Floor Statements

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a dedicated public servant, advocate for education, fair housing, conservation and equity, and longtime community leader from Flint, MI: Honorable Floyd E. Clack, who passed away on April 3, 2025, at the age of 84. Mr. Clack touched countless lives as a champion for the city of Flint and his community at large. It is a privilege and a sorrow both to recognize him here today and celebrate his life's work and many achievements.

Born in 1940, Mr. Clack spent his childhood in Houston, TX, before relocating to Michigan, where he went on to earn a master of arts in education from Eastern Michigan University. Embracing his love for education, he served as a social studies teacher at Flint Northern High School and later as a guidance counselor in the school district.

In 1979, Mr. Clack began his career as a politician with a successful campaign leading to his election to the Flint City Council, where he served until 1992. He was then elected to the Michigan House of Representatives, where he served until 1996, due to term limits. He then returned to his local community, continuing his elected service on the Genesee County Board of Commissioners from 1996 to 2004. Finally in 2005, he was appointed by then-Governor Granholm to the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents, where he served until his retirement in 2014.

His enduring service to the Flint community included his presidency of the Flint Chapter of the NAACP, membership in the Urban League of Flint, Free & Accepted Masons, Lions Club, both the American and Michigan Corrections Association, and Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. These organizations further embodied Mr. Clack's dedicated story of service and advocacy of equality, equity, and the power of quality education.

Mr. Clack was not afraid to speak truth to power. In 1980, he called for

the resignation of the Flint police chief after the fatal shooting of William Taylor, Jr., an unarmed teenager, by an active-duty police officer. His response also called for the hiring and promotion of more Black officers, a call that in the decades which followed has become reality on the city's police force, which has diversified through officer hiring and several appointments of Black police chiefs including the current chief serving today.

Throughout his lifetime, Mr. Clack was recognized for his leadership, advocacy, and education efforts; this included honors from the Concerned Pastors Association, an inductee of the Greater Flint Afro- American Hall of Fame, by the Michigan Education Association, and the Lions Club.

The impacts of Mr. Clack's work will long be remembered by the Flint community through the stories of his service and landmarks he advocated for, including a push to rename the downtown Flint bus station in honor of Rosa Parks, which helped lead to the creation of a bronze statute honoring the civil rights pioneer at the facilities entrance that remains today.

The Hon. Floyd E. Clack not only served but also inspired others to step up for the city of Flint and the State of Michigan. His wife Brenda also served in the Michigan House. I ask you to join me, Floyd's family, his friends, and everyone he inspired in recognizing and celebrating his life and numerous accomplishments. I hope that each of us can find some comfort in the precious moments and memories that were shared with him.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Eric Ueland's nomination to be Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget.

Congress charged the Deputy Director for Management with improving the performance, integrity, accountability, and transparency of the whole of government. This role is responsible for managing the personnel who work for the government, what the Federal Government purchases, and how the Federal Government manages its money.

Given his record and views, I have serious concerns about how Eric Ueland will carry out these responsibilities.

First, I am concerned by his willingness to break the law, especially when it comes to Congress's power of the purse. He supports the administration's efforts to illegally withhold funding that Congress has passed into law.

Mr. Ueland currently serves as the Acting Chief of Staff at the Office of Management and Budget, and he has helped freeze Federal funds and grants and loans across the government--illegal actions that shut off resources for police departments, hospitals, and workforce development agencies.

Like all of my colleagues in Congress, I swore an oath to uphold and follow the law set forth in our Constitution, which affirms that Congress--and Congress alone--is responsible for deciding how Federal funds are spent, not the President or members of his administration.

Eric Ueland has also been a staunch supporter of recklessly and indiscriminately shutting down Agencies and laying off employees, with no regard for how these actions might harm the government's ability to protect our national security or provide vital services to the American people. He refused to commit to even analyzing the impact that mass firings have had on the effectiveness of the Federal workforce, let alone acknowledging the harm government services will experience as a result of these actions.

Finally, Eric Ueland has made it clear that he will ignore conflicts of interest in the government's policy and contracting decisions, letting those in charge of government use it as a tool to enrich themselves.

As Elon Musk is pushing Agencies to purchase services that his own companies provide and shutting down Agencies that are investigating his companies, Eric Ueland told me that he was unable to see any conflicts of interest raised by Elon Musk's influence on government decisions.

Government should make decisions in the interests of the people and not in the interests of conflicted billionaire donors to the President like Elon Musk.

If Eric Ueland is confirmed, I am concerned that he will defy our duly passed laws and our Constitution to continue President Trump and Elon Musk's assault on the Federal Government. Because of this, I oppose Eric Ueland's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote start immediately.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, on so-called ``Liberation Day'' this week, President Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on all of our trading partners--the size, the scope, and the impact of which have not been seen for nearly 100 years.

The last time our Nation imposed tariffs of this magnitude, it was when Republicans passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the 1930s. And when they did that, it crashed our economy and drove the United States further into the Great Depression. It was a history lesson that should never be repeated.

Let me say that again. It was a history lesson that should never be repeated.

But, yesterday, Donald Trump imposed far-reaching tariffs at a rate higher than Smoot-Hawley, higher than it was then with those catastrophic consequences. The history is clear. This strategy does not work and can have absolutely catastrophic consequences.

It is no surprise the President's tariff announcement sent shock waves through our economy, dropping markets to their lowest level since the COVID pandemic in 2020. Just yesterday, the Dow Jones Average dropped more than 1,600 point--a 4-percent decline. The S&P 500 companies lost a combined--this is a big number--$2.4 trillion in value. And as Wall Street opened today, we are, unfortunately, seeing the market continue to plummet--as I speak right now, another $2 trillion lost.

That is quite a record for the President, to lose Americans $4 trillion in 2 days. That has never been done before. That is a record.

Let's just get this straight. During his first administration, we know Donald Trump grossly mismanaged the pandemic and tanked our economy then, and it took years for the markets to recover. Now, to kick off his second administration, he is playing poker with Americans' livelihoods, with Americans' retirement savings, and with Americans' hard-earned incomes.

It is clear what this means to the average American. It means that when you go to buy things like eggs and clothing and new appliances for your home, they are going to cost more. You will notice that when you go to the store. It is going to be very real. You will have less money in your pocket, and it is because of Donald Trump. He owns this-- because of Donald Trump.

If you are thinking about retiring soon, you have seen--in the last couple of days, if you look--your 401(k) and your IRA retirement funds decimated, and it is because of Donald Trump.

There are folks out there right now who are being forced to have real, hard conversations about whether they can even retire as they had planned, or are they going to need to keep working a little longer. And, let's be clear, it is because of Donald Trump.

But, you know, he didn't have to do this. In fact, some of you know Jim Cramer, a leading voice in financial markets. In response to Trump's decisions, he said:

I struggle for what the president's game plan is because if

you wanted to make the market crash, I think you would go

with this . . . plan.

He said:

It should not be in our country's interest to have the

market crash.

That is not a hot take, to me. That is just plain old common sense.

So what happened? Well, on Wednesday, the country experienced a national sales tax day. In the coming days, weeks, and months, the impact of the President's national sales tax will be devastating. And it won't be our competitors who are footing the bill. It will be the American people who pay the tax on their groceries, their gas, and all the other goods that they buy.

For instance, take the price of a new home. Building a new house requires everything from lumber to steel, to concrete, light fixtures, ceiling fans, and appliances. And thanks to the President's all-out trade war, imports of every single one of those products will be subject to the national sales tax that Americans will pay--that Americans will pay.

As a result, the price of a new home has been estimated to increase up to $20,000. Buying a home is already challenging enough for most folks. Putting that additional cost on American families is simply unacceptable.

It is not just homes. Gas, vehicles, groceries, household appliances--all will become more expensive because of Donald Trump.

Remember, when you see higher prices at the store, as you go to the store in the next few weeks and months, and you say, ``Whoa, this price is up,'' it is because of Donald Trump. He owns this.

In fact, it has been estimated that the Republican national sales tax will cost the average family more than $5,000 per year.

This national sales tax won't miraculously improve trade relationships or bring jobs home. It will only make it harder for hard- working Americans who are trying to create a better life for themselves and for their children.

In fact--and this statement is shocking, but it is true--Donald Trump is actually prepared to plunge this country into a recession, one that could cost up to 400,000 jobs. And he said it.

Just yesterday, because of Donald Trump's tax plan, JPMorgan raised the odds of the United States heading into a recession to 60 percent, and it is likely to go up as things continue.

But, again, what does Donald Trump have to say about all of this? He said he doesn't care. Look it up. It is clear. He said it.

I can honestly say, I do not think I have ever, ever heard an American President say they don't care if we go into a recession. I have never heard an American President say they don't care if American families and small businesses are hurt because of their policies. I don't think any President in history has ever said that, not just those whom I have experienced in my life.

What makes it worse is that while Americans bear the brunt of this new sales tax, the White House and Republicans here in Congress are actively working right now to give a big tax break to billionaires--not everyday working people, billionaires. They are going to be increasing the taxes on everybody through this national sales tax.

And they plan to do it, among other things, by cutting things like essential healthcare that Americans rely on each and every day.

I will say--I will step back here. There are instances where tariffs can make sense. Tariffs are--if they are strategic, if they are targeted, they can be useful tools in bringing back American jobs. Certainly, they can be used to combat unfair trading practices used by adversaries like China, and I support those types of tariffs. For example, last year, I supported the 100-percent tariff we imposed on Chinese electric vehicles.

We know the Chinese Government is actively working to undermine our national security and our economic success. And companies backed by the Chinese Communist Party are flooding the global marketplace with artificially cheap vehicles that are, really, actually capable of stealing Americans' personal data, committing espionage, and even manipulating folks on the road while they are driving.

It makes sense to raise tariffs on those technologies because they do, indeed, present a real national security threat to Americans, and they could impact in an incredibly negative way our auto industry.

When it comes to protecting the future of our auto industry and cementing Michigan's leadership in automotive innovation, there is no question that I support taking strong action to bring auto manufacturing jobs back to the United States, to secure a better trade deal for our auto industry, and to make sure that we have a level playing field for American workers and businesses to succeed.

But these on-again, off-again, across-the-board tariffs--this isn't a real plan. This is chaos, and it will not help us to achieve any of our long-term goals.

For tariffs to work, they have to be a part of a comprehensive strategy that actually supports American workers and businesses. They can't just be haphazardly dumped on our trade allies like Canada, whose goods and products actually help us grow our manufacturing sector, create more jobs in America, and remain the greatest economy in the world.

Take our auto industry, for example, the lifeblood of my State and the foundation of American manufacturing. The trade relationship between Michigan and Canada is so integrated that car components cross the U.S.-Canada border up to eight times before they are actually installed in final assembly. In fact, if Michigan were a country, we would be one of Canada's largest trading partners in the world.

Going after Canada will be devastating for Michigan businesses that work hand in glove with our closest trade ally to the north to grow their companies and to create jobs here at home.

If President Trump is serious--if he is serious, big question, if he is serious--about leveling the playing field and bringing auto manufacturing jobs back to the United States, here is a playbook that he could actually follow:

One, we need to pursue targeted tariffs on our adversaries, like China and our biggest overseas competitors, to ensure that more cars that are sold in America are built here in America.

Two, we need to renegotiate any trade deals that aren't favorable to American businesses and workers--something that offers far, far more certainty than sporadic tariffs. Specifically, we need to take a look at USMCA, where we have a real chance to address some of the shortcomings and outdated policies of our current trade landscape. Because while USMCA brought back some manufacturing jobs and some job opportunities, it is far from perfect.

China, unfortunately, has found ways to take advantage of the agreement's preferred treatment of goods by locating facilities in Mexico. And labor standards, particularly in Mexico, certainly need to be a whole lot stronger.

We will have an opportunity to renegotiate this agreement next summer, at times that the current administration actually agreed to when it negotiated this deal in President Trump's first term, and we need to seize--we need to seize--that opportunity. But with these tariffs looming like a black cloud over some of our most crucial relationships, I am concerned that we will be coming to the negotiating table with one hand tied behind our back.

Let's be clear. We should look to pursue those types of renegotiations throughout all of our trade agreements to ensure they are advantageous to American businesses and workers.

Three, we must aggressively enforce the trade laws that we already have on the books. We need to double down on our efforts to deter trade cheats like China, which requires providing more resources for our Federal trade Agencies, not indiscriminately firing Federal workers. Doing so will allow us to counteract countries that try to evade tariffs, dump their products into our markets, and engage in transshipment.

And finally, if President Trump is serious about protecting auto jobs here in the United States, he needs to end his attacks on the Inflation Reduction Act, plain and simple. Right now, Republicans are proposing a budget that will repeal incentives in the IRA like the advanced manufacturing tax credit and the electric vehicle tax credit, both of which have already--they have already--created thousands of new auto and battery manufacturing jobs right here in America.

To me, that is absolutely unthinkable, to end this. Why would you want to put an end to something that has proven to be successful at creating economic growth and good-paying manufacturing jobs in our country? It makes no sense.

The President needs to put his money where his mouth is and end this tariff charade. The stakes are just too high for American families, for our workers, and for our economy to get this wrong.

Madam President, I urge all of my colleagues to say no to the national sales tax, and instead, let's liberate some common sense and work together to make this country stronger.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to Congressman Bishop's nomination to be the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, is responsible for a range of critical functions, from developing and executing the Federal budget to improving Agency performance and reviewing regulations.

Given his record and views, I have serious concerns about how Congressman Bishop will help lead this important office.

First of all, I am concerned by his willingness to break the law, especially when it comes to Congress's power of the purse. He supports the administration's efforts to illegally withhold funding that Congress has passed into law.

Like all of my colleagues in Congress, I swore an oath to uphold and follow the laws set forth in our Constitution, which affirms that Congress--and Congress alone--is responsible for deciding how Federal funds are spent, not the President or members of his administration.

The administration's actions so far to freeze congressionally approved funds have already rocked communities all across my home State of Michigan, as well as across the entire Nation. These communities count on the funds appropriated by Congress to upgrade their roads and bridges and pay their police and first responders.

If confirmed, Congressman Bishop will only be a rubberstamp for Donald Trump and Director Vought's flagrant disregard for the spending laws passed by Congress.

Congressman Bishop has also been a staunch supporter of mass layoffs within the Federal workforce that undermine our government's ability to provide vital services to the American people.

Our nonpartisan civil servants play vital roles in protecting our national security, caring for our veterans, and ensuring the safety of our transportation system. If we allow the Trump administration to indiscriminately fire these nonpartisan experts and replace them with their political cronies, they will only put our Nation and our people at risk.

Finally, I am alarmed by his complete disregard for the law when it comes to whistleblower protections. As a Member of Congress, he revealed the name of a whistleblower--in direct violation of the law-- and jeopardized the safety of that individual and their family. We simply cannot trust anyone who is willing to break the law to retaliate against a whistleblower exposing wrongdoing to help such a critical Agency within the Federal Government.

And if Congressman Bishop is confirmed, I am concerned that he will defy our duly passed laws and our Constitution to continue President Trump, Elon Musk, and Director Vought's assault on the Federal Government and the critical services that it provides all Americans.

Because of this, I oppose Congressman Bishop's nomination, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Feinberg nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the mass termination of veterans that is taking place all across our Federal Government.

I was proud to serve more than a decade in the U.S. Navy Reserve, where I rose to the rank of lieutenant commander. During this time, I had the absolute privilege to work with some of the most patriotic, hard-working, and inspiring individuals that I have ever met. I know firsthand that veterans are a vital source of talent to our workforce.

So let's just think for a moment. Let's just think about the qualities that make a valuable employee: leadership, work ethic, problem-solving abilities, and of course, integrity. These are not just abstract qualities; they are tangible assets that veterans bring to our businesses, our communities, and to our government. They are qualities that drive innovation. They boost productivity and foster a culture of excellence. Employing our Nation's veterans when they transition to civilian life is not just a responsibility; it is a smart business decision. That is why the Federal Government has long taken advantage of this absolutely remarkable talent pool.

Veterans now make up roughly 30 percent of our Federal workforce--or more than 640,000 veterans in the civil service--and I rise today to express my absolute outrage over the indiscriminate firings of nearly 6,000 of these veterans--from the VA to the Defense Department to the Department of the Treasury.

At the VA, where veterans' input is particularly critical to shaping policies that support our Nation's robust veteran population, Elon Musk and DOGE have fired more than 600 veteran employees. They are part of more than 2,400 individuals fired all across the VA.

I have heard from numerous veterans and VA workers in Michigan who are absolutely devastated and confused by why this administration would turn their back on them like this. My staff met with a veteran who has worked for the VA in Michigan for nearly 30 years. Last year, they were moved to a new role within the VA and promoted--promoted--to supervisor shortly thereafter. And no surprise because they had never received less than an excellent performance review over 30 years. But because they were relatively new to that specific role, they were swept up in the widespread firings, both within the VA and across government, of all probationary employees. They were one of many veterans fired abruptly, without cause, without reason.

In another case, a veteran with 8 years of Active Duty service in the Air Force was fired from the VA in Michigan after receiving an ``outstanding'' performance review. His probationary period was set to expire last week, just 12 days after he was let go.

These cuts are not based on fact. They are not based on logic. They are just cruel. And our country will not be better off. As a result of these mass layoffs, Americans can expect longer wait times to receive important documents like passports and Social Security benefits, fewer food safety inspections, and higher risks during air travel.

These are Americans who put their lives on the line to defend this country. They took up a job to continue to serve the people of this country. They represent the very best of our Nation, and we need them in our Federal workforce.

I am calling today on the administration to reinstate these veteran employees immediately.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Linda McMahon's nomination to serve as the Secretary of the Department of Education.

All across America, from small towns like Grand Marais to cities like Grand Rapids, public schools serve as the bedrock of our communities.

As a product of Michigan public schools, the son of a public schoolteacher, and having watched my own three children attend public schools, I know firsthand the importance of public education.

Education is the cornerstone of academic achievement, career development, and lifelong learning in our society. A strong public education system is critical to not only our Nation's economy but community safety, social mobility, and the health of our democracy.

We need a Secretary of Education who values and respects public education and the millions of teachers and faculty who support the system.

We need a Secretary of Education who will support critical funding streams like Head Start for early education, IDEA for students with disabilities, and the school meal program that ensures that no student--no student--goes to class hungry.

That is why we cannot allow Mrs. McMahon to run our Department of Education. Instead of working to protect funding for the programs that support our students, improve classrooms, and help recruit the hard- working teachers that we so desperately need today, Mrs. McMahon has made it clear that she has, well, other priorities.

During her committee hearing, she blatantly supported efforts to dismantle our education system, including taking funding away from our public schools and using it to make investments in private schools. Mrs. McMahon and others have tried to sell this as ``school choice,'' but we know--we know--that it is basically a voucher program that will ultimately give private schools the ability to hand pick students and close their doors to everyone else. Private schools have no requirement to serve students with disabilities, students with mental health needs, or homeless students.

We have already seen private school voucher programs fail in States that have actually implemented them, like Louisiana--Louisiana, where students who accepted vouchers experienced significant declines in their academic performance, worse than the learning loss caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Hurricane Katrina.

So-called school choice does not meet the needs of our students, and American voters overwhelmingly agree. A 2024 poll found that less than a quarter of Americans support increasing funding for school vouchers. Meanwhile, 68 percent of Americans want to boost public school funding to better support teachers and give our opportunities and children the education and career opportunities that they certainly deserve.

Under Mrs. McMahon's plan, we would be letting private schools decide who is educated and who is not. But, unfortunately, we know that these private institutions will always prioritize their bottom line, and the needs of students and families will be second.

If confirmed as Secretary of Education, the quality of our American education will certainly decline, and our children will ultimately suffer the consequences.

I would urge my colleagues to vote no on Mrs. McMahon's nomination.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's commitment to empowering the legislative branch of government. We have worked together on a bill to rein in Presidential abuse of emergency powers. I hope we can get that across the finish line sometime this Congress.

Unfortunately, I am concerned that this amendment sets up a complex and arguably unconstitutional legislative scheme to get rid of regulations and undermine the bicameral legislative process. Under the regulatory approval scheme that this amendment tees up, one Chamber of Congress could effectively nullify the law previously passed by the whole of Congress simply by not approving a rule of implementation.

This amendment also undermines Agencies' ability to implement key environmental health and safety laws, endangering the American people.

If Congress wants to repeal a law, we should repeal the law, not create some new arcane process to sabotage implementation.

I welcome the opportunity to work with colleagues to pass legislation to strengthen the power of Congress, including to ensure that the President cannot tear up bipartisan funding bills enacted by Congress. But I urge my colleagues to reject this potentially unconstitutional and dangerous deregulatory amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s nomination to serve as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, also known as HHS.

Throughout his entire nomination process, it has become clear that Mr. Kennedy is wholly unprepared to lead this Department, which is charged with promoting, as well as protecting, the health of all Americans.

If confirmed as Secretary, he would be tasked with managing programs that millions of Americans depend on each and every day, including Medicaid and Medicare; the Centers for Disease Control, or CDC; the Food and Drug Administration, or FDA; the National Institutes of Health, or NIH; as well as a number of other initiatives aimed at preparing for and responding to public health and medical emergencies. In total, HHS has a nearly $2 trillion budget and manages more than 90,000 employees. HHS is an extremely, extremely complex organization that requires a leader with expertise on how these critically, critically important programs are actually administered.

Yet, during his hearings before the Senate Finance and HELP Committees, Mr. Kennedy showed his severe lack of knowledge and understanding about the most basic of Federal health programs. Mr. Kennedy could not answer the most basic questions about how the Medicaid Program works or how it benefits more than 70 million Americans who depend on health insurance.

At a time when Republicans are proposing drastic cuts to the Medicaid Program to pay for their tax cuts to billionaires, we need a Secretary who not only knows how the program works but will protect the access to healthcare services it provides for children and some of the most vulnerable people in our country. It is very clear Robert Kennedy, Jr., is not that Secretary.

During his nomination process, Mr. Kennedy also made it clear he does not understand the differences between the

various components of Medicare, a program that keeps our seniors cared for well into their golden years and often plays a key role in a person's decision about whether or not they can retire with dignity.

Amid ongoing threats from Republicans to privatize Medicare, we need a Secretary who will protect this program that generations of seniors have counted on to get care and generations to come that are paying into that fund for their future.

Mr. Kennedy's lack of experience and basic understanding of our Nation's healthcare system is, to say the least, extremely alarming. We cannot confirm a nominee who doesn't even know the most basic answers about programs that he is actually in charge of administering.

Since Mr. Kennedy was nominated to lead HHS, I have heard from thousands of my constituents from every corner of Michigan--from densely populated cities to some of the most rural areas in our State-- who are deeply concerned about how his plans for the Department would impact families. For example, I have heard from countless folks about the rising cost of healthcare that is squeezing Michigan families' budgets. Healthcare prices are rising faster than inflation, making it even harder for people to get the care that they need.

I have heard from a constituent who has operated a food pantry in her community for 13 years. She worries about what will happen to the people that she serves if they do not have access to the food security programs made possible by HHS. In her letter, she shared that most of the people in her pantry services are literally one ER visit or one car breakdown away from being able to feed themselves or their families.

Public health initiatives are a lifeline for so many in Michigan as well as across our country. When our neighbors have access to basic health resources, it allows them to focus on improving their lives, whether that is gaining meaningful employment or getting an education. So we need an HHS Secretary who is focused on improving access to Medicaid and expanding the premium tax credits for the Affordable Care Act that allows millions of Americans to access affordable healthcare.

That clearly is not Robert Kennedy. He would not be that Secretary. Instead, he believes that Americans would rather be on privatized, for- profit healthcare.

HHS is also in charge of providing mental health services and support to communities all across our country. Unfortunately, we have a mental health crisis impacting Americans today, with record high levels of mental illness and suicides, especially among our youth.

I received a letter from a social worker in Michigan who helps students who were traumatized by the horrific shootings at Oxford High School in Michigan and at Michigan State University. She is worried that, without proper mental health resources, Americans who have been impacted by senseless gun violence--whether at school, at their places of worship, at nightclubs, or at shopping malls--will grieve and struggle alone.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kennedy has only further stigmatized these important resources, even making comments during his confirmation hearing linking an increase in school shootings to an increased use of antidepressants. Mr. Kennedy's ideas would only worsen the mental health crisis that we are seeing today.

Instead, we need a Secretary who will invest in SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. We need a Secretary who will ensure that everyone has access to the programs and health professionals needed to address this mental health crisis. Robert Kennedy, Jr., is not that Secretary.

HHS oversees our Nation's major medical research, helping to advance breakthroughs in science and development of new treatments for deadly diseases, from childhood cancers to Alzheimer's. Research institutions across my home State of Michigan are conducting critically important research to improve health outcomes for Americans who suffer from these diseases.

A Michigan scientist who specializes in CDC research contacted my office. They fear that if Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, it could impact their ability and the ability of thousands of researchers all across our country to conduct medical research that is literally saving lives.

In a matter of weeks, we have already seen the Trump administration freeze funding and halt critical work at the National Institutes of Health and its research partners across the country. We need a Secretary who will fight to do this important research moving forward, research to cure cancer, to treat deadly viruses, and to address cardiovascular disease. Mr. Kennedy is not--he is not--that Secretary.

Advancing medical research is especially important today as we face increased cases of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases like measles. And despite this, Mr. Kennedy has time and time again sown doubt and promoted dangerous lies about the safety of vaccines.

My constituents are alarmed at what that will mean for their families. A concerned mother-to-be--who wrote to me and my office when she was 38 weeks pregnant--told me that Mr. Kennedy's long history of spreading dangerous medical disinformation and undermining public health initiatives is directly at odds with how she plans to keep her future child from infectious disease.

I also heard from a constituent who was born before the polio vaccine was approved. She said that, to this day, she can still remember the relief on her mother's face when the polio vaccine became available. This moment has stuck with her throughout her 30-year career as a registered nurse, where she has made it her life's work to study and safely administer vaccines in her community.

Let's be clear. Let's be absolutely clear. Vaccines are scientifically proven to protect against diseases like chickenpox, polio, influenza and, yes, COVID-19.

We have eradicated deadly diseases and protected our children due to incredible scientific advances in vaccine research. But now vaccine skeptics like Mr. Kennedy have risen to prominence, discouraging people from getting safe, proven vaccines, and putting every American's health at risk when it comes to infectious diseases.

We need a Secretary who understands the effectiveness of vaccines and who will do more to prevent these diseases through routine childhood immunizations. Mr. Kennedy is not that Secretary, and, if confirmed, Mr. Kennedy has made it perfectly clear that he will stand in direct opposition to this evidence-based medicine.

Mr. Kennedy's falsehoods about basic public health practices have impacts that stretch far beyond our physical health. Another constituent, a clinical therapist, said she is seeing firsthand the devastating impacts that misinformation can have on mental health, adherence to treatment, and overall patient well-being. Specifically, she mentioned that ``the spread of falsehoods about vaccines, psychiatric care, and medical service fuels distrust in lifesaving interventions, exacerbates existing mental health crises, and hinders efforts to connect patients with effective, evidence-based treatments.''

I have even heard from parents who are concerned about Mr. Kennedy's narrative suggesting vaccines cause autism. Because he has given credibility to these lies and questioned facts from scientists and doctors, these parents worry that their children will not receive the most basic, routine care they deserve.

In the midst of so many healthcare challenges, from prescription drugs to mental health, to various public health threats, we cannot afford to have someone as unprepared as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in charge of all these public health Agencies.

Even well-respected organizations know that Mr. Kennedy would be an absolute disaster for our public health. Take the American Public Health Association, for example. In a letter, they said:

To effectively lead our nation's top health agency, a

candidate should ideally be trained in health administration,

clinical care, or a related field and must believe in and

follow the scientific evidence that serves as the basis of

our nation's system to protect and to promote the public's

health from the many threats we face.

We simply cannot afford to have someone as unqualified as Robert Kennedy, Jr., be in charge of our top public

health Agency. He has failed to exhibit even the most basic knowledge of how HHS programs are administered to the millions of Americans who depend on them each and every day. He has misrepresented scientific evidence that is at the foundation of what HHS sets out to accomplish, which is keeping Americans healthy and protected from disease. He has demonized doctors, scientists, researchers, and medical professionals who, unlike him, have actually done the important work to keep our communities safe.

I urge my colleagues to judge Mr. Kennedy on his lack of qualifications. It is clear he simply does not have the expertise, the training, or even the leadership skills necessary to lead a Department as important as HHS.

We need a Secretary who will protect the health of Americans. Robert Kennedy is not that Secretary, and if he is confirmed to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, the American people will ultimately pay the price with their health.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.