their equipment were always ready to respond and deploy in support of nations across the globe. During his time as TAG, the Delaware Army National Guard (DEARNG) deployed over 500 soldiers to Kuwait, Romania, Kosovo, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Additionally, the Delaware Air National Guard (DANG) deployed over 800 airmen in support of six combatant commands.

Major General Berry's leadership was also crucial as demands for the National Guard reached unprecedented levels during the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest, both in the Delaware and our Nation's Capital. Under Major General Berry's leadership, the DENG was heavily relied upon to administer vaccinations and COVID-19 tests and to manage test sites for hundreds of thousands of panic-stricken citizens. Major General Berry also led the DENG as it supported several food distribution sites, conducted a contact tracing mission, and supported a nursing assistant program to fill the crucial void of nurses needed to combat the pandemic. Major General Berry also provided guidance and direction to support our Nation's Capital during the attempted insurrection on January 6, 2021, as well as support for the 59th and 60th Presidential inaugurations. Major General Berry's deployment of soldiers and airmen to Washington with little notice was critical in restoring order and helping facilitate peaceful inaugurations during these two periods.

In an effort to remain ready and relevant in aviation, Major General Berry led the DANG in two fleet conversions that included the acquisition of eight C-130H2.5 models and seven C-130H3 models totaling $450 million. These aircraft were critical in the modernization of the DANG's fleet, helping to decrease maintenance requirements and increase flight time. Major General Berry also led the acquisition of a UH-72 Lakota helicopter detachment with two aircraft including flight crew, maintainers, and support personnel. This unit enhanced the domestic response capabilities of the DEARNG. Major General Berry also made it a priority to ensure that DENG facilities remain current and professional, facilitating over $172 million in increased funding for property acquisition, as well as major and minor construction. These funds were utilized to procure land and build new armories, alongside other major military construction improvement projects.

Major General Berry's service as TAG will have a lasting positive impact on the DENG, Delaware, and our Nation. Despite serving during a tumultuous time, Major General Berry executed his tenure with poise and decisiveness, bringing professionalism and security to the citizens of Delaware. Thanks to Major General Berry's leadership, the DENG has never been better positioned to serve the State and Nation in times of crises. His outstanding leadership and legacy of excellence will endure long after his retirement.

Mr. President, I rise to bring the attention of this body to a broken promise by our President. Our President promised, in the campaign and recently in an address to all of us here in Congress, to make America affordable again; to deal with the high prices of groceries, of fruits and vegetables, of housing, of housing supplies, of energy--to deal with high prices. Millions of Americans who voted for President Trump said they did so out of frustration about high prices.

Well, today, President Trump has announced he is going to impose tariffs on virtually every trading partner we have, and I rise in support of a piece of legislation we are about to vote on here in the Senate that gives us the chance to do something.

So to my colleagues, if you have heard, as I have, from your constituents, calling with concern and alarm about how much prices have not gone down but have gone up, I recommend you think about one country, one of our most trusted and loyal allies--some of the nicest people on the planet. Who doesn't like Canadians?

Canadians have served alongside us in virtually every war we have ever fought. They are a NATO ally and partner, and for my small-but- mighty State of Delaware, our major export destination and the nation from which we import the most.

And yet, because of an emergency at our border, which I think is wholly unjustified by the data of how little fentanyl actually comes into our country across the northern border, President Trump is moving ahead with slapping tariffs on Canada.

Tonight, you have a chance, I say to my colleagues, to vote to undo the declaration of an emergency on our northern border. You can vote to undo the

harm to businesses, to small families, to retirement accounts. Don't look at your 401(k) if you don't want to know tomorrow the consequences of indiscriminately slapping tariffs on every one of our major trading partners.

This is not ``Liberation Day'' but ``Tax Day''--a new national sales tax that will harm the imports we buy from virtually every country and, because of the countervailing tariffs, harm our exports.

A tariff is a tax, and tonight we will take a vote. And I hope some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join Senator Kaine and many of us in recognizing it is ludicrous to use the special emergency powers that Congress gave to the President assuming he would only do so in a case of war or active open hostility, not in the case of one of our trusted and loyal partners and allies, the great and kind people of Canada.

In recent meetings with Canadian leaders, they have said: Don't make us do it. Don't make us impose tariffs on you.

But, tonight, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs on dozens and dozens of our trading partners.

To my friends and colleagues, let's vote to undo this phony crisis and vote to undo the tariffs on U.S.-Canada trade.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I ask my friend and colleague from New Jersey if he is familiar with Psalm 30:5.

And if not, I offer to repeat it because I think it speaks to this moment.

Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the

morning.

Now, this is a holy month. It is the month of Lent. It is the month of Ramadan. It is the period of reflection preceding Passover. And my question to my colleague is rooted in a scripture in the Psalms known to both of us, one widely engaged in, in these days:

Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the

morning.

This is a reminder both of the possibility of redemption, of the urgency of hope, and of your nightlong sacrifice on this floor.

Let me ask, if I might, two more questions of my friend and colleague. To my colleague from New Jersey: Are you familiar with a front-page story on the Washington Post entitled ``Trump's USAID cuts cripple American response to Myanmar earthquake,'' an article running today in the Washington Post?

I had suspected that that might be the case, given that my colleague from New Jersey has dedicated his night to standing tall and fighting hard to make sure that the people of the United States know what is going on.

I will share with you, just for a moment, that it hurt my heart to watch the national evening news last night and see a Chinese humanitarian emergency response team celebrated as they pulled survivors out of the earthquake rubble in Myanmar. It did not hurt my heart that there are Chinese nationals providing emergency relief, but it hurt my heart that exactly those people who are the very best in the world at responding to humanitarian crisis, exactly those people had just received termination letters and their work with USAID had just been suspended.

Normally, in every humanitarian crisis I have known in my lifetime, the first in are the men and women of USAID and the U.S. Armed Forces. Whether a tsunami, a tornado, wildfires, or an earthquake, we had world-leading humanitarian response capabilities.

And I think it is a tragedy--and it is reflected in both this article that I have asked my colleague about and in the response of the world-- that we have created an enormous opening for the PRC to come in and do what we previously did so well.

Let me ask another question, if I might, of my colleague: Are you familiar with what has just happened to food banks all over our Nation in terms of an announcement about impending deliveries of badly needed surplus food? This, I suspect, will be the focus of your future comments on agriculture, but I mention it as something that has impacted my State and, I suspect, yours as well.

I will simply, then, ask my colleague a question.

To my colleague, I ask the question: Are you familiar with the cuts that have been imposed on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, suspending hundreds of millions of meals to Americans in need and the justification for that being offered?

Last question.

To my colleague from New Jersey, I ask the question: Are you familiar with when, whether, and why NATO has invoked article 4 and how the service and the sacrifice that followed reinforces exactly the point I believe my colleague was beginning to speak to, which is the common cause and the common purpose shown by all of our NATO allies in America's greatest moment of need in recent decades after the attacks of 9/11?

To my colleague, are you aware which of our European NATO allies lost per capita the highest number of their soldiers in combat serving alongside American servicemembers, a nation I visited, a nation whose servicemembers I visited, a nation that is today aggrieved by comments made recently? Are you familiar with our trusted ally Denmark?

Denmark.

Denmark lost per capita, I believe--excuse me. Let me simply ask of my colleague one more question.

Is my colleague aware that broadly distributed across our NATO allies is service and sacrifice, including the loss of their troops in combat and that every single loss in combat was a loss of great service and sacrifice by our NATO allies?

Will my colleague yield for another question?

Is my colleague familiar with the testimony of Gen. Jim Mattis, a decorated four-star Marine Corps general who served as Secretary of Defense in the previous Trump administration who testified about what the consequences would be if we were to defund development and diplomacy?

Will my colleague yield for a final question?

Does my colleague have an opinion about whether it strengthens or harms America in our national security to have an earned reputation as a nation of compassion, a nation that comes to the aid of those suffering through humanitarian disasters, a nation of compassion that provides healthcare and access for retirement in decency, a nation that cares for the least of these on the margins of the world and that has a just and inclusive society at home? Does my colleague have an opinion about whether it strengthens or weakens our Nation at home and abroad to earn a reputation for compassion and reliability or instead to deserve a reputation for unreliability and cruelty?

Mnangagwa.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator familiar with Rory Badger of Delaware? Is the Senator familiar with my guest to the speech to a joint session of Congress delivered by President Trump just a few weeks ago?

If I might, I simply want to ask my colleague--

To my colleague and friend from the great State of New Jersey, I simply am asking the question: Are you familiar with a marine from Seaford, DE? His name is Rory Badger. He is not a man of politics. He is not a partisan. And he only came to my attention when he called my office for assistance.

Rory Badger volunteered to serve our Nation, was deployed to Afghanistan, and is a decorated combat veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps. Working through the impact of his service, he has returned to the United States and was engaged by Fish and Wildlife in Delaware and doing great work to promote conservation.

With a young wife and a young son, Marine Badger reached for what was his dream job: to work for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. All Rory wanted to do, he conveyed to me in a letter and then in person when he came to visit here--all he wanted to do--was to help farmers on the Delmarva Peninsula conserve their land, create wildlife habitat, protect the environment, and be in places both beautiful and still.

As you, my friend and colleague, have documented in long discussion and debate in the last hour, he is one of thousands of veterans who woke to receive an unjust and unwarranted termination email that said it was for cause, without citing any cause, and that threw him into the chaos and hurt of having been summarily fired by the American Government.

He has ultimately been rehired, thankfully, but that period of chaos and of loss made him question our Nation and its commitment to our veterans.

I also--I will share with my colleague--had the opportunity to visit with our friend Senator McCain the prison where he was imprisoned for 5\1/2\ years, tortured repeatedly, and lived through the experiences you have just shared of fellow veterans risking their lives to do the most simple thing that we take for granted at the beginning of every day here: to pledge allegiance to our flag.

I had a chance, on visiting the ``Hanoi Hilton'' with our friend and former colleague Senator McCain, to ask him a simple question, which was at the end of his describing the period when friends were beaten horribly, when some were killed, and when his Vietnamese captors told him: We found out who your father is, a four-star admiral, and so we will release you any day.

I simply asked him: Knowing that you could at any moment, on any day, raise your hand and say, ``I will accept your offer,'' and go home, how did you endure another 5 years of torture and imprisonment?

His answer simply: To do so would not have been honorable.

My question to you, my friend and colleague: Was the firing of Rory Badger honorable? Is the leadership of our current administration and its treatment of our veterans honorable? Are the values shown by the decisions being made by Elon Musk and his team at DOGE honorable?

Are we putting at risk the very honor of our Nation in the mistreatment of the veterans of this country? This question I put to my friend and colleague.

Two thousand.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

You have, sir.

To my good friend and colleague, as we transition to comments about the economy, are you familiar with the very first time that Jesus stood in his home synagogue in Nazareth to preach?

He read from the scroll a passage from, I believe, Isaiah 61:1-2. This is recorded in Luke Chapter 4. And it is a well-known passage. I rely upon it to understand what was the ministry of Jesus centrally about.

He says:

This is fulfilled in your hearing today, the spirit of the

Lord is upon me. He has anointed me to preach good news to

the poor.

I don't think it is possible to read the Gospels and to read the Torah and to understand righteousness without hearing over and over and over in the course of the Old and New Testaments a call to respect those at the margins of life, a call to be generous and openhearted and kind to those who suffer and struggle, to be attentive to and present to those who are imprisoned, who are widows, who are orphans, to allow the gleaning of a field, which means to make sure that out of an abundance of our productivity on our farms, we make sure we feed those who hunger here at home and abroad.

You cannot miss the central message, which is, as you have said: kindness to those on the margins, attentiveness to those in need, good news to the poor.

So in this season of Lent, I ask my friend and colleague whether he is aware of our President's intention to impose significant tariffs sometime today or tomorrow that may raise the costs for working families in our Nation, that may make harder the lives of those who struggle to pay for their children's food and medicines and schooling, that instead of meeting his promise to make America affordable again, we will almost certainly make America less affordable for those who are exactly those to whom we are called to give attention kindness and service?

I ask my colleague and my friend: Are you aware of President Trump's so-called ``liberation day'' that will impose, in fact, thousands of dollars of additional costs on the working families of America who struggle so hard to make ends meet in a direct violation of a call to care for those in need?

Mr. President, Putin will only stop when we stop him. That piece of wisdom was shared with me on a trip to Europe by a former colleague, Senator McCain, and it seems to me to predict what has now unfolded over the last 3 years.

Three years ago, I was in Europe with colleagues, visiting American troops training with NATO allies and partners in Poland and Lithuania, on the day that the Russians began their illegal, unjustified, full- spectrum invasion of Ukraine. As more than 100,000 combat troops poured over the border, missiles flew in the air, and jets bombed, the world recoiled in horror and watched, expecting that the Ukrainians would be overrun in just 3 days.

Instead, President Zelenskyy, the elected President of a democracy, stood firm and stayed fast and defended his country. When offered a last-minute evacuation by America, he said: I don't need a ride. I need ammunition.

And I am thrilled to be on the floor today with a bipartisan group of my colleagues. Thank you to my colleague from New Hampshire for organizing this, and to my colleague from Maine for her words, which I will agree with from beginning to end. We must deter Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

If you look at who has joined the fight alongside Russia--Iran, North Korea--this is not a team America should be on. And if we look at who has come to the defense and aid of Ukraine, it is democracies from throughout Europe and the world--more than 50 countries--that, in combination, have done more than we have, significantly, to welcome Ukrainian refugees; to support the recovery of their economy; and to arm them in this ongoing, desperate, and critical fight for freedom in Ukraine.

Who is Vladimir Putin? He is a brutal and aggressive dictator. He is a war criminal. He is someone who has used every ounce of power and resource at his grasp to shatter the peace of Europe that has lasted decades since the Second World War and to attempt to drive a wedge between the United States and our European partners and allies.

The bravery, the determination, the skill, and the capacity of the Ukrainian people to stand and fight is breathtaking. And all of us who have had the honor of visiting Kyiv, of visiting Ukraine, of spending time with those who, behind the frontline, support

their troops and those who have served and sacrificed have been forever changed.

I had the opportunity, with our former colleague and friend Senator Portman, to go to Kyiv and to present the Liberty Medal from our National Constitution Center to President Zelenskyy. And to travel through a city shattered by war and to visit with people determined to continue their fight was as inspiring to me as I know it has been to many of my colleagues who have made that same trip.

We are here today to ask: Who are we and what will we do?

We are Americans. We have stood alongside and fought alongside those who have pursued democracy, those who have stood up for liberty, for decades, around the world, and we should not shrink from this fight. We can and should insist on a just and lasting peace.

We would all like to see this brutal war come to an end. We would all like to see the suffering stop. But to force on Ukraine a cease-fire that is really a surrender masked as a cease-fire would be to betray the sacrifice and service of so many. Asking Ukraine to willingly give up conquered territory and recognize Russian sovereignty, asking Ukraine to give up its desire for security and for integration into the West, to ask Ukraine to agree to limits on its military and its capacity to be prepared for what is a likely renewed Russian assault in the future--all of these would lead to not a neutral Ukraine but a neutered Ukraine.

We know what happens next. What happens next is that the world will look at whatever peace we can secure for Ukraine and ask: Are we reliable? Is the United States a reliable ally and partner?

Putin has already suffered a strategic defeat. NATO has already been expanded. The border between NATO and Russia has doubled. Our partners throughout the world have come to this fight, and they are committing even more, in recent weeks, as Europe has stepped up to pledge hundreds of billions of dollars more.

If we are to restore deterrence, if we are to sustain the peace, if we are to be the indispensable Nation that we have worked and fought so long to be, we must finish the job. We must deter Putin from future aggression by demanding that Ukraine be secured by a just and lasting peace.

The news today that intelligence and security cooperation has restarted is encouraging, but we have a resolution cosponsored by all the Members on the floor today that makes clear where we stand: We stand with Ukraine. We stand with democracy. We insist on a just and lasting peace in this instance, and we stand for Ukraine. ``Slava Ukraini.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, Tuesday March 4, is the 100th anniversary of the Probation Act of 1925. The act created our Nation's Federal probation system and, for the first time, authorized Federal judges to impose a sentence of probation as an alternative to incarceration. Alternatives to incarceration like probation facilitate the fair administration of justice, enhance public safety, and positively impact the lives of individuals who become involved with the Federal courts. Our Nation's probation officers and staff do deeply difficult and too-often unheralded work that plays a critical role in the functioning of our criminal justice system, and I am committed to doing what I can in the U.S. Senate to support them in what they do. I firmly believe that we owe them a debt of gratitude for their service, and I am especially grateful for the incredible work of Delaware's probation officers and staff working to make Delaware safer every day.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to seek unanimous consent for my STABLE Trade Policy Act with Senator Kaine, an act that would prevent any President from imposing tariffs on a U.S. ally or a free- trade agreement partner without congressional consent.

I will make that motion in just a moment, but let me, first, just explain what this is and why I am doing it.

Next week, President Trump has announced plans to impose 25-percent tariffs on products coming into the United States from Mexico and Canada, our No. 1 and No. 2 trading partners.

These tariffs will be disastrous for our economy and our national security. These tariffs will cost the average American household about $1,200 a year. They will raise costs for avocados, appliances, diesel fuel, dog toys, car parts, Christmas tree lights, tomatoes, and tequila. I could go on.

Our economies are so closely integrated--the United States, Canada, and Mexico--that it will increase the cost of a GM pickup truck about $10,000.

Even if these tariffs, at the last minute, are delayed, businesses are hurt by the uncertainty, which continues to increase costs.

President Trump plans to follow those tariffs with reciprocal tariffs on the EU, which includes many of our critical NATO allies and closest partners.

Imposing tariffs on our allies and partners diminishes our standing in the world and makes our neighbors less likely to help us in the future.

It is no surprise that Americans think this is a terrible idea. Barely a quarter of Americans think imposing tariffs on Canada is a good idea. More than double that disapprove.

President Trump has already declared an economic emergency to justify imposing these tariffs on Mexico and Canada, but my bill with Senator Kaine would prevent him from abusing long-established national security authorities to follow through on further tariff threats against our allies and FTA partners.

The U.S. Constitution in the Commerce Clause, article I, section 8, gives Congress jurisdiction over trade policy. It is time that we take ownership back of controlling the ability to impose tariffs willy-nilly on our trusted partners and allies by passing this bill and reining in President Trump's costly and damaging ideas.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 348 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I understand that Senator Crapo, the chairman of the Finance Committee, a supporter of President Trump, has blocked this bill today. I hope to find ways to work with him on improving market access and on elevating the quality and the capabilities of U.S. trade engagement with our partners. But I really don't understand why President Trump seems so intent on harming one of his signature accomplishments, the USMCA.

I am disappointed because Congress gave the President authority to impose tariffs in the event of a national security crisis. Congress did not grant this power to pursue petty grudges against trusted neighbors.

Honestly, how can anyone be angry with Canadians? They are the nicest people in the world. Yet here they are, working with us, pleading with us to not impose ruinous tariffs that would harm their economy and ours.

I will briefly, then, just make, again, a few simple points. I am disappointed that President Trump isn't doing more to reduce costs. He was elected, in no small part, because of high inflation and promised it would come down on day one.

These tariffs, if imposed, will make inflation worse and hit the lowest income Americans the hardest. It will impact American business, American families, and American communities.

So I hope that working together with my friends and colleagues here in the Senate, we can find ways to lower costs on pharmaceuticals and automobiles and microchips. But imposing reciprocal tariffs on trusted friends and allies and sparking tariff wars in our region and around the world is not the way to do that.

Two-thirds of Americans already think that President Trump isn't doing enough to lower costs. Blocking this bill will only accelerate that if President Trump continues to act unwisely and bully and threaten our closest and most trusted partners.

We must find a better way forward together.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1223 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President and colleagues, unvetted and unaccountable DOGE agents have seized control of government systems and databases that contain vast troves of personally identifying, sensitive information about nearly every American--financial data, health data, Social Security numbers, home addresses. The risks to our privacy are immense, and the opportunities for corruption alarming.

The possibility that unqualified and inexperienced individuals will break critical systems through malice or incompetence is chilling.

In the past few weeks, I have received literally thousands of calls from concerned constituents, and I expect many of my colleagues have as well.

Musk and his DOGE bureaucrats are accessing private data, and I am urging a ``yes'' vote on this amendment that would prohibit their access to this data or misusing private information.

Voters are worried. They are worried that if they say the wrong thing or speak up against Trump or DOGE, their bank account information will end up on Twitter, their tax return won't come, or their family member won't get their Social Security check.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on amendment No. 1223.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I will accept the voice vote.

Mr. President, trust--trust is at the very center of our national security: the trust that we share with allies and partners around the world; the trust that the American people have in us and in our armed services and in our intelligence services; the trust that vital allies have that causes them to share with us information about threats, challenges, opportunities. That is the very foundation of our national security.

And today, I rise to warn my colleagues about the risks to our national security posed by the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence.

As ranking member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have a significant involvement in our Nation's intelligence apparatus. And over the course of the confirmation hearings and the debate here on the floor about former Congresswoman Gabbard, I have concluded that she has an alarming record, revealed more fully in her confirmation hearings but also in a review of her speeches, her travels, her positions.

As a Democrat, as a Congresswoman, as a candidate for President, as a supporter of President Trump, she has gone quite a distance. She has defended Edward Snowden. Snowden is widely viewed by folks in our intelligence community, our national security apparatus, our Armed Forces, and many here as a traitor who betrayed some of the most important secrets that are critical to keeping the United States secure.

She would not, in her confirmation hearings, answer the question: Is Edward Snowden a traitor?

Ms. Gabbard bemoaned the rise of HTS in Syria, which recently overthrew the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad, without mentioning the fall of Assad. She talked about how tragic it was that HTS overran Damascus, without mentioning the side benefit of the fall of a brutal dictator. And in her confirmation hearings, she repeatedly dodged pointed and relevant questions about FISA and section 702, key tools for our intelligence community.

All of this is in keeping with a longstanding record as an apologist for authoritarians and even enemies of the United States. She has repeatedly blamed the United States and NATO for Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

And I will tell you, as someone who is about to go to the Munich Security Conference this weekend with a broad and bipartisan delegation from this body and from the House: I will never forget being at the Munich Security Conference just before Russia invaded Ukraine broad spectrum. They had been in eastern Ukraine at that point for years. They had occupied Crimea and then launched a war into the Donetsk, the Donbas, the eastern part of Ukraine.

But it was just days after the Munich Security Conference, in February 2022, that tens of thousands of Russian troops--whole divisions--poured over the line in a broad-spectrum invasion that included brutality against civilians, bombardment of the entire nation--ultimately, cruel acts of violence against women and children, fully documented in the press and courts around the world.

And yet Ms. Gabbard blamed the United States and NATO for provoking this invasion by Russia of a sovereign nation--a nation where the United States, in writing, guaranteed its territorial sovereignty in the 1994 agreement that led to them giving up their nuclear weapons.

Ms. Gabbard visited Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad for several days, in 2017, and relied on pro-Assad sources to cast doubt on accounts of his use of chemical weapons against his own people.

She has a long history of repeating pro-Kremlin talking points and has become a favorite on Russian state media. She appears frequently because she frequently is attacking the United States in Russian state media.

Mr. President, this body will all too soon take up the confirmation of Tulsi Gabbard. We should not proceed. We should not vote for her. Our Nation faces massive threats that are growing day by day. Our Nation is facing threats around the world--from North Korea and Iran, from China and from Russia--and we need an intelligence service equipped to respond to these challenges.

Can we trust Tulsi Gabbard to lead our intelligence services and to respond to these threats? I cannot. We cannot, and we should not. This body should not vote to confirm Tulsi Gabbard as the next Director of National Intelligence.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in speaking against Russell Vought, who has been nominated to run the most powerful and important Federal organization you never heard of, the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB.

Russell Vought has as much business running OMB as I do being a hair

model for Pantene. Russell Vought has as much business being near the Federal Government again and running the central plays that make the Federal Government work as I have standing behind center for the Eagles this Sunday running plays in the Super Bowl.

Vought had this position before, and it was a disaster. President Trump is supposed to be hiring on merit, have the very best people, the world's best people working for him. Why is he bringing back this complete failure for such a critical position?

Last time he was OMB Director, he rolled back critical regulations that keep Americans safe. He illegally withheld funds already appropriated by Congress. Sound familiar?

As bad as he was in the first term, he is already off to a much worse start in the second term as the shadow Director before he is even confirmed. His fingerprints have been all over the last 2 weeks of chaos and dysfunction.

He was the principal architect of Project 2025--a deep, thorough, detailed proposal for what it was that the Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action wanted to do if Trump were reelected; a policy blueprint so extreme that on the campaign trail, President Trump pretended he had never heard of it: Who is that? Who is this? No idea what Project 2025 is, who wrote it, or what it would do.

Russell Vought has demonized the folks who help run our Federal Government--the people who keep the VA running; the folks who deliver Social Security checks; the men and women, many of whom live in Delaware, who help keep us safe through air traffic control systems; who predict our weather through NOAA; who help Federal funds flow to school districts and daycares and senior centers.

I know the average American thinks of the Federal workforce as Federal bureaucrats who don't do much for them, but if you get into the details of their actual public service, the reach and scope and impact of what they do is remarkable--as we learned in Delaware just last week when they tried to shut it all down; but more on that in a moment.

Russell Vought has demonized these civil servants--he has called them villains who need to be in trauma--and he wants to radically augment Presidential authority. We are in the middle of a huge power grab by President Trump and his administration. He doesn't know or care whether or not the constitutional appropriations powers of Congress ought to be upheld. Not to get all ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' on you for a moment, but the core power of this body of Congress is the power of the purse--to decide how to spend the money that we collect from the American people to invest in your safety and security.

If you vote for Russell Vought to run OMB and you happen to be an appropriator, as I am, or one of the Members of this body who votes for appropriations every year, you are consigning yourself to irrelevance. You are voting to no longer be relevant to the future of our country, to our place in the world, and how the money we sign off on gets spent.

He has got a lot of bad ideas. I could spend a lot of time on the bad ideas of Russell Vought. Russell Vought has been nominated to run OMB, but I wouldn't trust him to run a Wawa.

His ideas include redirecting all disaster assistance to the States. Well, the point of having FEMA, which is the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is when a State gets overwhelmed by a hurricane, a wildfire, a tornado, when a natural disaster is so massive that it overcomes a State's ability to manage the disaster response, we elevate it to a Federal disaster response. That is the point. But he thinks we ought to pull all that back down to the States. Guess what States aren't going to get taken care of.

One of his core ideas in Project 2025 is to take a chain saw to the deep state--by freezing Federal assistance, by impounding Federal spending, and destroying Congress's power of the purse. He is the architect of the Executive orders issued by President Trump on his frenetic first days that produced a Federal spending freeze.

And the results, folks, have been catastrophic: widespread chaos, uncertainty for the nonprofits that provide so much support, whether it is counteracting fentanyl misuse, supporting Head Start, daycares, childcare, monitoring the weather to make sure that folks know when a tornado is coming or when there is a wildfire or a hurricane, supporting State and local law enforcement and our volunteer fire companies. These are all grantees.

To be clear, when President Trump signed an Executive order freezing all Federal grants for the domestic United States, these are all examples of the dozens and dozens of organizations that called me, called my office, called my Governor, and said: What does this mean for us?

Organizations were locked out of the Federal funding portals where they go to get their Federal funding. The Medicaid system went down. A fifth of all people in my State are on Medicaid, and it provides critical public health support for the opioid pandemic.

If President Trump's promise was to bring prices down and keep Americans safe, he has failed on both counts, and what he did with this nationwide Federal freezing ban--dreamed up by Russell Vought--failed to keep us safe.

When FEMA grants went down, when they froze the grants to State and local law enforcement, Russell Vought and President Trump were literally defunding the police.

Let's take a second and look at that again. Lots of my colleagues--I was here on the floor. Lots of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle gave speech after speech about how terrible it would be to ever put at risk law enforcement--Federal, State, local--by defunding the police.

President Trump did two things in his first week that made clear they don't mean this at all. One was pardoning hundreds of individuals who stormed into this Chamber and assaulted Capitol Police officers, pardoning people who assaulted police officers.

The second was freezing all domestic Federal grants with no exception for State and local law enforcement. I am the cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus. I was responsible for the second largest police department in Delaware. I know what it means to have Federal grants come through what is called the Byrne-JAG grant program. I know what it means to have Federal grants for bulletproof vests. I know what it means to have Federal grants come through the COPS Hiring Program. For State and local law enforcement, this was a moment of ``Hang on a minute. What?'' when those grants were frozen.

There are other ways that Federal grants help our country be safe. It promotes research that keeps us healthier. We just survived a pandemic, made worse by President Trump's mishandling of it, but let's not relitigate that now.

Research hospitals in my State got notification from the NIH and the CDC that their research projects were frozen and were now under review. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention distribute billions of dollars in grants. There are teams of folks doing research on the ground, in hospitals, in academia, in medical practices. All of them got notices that these were being frozen.

Domestic violence shelters. Part of my role in my decade in county government was helping advocate for law enforcement and our paramedics and community-based nonprofits that respond to incidents of domestic violence. It was to be as supportive as possible to make sure the victims were not retraumatized by a second, third, and fourth interview; to protect the security and sanctity of the shelters they went to; and to protect, in particular, children who had been abused.

The idea that in order to slash government spending by wasteful Federal bureaucrats, notice would go out to all of the nonprofit shelters and organizations in my State and around the country that keep people safe from domestic violence--how was this a good idea? This was Russell Vought's idea. I wouldn't trust Russell Vought to run a 5K, let alone to run the Federal Government, let alone to run the process by which we distribute funds to the things that keep us safe and healthy and prosperous. Whether it is hospitals, domestic violence shelters, daycares, senior centers, the things that were impacted by the abrupt taking of a chain saw to our Federal system defies description.

But Russell Vought didn't stop with freezing Federal funds. Bluntly, the disorder, the chaos, the alarm is part of the goal. Empowering DOGE--the Department of Government Efficiency, which is neither a Department nor is advancing government efficiency that is affiliated with Elon Musk--has been advanced aggressively in these first 2 weeks by giving them access to reams of data at the center for Medicare and Medicaid at USAID--the foreign aid Agency at the National Institutes of Health at the Department of Education.

Bluntly, the most alarming thing that has happened is access to the entire Treasury payment system. This is part of Russell Vought's Project 2025--to make sure that this unelected, unauthorized DOGE team got into the most important, critical repository of people's personal information--their tax records--and to be able to control which disbursements of Federal funds will happen and which will not.

Before he has even been voted on in this Chamber, Russell Vought as OMB Director, as shadow director, and as author of Project 2025 has been to facilitate some of the most alarming violations of Americans' privacy in our lifetimes, and this must be stopped.

For all of my colleagues on the right who screamed bloody murder about censorship in recent years but are silent when unelected DOGE bureaucrats can turn off your Social Security and Medicare payments if they think you are not supportive enough, who can peer into and malignly share details about payments you received or didn't receive, they now have the access and control to go back and change the master record of your tax filings.

This should be alarming to anyone who cares about privacy, security, individual liberties. They are now threatening to destroy the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Labor--disfavored Federal service Agencies--after taking a sledgehammer to our foreign aid system by shutting down USAID. The stuff they are doing before Russell Vought is even confirmed is breathtaking, and the consequences are real--yes-- to the government workforce but to people in my home State.

So let me take a moment and just share a few examples from Delaware of how this chaos--how this tearing through our system with a chain saw--has impacted the people I represent.

One Delawarean, alarmed, called in to my office and said:

I am a Department of Defense employee that received the

Office of Personnel Management notice that ``resign'' is an

option I should take as part of the ongoing purge of career

civil servants by President Trump. We are left--

He said--

with the worst possible decision to make with emotion as the

only driver since the list of exempt positions--

Those who are exempt from this drive to force folks out of service--

isn't being shared. So I have to come to work to the U.S.

Department of Defense every day, wondering if it's my last

day, if I'll be asked to resign and be later told we can't--

or to resign proactively and find out later whether the

position is actually cut, and I won't receive my severance

benefits. As a retired veteran--someone who served our Nation

for 21 years in the military and now 5 years in the civil

service--I can honestly say, I am ashamed of my government.

This mistreatment of a veteran, of a civilian employee of the Department of Defense and trying to force them out with a scare tactic identical to what was done at Twitter is beneath us.

I have been on this floor, in my 14 years as a Senator, where I have heard passionate statements about the urgency of supporting our veterans and those who support our veterans--the Department of Defense and the VA. Yet I hear nothing from my colleagues on the other side--no alarm or concern. From my constituents, yes. From my colleagues, no.

Here is another message I got this week from a Delawarean in my office:

I am a Federal employee, and I am very disturbed by the

continuous string of emails we are receiving about this

cryptic deferred resignation program. I feel the information

we are receiving is a flat-out lie, and I don't understand

how the government can pay employees for 9 months and receive

the full pay and benefits if they agree to resign. I feel

this email is a lie, and I don't understand how Congress is

continuing to allow these emails--pushing us out--to be sent

to us.

These are just two of hundreds of examples. The phones in my office-- in Wilmington, in Dover, and here in Washington--have been ringing off the hook. The number of calls to my colleagues have nearly broken the voice mail system here in Congress. Folks are alarmed and upset either because they have gotten these emails that they have to choose today-- literally, this is the day--whether or not to resign. They are unclear whether it is actually funded. It is not. They are unclear whether this was approved by Congress. It wasn't. They are unclear as to whether, if they fail to accept this ``resign now'' offer, they will instead be fired and lose some part of their pensions.

These are folks who have served us--as has the individual whose story I just read--for decades. Yet where is the concern from my colleagues for our veterans and those who maintain our Department of Defense, our Veterans Health Administration, our intelligence Agencies, and the rest of the important Federal services that are provided to our constituents and our States?

Let me talk for a few minutes about the brutal impact on our global foreign aid system of Mr. Russell Vought's Project 2025.

I am here on the floor as part of an effort by my colleagues to stand up and speak out against what his plan is doing at home and abroad, and I want to take a moment and talk about USAID, which is an Agency founded by President Kennedy that does good work around the world on our behalf--work that keeps us safe, keeps us strong, and protects the American people.

The cuts to AID by Russell Vought and President Trump are just the very first step in a playbook that will next move on to other Agencies--Agencies like the Department of Education, NOAA that predicts the weather, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Veterans' Administration, and the Foreign Aid Administration. USAID is just the rehearsal. The main act is coming very soon--in fact, likely this week or next.

President Trump promised to keep America safe, and foreign aid is a key part of keeping us safe. It is less than 1 percent of the total Federal budget.

In my role on the Foreign Relations Committee, I have traveled with Members of both parties to places around the world where I have seen how our trusted nonprofit partners--partners like Catholic Relief Services, partners like Save the Children, partners like World Vision-- implement programs that fight disease, that counter human trafficking, that push back on extremism, and that stabilize countries devastated by war. All build relationships with other countries and communities to, frankly, push back on Chinese and Russian influence, to push back on extremism and jihadism, and to make the world safer for America and Americans. This is not just soft power; it is smart power. And for years, it has enjoyed bipartisan support.

USAID programs authored by Republican Presidents, like PEPFAR and the President's Malaria Initiative, which I visited with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, show real results for the American people. Right now, there is an outbreak of Ebola in Uganda. Right now, there is an outbreak of Marburg in Tanzania. These are horrific diseases-- diseases that shred your internal systems and cause you to bleed out of every orifice. Marburg, in recent cases, has a 90-percent fatality rate, and there is no approved vaccine.

It is so much smarter for us to invest in local staff in these countries in East Africa, tracking, tracing, and preventing the spread of these diseases than shutting it all down and waiting and hoping that it doesn't spread.

When the Ebola pandemic occurred in West Africa in 2017, 2016, I traveled there and saw what USAID partners--partners like Samaritan's Purse, partners like Catholic Relief Services, partners like Doctors Without Borders--what they were doing on the ground, bravely, to push back on this incredible, horrible pandemic.

When we cut foreign aid, we cut off our nose to spite our face. We impose costs and loss with the suddenness, the sharpness of these freezes, and we will not have anything left.

Some of my Republican colleagues have said: We are just trying to trim out the woke programs. We are just trying to shrink it a little bit, reform

it a little bit, and most of it will survive.

That, I expected. That, I could work with. But here is how this is supposed to work, folks: Next budget year, which is beginning now, we have hearings. We do oversight. We look at these programs, and we figure out how to trim them and make them more efficient and shape them so that they match the policy objectives of the current majority and the current President. That, I expect, but that is not what is happening.

What is happening is that Russell Vought, the nominee to be OMB Director, in carrying out Project 2025, which Trump claimed he knew nothing about on the campaign trail, shut it down cold, issued an Executive order completely shutting off funding.

Now, there have been some attempts at humanitarian waivers. Secretary Rubio had promised his colleagues there will be waivers for things like PEPFAR, but they are not yet working.

So when hundreds of programs around the world get what are called stop-work orders, which means put the tools down; abandon the food supplies on the dock; walk away from the hospital; stop pulling up mines out of the ground in Angola--a place riven by conflict, where we fund, through The HALO Trust, demining--stop training children how to avoid the predation of gangs and human traffickers in Mexico; stop trying to reduce civil conflict in the Philippines by engaging with civil society groups; just walk away from all of this--a stop-work order has caused our USAID workforce and their nonprofit partners around the world to put the tools down.

Just yesterday, an order went out to bring back to the United States the entire workforce around the world of USAID. Don't they have homes? Don't they have families? Don't they have spouses? They do. So what this will effectively mean is, it will force some of the most capable and skilled people, who understand how to deliver humanitarian relief at scale, to choose to resign, to give up a career and a life that they have enjoyed, making a real difference for the American people, or to comply and abruptly sell their home, pull their kids out of school, get their spouse to quit their job, and move back to the United States. Guess what that is. Chaos. That is taking a chain saw to Federal aid, not a scalpel.

That is not reforming. That is not getting rid of the woke. That is not aligning with American values and priorities. That is harming one of the most effective, valued, long-bipartisan Agencies we have. The damage is being done today. While we talk and debate and deliberate, thousands of people's lives are being changed, and millions are being cut off from lifesaving assistance, from critical development support, and from interventions that help make us safe. Who wins? Who is cheering?

I am here on the floor today joining my colleagues in speaking out against the nomination of Russell Vought to run the OMB because his Project 2025 and his plans for what to do with the Federal Government have one clear winner: our adversaries and our opponents.

The complete shutdown of U.S. foreign aid has China and Russia cheering. Russian state media is already celebrating that we are ceding the field, that we are putting down our tools, that we are abandoning our partners.

China has already come to Nepal--a country in the Himalayas, where the United States has long been working with communities to stabilize them after their civil war. China is saying: Oh, the Americans abandoned you. How sad. We will come in and help you.

China has invested massively in expanding their diplomacy and their development, their soft power, and they have won friends and influence around the world. They are getting access to ports and airports, to critical minerals, and to resources that we need, at our expense.

Secretary Rubio, who served as a Senator here with me for 15 years-- no one has been more fierce, more persistent, more focused on standing up to the threat of the People's Republic of China than Senator Marco Rubio. I don't comprehend how he can look at what is happening around the world and say this isn't creating a huge opening for China.

So when my friends across the aisle say that this is all about efficiency, about trimming, about reorganization, don't be fooled. Don't believe them. Don't think that this is about a nip here and a tuck there. This is a chain saw. They are starting with foreign aid, and they are advancing to the Department of Education, and then they are moving to the Veterans' Administration, and then they are taking on programs that millions and millions of Americans rely on day in and day out.

Last week was a rehearsal. The Executive order that froze all domestic grants caused a huge pushback in the United States and brought a Federal court action, an injunction. That is the reason, folks, if you are watching, that you haven't seen daycares shut down, that you haven't seen police and fire departments complaining, that you haven't seen veterans' homes shuttered, that you haven't seen an immediate impact here in the United States. It is only because a Federal court in Rhode Island, at the insistence of my attorney general Kathy Jennings and the attorneys general from New York and two dozen other States filed in a Federal court and said this is illegal. Judge McConnell looked at it and said ``You are right'' and issued an injunction. That is the only reason this hasn't moved forward. But it has moved forward overseas. Our foreign aid has been slashed to the bone, shut down cold. People were called, folks shut out, and security systems infiltrated.

What they have done to USAID is a rehearsal for what they are doing next, and it was all designed by Russell Vought, the nominee to run

Mr. President, I have just been updated on the latest plans for the future of USAID, and I have to say I am heartbroken.

Founded by President Kennedy decades ago, this dedicated cadre of U.S. citizens live and serve around the world. Thousands and thousands of them have spent their lives working with American nonprofits and with local partners combating disease, pushing back on jihadism and extremism, protecting creation and vulnerable spaces around the world, combating human trafficking, removing mines from fields where they were placed in wars decades before, making us safe.

Next week, there will be no more than 600 staff left of a once proud and strong global Agency that employed more than 10,000 and that partnered with household-name, American-led nonprofits that have done amazing work.

I have seen that work around the world. I have visited places where American volunteers, where nonprofits, where career staff design and implement incredible programs in partnership with local communities. I will mention just a few.

Kibera, in Nairobi, is an incredible place, an informal settlement of slum, of thousands and thousands of people living in shacks in a valley.

The phrase ``godforsaken'' is one I have never liked because there is no place that is godforsaken. In fact, in Kibera, at St. Mary's Medical Clinic, on my first visit as a Senator to Kibera--I had been there before--I got to see the care, the support, the nurturing for sick children, for those with no access to healthcare, the delivery of vaccines and medicines, of safe water, of a response to urgent need, done in a clinic motivated by faith, informed by our concern for others, and that makes us and our Nation more safe.

I will never forget being in Kampala, the capital of Uganda, and visiting a refugee welcoming center run by American Evangelicals who had moved there and devoted their lives to providing skills training, counseling.

Thousands and thousands of refugees were pouring into Uganda from the civil war in South Sudan, just to the north. And on an Easter weekend trip with my friend and former Republican colleague Bob Corker, we got to see firsthand the services that were being delivered in the very north of Uganda to recent refugees, profoundly traumatized, most of whom had had family members murdered in front of them and who had walked hundreds or even thousands of miles.

A quarter million people had flowed over the northern border of Uganda and were resettling the Bidibidi refugee camp. Chaos, disease, suffering--to see the work of American hands, volunteers, whether in the capital of Kampala or up in Bidibidi, was to be touched by the remarkable humanitarian work of America and our partners: Ugandans, Kenyans, Tanzanians.

I mentioned earlier that right now, today, there is an outbreak of Ebola in the very capital of Uganda, Kampala, a place I have been to a number of times. And in Tanzania there is an outbreak of Marburg virus. These are hemorrhagic diseases, horrific virus infections that can tear through a village or a community. But the danger of having an outbreak in a capital city of millions of people--to the entire world--cannot be overstated.

In this moment that we have had our Nation put down the tools and say, ``Go home; give up your work; stop protecting our public health; stop protecting refugees; stop pushing back on human trafficking; stop pushing back on gender-based violence,'' is shameful, is immoral, is embarrassing, is unsafe.

Our Nation is safe today from so many threats overseas, yes, because of our Department of Defense; yes, because of our intelligence professionals; yes, because of our diplomats. But to take away completely, to shut down cold our global network of development professionals, to abandon the field to China, to Russia, to the extremists and the human traffickers who are delighted that we have receded, that we have walked away from this vital work--it hurts my heart.

It is hard to believe that here in this Senate there are so few voices raised in opposition to this sudden, cataclysmic, chain-saw approach to slashing the investments we have made together over decades.

President Bush came up with the idea for PEPFAR. You may not know what PEPFAR is. It is a program that the United States initiated to fight the dread pandemic of HIV/AIDS which, across the continent of Africa, would have killed more than 20 million people since it was launched under President Bush's administration. But medical clinics, treatment for nurses, outreach to communities, antiretroviral drugs, pharmaceuticals delivered by the American people in partnership with a dozen other countries and in partnership with the public health services of the countries that PEPFAR works in--all of this in combination has saved more lives than any intervention by any country in human history.

It is a proud part of President Bush's legacy. It is a proud part of the legacy of Republican and Democratic Senators. It is a proud part of what I would have hoped the Trump administration would continue-- fighting malaria, fighting polio. We eradicated smallpox from the planet through the great work of USAID.

I still remember visiting a place in an island off of Tanzania called Zanzibar where we had eradicated malaria, which kills children by the hundreds of thousands every year. We have done great work.

And one of our Nation's most successful businesspeople and one of the world's leading philanthropists, Bill Gates, who is spending billions of his own dollars in these same pursuits--in fighting neglected tropical diseases, in pushing back on polio and malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis--he has said this week that the work of USAID is critical, is valuable; that the things he has invested in he knew were good and well-performed and appropriate for him to invest in because he consulted so closely with the experts at USAID.

I have known each of the last four AID Administrators--Republican and Democrat--good people who work across the aisle to support and sustain global work by the American people.

When we gather in this building at a weekly Prayer Breakfast--that is bipartisan and that only includes Senators and our Chaplain--we pray for the blessings of the American people and our opportunity to do good and make a difference in the world.

For us to abandon so abruptly and completely our opportunity to make our Nation and our people safer and stronger, to push back on the malign forces of extremism of China, of Russia, of others who will take opportunity of this moment, and to abandon our work that for so long has made such a difference to millions is a shameful chapter in this institution's history and our Nation's history.

We should not walk away from all the good we have done, from all the knowledge we have built, from all the ways we have advanced and defended the American people's interests through this work, and we should not put down these tools.